[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPROVING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HAGUE
CONVENTION ON THE CIVIL ASPECTS OF
INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,
AND HUMAN RIGHTS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 28, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-101
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-603PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BRAD SHERMAN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
RON PAUL, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
CONNIE MACK, Florida GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas DENNIS CARDOZA, California
TED POE, Texas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
DAVID RIVERA, Florida FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina
VACANT
Yleem D.S. Poblete, Staff Director
Richard J. Kessler, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas KAREN BASS, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Honorable Susan Jacobs, Special Advisor for Children's
Issues, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State... 7
The Honorable Kurt Campbell, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau
of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State.... 17
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Susan Jacobs: Prepared statement................... 10
The Honorable Kurt Campbell: Prepared statement.................. 21
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 42
Hearing minutes.................................................. 43
The Honorable Susan Jacobs: Written responses to questions
submitted for the record by:
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New Jersey, and chairman,
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights...... 44
The Honorable Russ Carnahan, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Missouri........................................ 55
IMPROVING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE CIVIL ASPECTS
OF INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 28, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
and Human Rights
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 o'clock
p.m., in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon.
Christopher H. Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Smith. The subcommittee will come to order, and good
afternoon. First of all, let me apologize to our very
distinguished witnesses and to all of you. We had eight votes
in succession, and they began exactly at 2:00, so I apologize
for that.
I want to thank you for joining us this afternoon for this
second hearing in our series focusing on the deeply disturbing
and seemingly intractable problem of international child
abduction, which occurs when one parent unlawfully moves a
child from his or her country of residence, often for the
purpose of denying the other parent access to the child. I
believe it to be a major global human rights abuse, a form of
child abuse that seriously harms children, while inflicting
excruciating emotional pain and suffering on left-behind
parents and families.
On May 24th, at the first hearing in this series, this
committee heard from six left-behind parents: One success story
and five stories of deep and continuing agony and separation.
Michael Elias, a combat-injured Iraq veteran from New Jersey
told our subcommittee of his anguish after his ex-wife, Mayumi
Nakamura, used her Japanese consulate connections to abduct
little Jade and Michael, Jr., after the New Jersey court had
ordered surrender of passports and joint custody. Ms. Nakamura
flagrantly disregarded those valid court orders, telling
Michael Elias, ``My country, Japan, will protect me''; and of
course she was right. Although Japan is reportedly prosecuting
her for abusing her consulate connections, they will not return
the children.
Michael Elias told us that ``As a father who no longer has
his children to hold in his arms, I cannot deal with this
sorrow, so I try my best to stay strong and keep fighting for
their return. All my hopes,'' he went on to say, ``and dreams
for their future now lie in the hands of others.'' He
continued, ``I am begging our Government to help not only my
family but hundreds of others who are heartbroken as well to
demand the return of our American children who are being held
in Japan.''
We then heard from Joshua Izzard, who explained to us that
his only child, 2-year-old Melisande, was torn away from him
and everyone and everything she had known from birth in one
cruel, selfish moment and abruptly plunged into a strange world
of darkness, mental illness, and danger in Russia. His
daughter, an American citizen, was taken out of the country
using temporary travel papers supplied by the Russian Embassy.
He told this committee that ``Our great country must stop this
constant bleeding of its most important resource, its
citizens.'' As a Nation, we need to put in place effective,
preventive mechanisms to ensure that our citizens are not
subjected to the daily unbearable sorrow that comes in the wake
of an international parental kidnapping.
We then heard from Carlos Bermudez, who has been battling
for custody of his son, Sage, in the Mexican courts for 3
years, facing every delay tactic in the book. He expressed his
frustration with the courts, but, with all due respect, also
with the Office of Children's Issues, which from his experience
was like dealing with ``the DMV.'' He explained that when he
requested government records of his son's entry and exit from
the United States, OCI told him that it didn't have the
information and asking them for it was like asking a plumber to
fix his electrical. He told them that he felt it was more like
asking a general contractor to work with the plumber and asked
for their help to interface with other U.S. Government agencies
that would only tell him to work with OCI. Other parents at the
hearing and since have echoed his frustration with OCI.
Colin Bower, whose two young sons, Noor and Ramsay, were
abducted by his wife to Egypt 2 years ago with the assistance
of the Egyptian Government after his wife lost custody because
of her drug use and psychological problems, conveyed to this
committee his frustration over the lack of priority abduction
cases receive in foreign policy. He questioned why the United
States was giving billions of dollars to Egypt in aid when
Egypt was flagrantly violating valid U.S. court papers,
preventing him from seeing his sons, and otherwise aiding and
abetting a kidnapping.
I would note parenthetically on Friday I chaired a hearing
in the Helsinki Commission on an ever-worsening problem that
has not been focused upon the way it should be, and that is the
abduction of Coptic girls who are then forced to become Muslims
and then are forced into marriage, usually on or after their
18th birthday.
Dr. Michele Clark, who is a leading expert on human
trafficking, told us that there are thousands of these cases
every year, and nary a whisper of discontent can be heard
anywhere in the world about it. So we began to change that on
Friday; and I do hope, while this panel will not address that,
I did talk to Michael Posner earlier today, the Assistant
Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, that this
country and all countries need to speak out robustly on that
horrific human rights abuse.
Sara Edwards told us--again getting back from the situation
with Egypt--that her nightmare began 2 weeks--this is Turkey, I
should say--2 weeks into her son Eli's vacation to Turkey with
his father. She allowed the vacation based on a shared
parenting agreement she and her estranged husband had
negotiated together but soon realized that her husband had used
the agreement as a pretext for abduction.
Turkey allowed him to divorce Ms. Edwards and gave him full
custody of the son without Sara Edwards being present or
notified of the proceedings. Turkey, as we know, is a party to
the Hague Convention, and Ms. Edwards has opened an application
but faces the daily threat from her estranged husband that he
will run with the child to Syria. So he dangles that over her
head, that she will never see her son again.
She explained an experience that is much like that of many
other parents, stating, and I quote, ``The obstacles I face
fighting the abduction of my son are great. I am essentially on
my own to fight a court battle in a foreign country where I do
not know the language or understand the culture.''
Douglas Trombino, whose daughter Morgana was kidnapped to
Colombia in November, testified and echoed the feelings of many
left-behind parents when he said, ``Families must remain
families. The family unit is critical to the success and growth
of a child.'' He went on to say, ``I want to be Morgana's dad.
I want to touch and smell her and love her and interact with
her and just love my daughter. Not through a computer screen,''
he went on. ``I don't want to blow bubbles to her via Skype, I
don't want to send Easter baskets via FedEx, and I don't want
to have to go through customs for a mere 24 hours of daddy-
daughter time. That to me is not being a father. I want to be
Morgana's dad, her hero, her go-to 24/7 best friend,'' he
concluded.
Finally, we heard from David Goldman, who is here with us
today, and he was the only parent who could tell of success.
And although the Hague Convention requires return of children
within 6 weeks, David's arduous struggle was 5\1/2\ years in
the making. He told this committee that for years he ``lived in
a world of despondency and desperation with a searing pain
throughout my entire being. Everywhere he turned he saw an
image of his abducted child.''
I would note that David Goldman never quit, just like the
current group of left-behind parents who have drawn inspiration
from David Goldman's success as well as his courage and his
love, and I hope he provides a pathway for all of us on how we
can replicate that success and bring American children home.
Indeed, the lessons learned from David Goldman's brave
journey have been incorporated into H.R. 1940, the
International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act of
2011. Specifically, the bill calls to establish an Ambassador-
at-Large wholly dedicated to international child abduction, not
unlike what we have done with trafficking and very similar to
what we have done with international religious freedom issues,
to establish a robust and fully resourced office. People in the
office are doing a good job. They don't have enough resources,
I would argue, and enough people dedicated to do this work.
It would also prescribe a series of increasingly punitive
actions and sanctions the President and the Department of State
may impose on a nation that demonstrates ``a pattern of
noncooperation'' in resolving child abduction cases. Diplomatic
overtures and admonishing words are simply not enough.
I would note we would also chronicle the misdeeds or
positive deeds of countries that have not been Hague signers so
that we can get a better sense as to what they are doing and
not doing. So the pattern of noncooperation would apply equally
to Hague and non-Hague countries alike.
Finally, in reading Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell's
testimony--and I deeply respect him, and I thank him for being
here--I do remain concerned that, while expressing satisfaction
that Japan may accede to the Hague Convention, the current 123
active cases involving 173 American children would not be
covered by the treaty provisions.
Patricia Apy, who testified at our May 24th hearing and was
David Goldman's attorney, has noted that Article 35 of the
Convention provides, ``This Convention shall apply as between
contracting states only to wrongful removals or retentions
after entry into force in those States.''
So while I appreciate Secretary Campbell's obvious empathy
and compassion for the children and the left-behind parents and
I am encouraged that efforts will be made by State to ``resolve
existing child abduction cases and allow parents currently
separated from their children to reestablish contact with them
and ensure visitation rights,'' the exclusive emphasis seems to
be only on ``visitation and access'' and not return.
To that end, I and many others urge the Obama
administration to negotiate a memorandum of understanding or a
bilateral agreement with the Japanese to ensure that the 123
left-behind parents and counting, because that number is likely
to go up, perhaps significantly, before it is ratified, are not
left behind a second time, this time by treaty promises and
provisos that won't apply to them.
Last week, I offered an amendment to the State Department
reauthorization bill, backed by my good friend and colleague,
Mr. Payne, and really the entire committee--Howard Berman spoke
very positively of it, as did Chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen--
that expressed a sense of Congress that ``the United States by
way of memorandum of understanding with the Government of Japan
and through all appropriate means should seek the immediate
return of all United States children wrongfully removed to or
retained in Japan.''
Delay is denial, and it does exacerbate the abuse of a
child and the agony of the left-behind parent. Because the
Hague Convention again specifically precludes its protections
to all existing abduction victims, entry into force sans an MOU
will likely produce or result in lost momentum and no return of
current abducted American children.
It is on behalf of left-behind parents and recognition of
the extreme pain they suffer as victims and in recognition of
our own duty as the U.S. Government that will bring these kids
home that we hold this hearing today.
Again, I want to thank our distinguished witnesses for
being here, which I will introduce momentarily, but I yield to
Mr. Payne for any opening comments.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. Let me thank you for
calling this very important hearing.
I would also like to thank our distinguished witnesses for
agreeing to testify here today.
In May of this year, this subcommittee held a hearing
entitled ``International Child Abduction: Broken Laws and
Bereaved Lives.'' During that hearing, we heard heart-rending
stories from the parents of children who had been
internationally abducted and who are still fighting for their
safe return. This hearing follows up on the first by examining
how we can improve the implementation of the Hague Convention
on the civil aspect of international child abduction.
As you know, the Hague Convention is the principal
mechanism by the United States and other countries to enforce
the return of internationally abducted children. A treaty of
this nature has become increasingly important with the rise of
both international travel and bicultural marriages. There are
currently 86 parties to the Hague Convention, and in 2008 60 of
these nations were parties to 2,326 cases involving 3,179
children. The overall return rate of these was 46 percent, with
27 percent court ordered.
While the Hague Convention has served as an important tool
in returning children to their legal guardians, there remains
several areas in which the treaty inadequately or outright
fails to protect the rights of parents. The most notable of
these is the existence of nonsignatories to the treaty. These
nations have made no commitment to respect the custody
arrangements in other countries and therefore are unlikely to
participate in the extradition of a child on those grounds.
Japan, as the only Group of Seven industrialized nation to
not sign the treaty, has become the focus of international
child abduction cases in recent years. The United States has
the largest number of children abducted in denial of access
disputes with Japan, with a total of 123 cases involving 173
disputed children. Congress has recognized this problem and
passed H.R. Res. 1326, which called on Japan to join the Hague
Convention and to return American children. Both Ranking Member
Smith and I were co-sponsors of that resolution, as has already
been indicated.
In May of this year, Japan announced that it would submit
legislation to their Parliament to ratify the Hague Convention
by the end of the year. While this is promising, Japan's
Parliament has been slow moving in recent years due to
political turmoil, and because of the introduction of the
legislation it does not necessarily mean that the legislation
will be successfully passed during this session of Parliament.
Should Japan sign the agreement, there will need to be
changes in their domestic laws in order to reflect the values
of the international community. In Japan, joint custody is not
recognized, and it is almost always the mother that is given
sole custody. Fathers often lose their right to access and are
unable to contact their children. This practice will need to
change if Japan were to follow the provisions of the
Convention.
While Japan is certainly receiving the bulk of the
attention, of the 86 participating nations, only four are from
East Asia--Hong Kong, Macau, Thailand, and Singapore. I am
interested in hearing from the panel how Japan's ratification
of the Convention might affect the other nations in the region.
Beyond the existence of nations that refuse to take part in
the treaty are controversial provisions that do govern
participating nations. For example, the Hague Convention makes
an important distinction between the right to custody and the
right to access. I look forward to hearing and learning from
the panelists here today on how we can make the progress and
the process of returning a child faster and more fair between
States that have signed the treaty and how we approach cases
where a nonsignatory State is involved.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses,
and I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Payne.
Mr. Carnahan.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, chairman and ranking member, for
calling this hearing today, and to the witnesses.
This is an issue that we need to be shining a light on. The
1980 Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction is the principal international mechanism for the
return of children. The Convention does not address the issue
of child custody directly, but it does address how to determine
the jurisdiction where a child custody dispute should be
adjudicated.
The American Bar Association and their Center for Children
and the Law conducted a survey of parents whose children have
been taken or retained by another country by another parent.
The key challenges they cited that a parent faces when trying
to locate and recover children abducted to foreign countries
include lack of sufficient funds, difficulties with foreign
laws and officials, difficulties with U.S. laws, judges
inexperienced in handling international abduction cases, and
inadequate responses by law enforcement agencies.
The State Department has given us some numbers about the
scope and size of this problem, including both Hague Convention
and non-Hague Convention cases. The State Department Office of
Children's Issues reports a total of 1,495 custody and access
cases in 2010, involving a total of 2,123 children. So this is
an issue that we need to be hearing more about, how we can get
this process to work better, and appreciate what you all are
here to do for us today.
I yield back.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Frank.
Mr. Frank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member, for
giving me the privilege of sitting with this panel. Because, as
you know, I have a constituent, Colin Bower, who is
particularly concerned about this; and, of course, it is an
issue that I am supportive of in general.
I would say that we sometimes, I think, hold back in using
our legitimate moral authority because we worry about somehow
alienating other countries. Now, I want America to be
reasonable and fair in its dealings with other people, but, as
a general rule, it does seem to me that most countries in this
world need us more than we need them. I don't want to abuse
that, but I think we sometimes assume that we can't press hard
because people will get mad at us. Well, if I were many of
these countries, I would be more worried about America getting
mad at them. And, again, I don't say that to the extent that we
should be bullies or that we should be overly aggressive. I do
think, however, that a reasonable assessment of what the
relationships are should allow us to press cases on their
merits and not be held back by some fear that we will somehow
lose influence.
I have to say, and we were all around during the days of
the Cold War, that I might have had some plausibility back
then. I think even then it was overdone, but in today's world I
do not see any reason why American citizens seeking justice,
especially in the most sensitive possible area, parents seeking
justice with regard to their own children, I cannot think of a
diplomatic reason in the cases I have seen that ought to retard
our efforts.
So I thank you for the extent to which you both, on a
bipartisan basis, have allowed us to press this very important
moral cause.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Frank.
I would like to now welcome our two very distinguished
witnesses, beginning first with Ambassador Susan Jacobs, who
currently serves as Special Advisor in the Office of Children's
Issues at the State Department. Ambassador Jacobs has had a
long and distinguished career in the Foreign Service in which
she has served around the world, including in Papua New Guinea,
where she was the Ambassador. She has also held a number of
senior positions with the State Department in Washington,
serving as a liaison to both Congress and the Department of
Homeland Security. In addition, Ambassador Jacobs has recently
visited Japan and participated in an international conference
on the Hague Convention; and, without objection, her full
resume will be made a part of the record and that of Dr.
Campbell as well.
Dr. Kurt Campbell currently serves as the Assistant
Secretary of State in the State Department's Bureau of Asian
and Pacific Affairs and has been in that position since June
2009. Dr. Campbell has broad experience working with the
government, having served as an officer in the Navy, in the
Defense Department, National Security Council, the White House,
and the Treasury Department. The only thing left is to run for
Congress. In his time outside of government, he has founded an
advisory firm focused on Asia, worked on international security
issues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies,
and been a professor at Harvard.
Ambassador Jacobs, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SUSAN JACOBS, SPECIAL ADVISOR FOR
CHILDREN'S ISSUES, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF STATE
Ms. Jacobs. Thank you very much.
Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Payne, and distinguished
members of the committee, and Mr. Frank, thank you for holding
this important hearing and for the opportunity to update you on
the hard work of my colleagues in the Department of State in
responding to this global threat to the well-being of children.
I also want to thank my colleague, Assistant Secretary
Campbell, for his deep personal involvement in this issue.
The problem of parental child abduction is deeply important
to Secretary Clinton, who demonstrated her commitment to
children by appointing me as her Special Advisor for Children's
Issues last year. Tomorrow the Bureau of Consular Affairs and
Assistant Secretary Janice Jacobs and Assistant Secretary
Campbell will hold another town hall meeting with a group of
left-behind parents, and this will be the sixth such town hall
meeting to date.
Mr. Chairman and Mr. Payne, your leadership and involvement
in this area strengthens the U.S. Government's message to
foreign courts and central authorities in long-standing
abduction cases.
My written statement goes into detail about my role, the
role of the Office of Children's Issues, and the Department of
State in general on this topic. Let me assure you that we are
all committed to resolving current abduction cases, reuniting
parents and children, and helping prevent future abductions. We
strive to do what is in the best interests of children caught
in these tragic situations. Case officers in the Bureau of
Consular Affairs Office of Children's Issues and Foreign
Service officers at our Embassies and consulates overseas work
hard to achieve this goal every day.
Unless we succeed in returning a child to the United
States, we have not been successful. As you know, we have
abduction cases to both Hague and non-Hague countries. We work
equally hard in both areas to return children to the United
States. As this chart demonstrates, over the past 5 years, we
are increasing our success in achieving returns from both Hague
and non-Hague countries. It is interesting to note that the
non-Hague return numbers have remained about the same, while
Hague returns have steadily been increasing. Of course, the
existence of the Hague Convention makes our work easier in some
ways, but we often encounter other challenges.
In non-Hague countries we rely on quiet diplomacy,
knowledge of local conditions, and respect for local customs,
and often less visible means to try to resolve an international
abduction case. The Hague Convention remains our best hope of
resolving international abductions. It is the first subject
that I bring up with foreign governments during my travels on
behalf of the Secretary.
Parental abductions are tragedies that affect American
families both in the United States and overseas. When a parent
flees with a child across a State line, there is certainty that
a court order from one State will be recognized in another. For
a left-behind parent there may be stress and fear, but there is
also belief in the American judicial system and the rule of
law.
When a parent takes a child across an international border
under false pretenses, the left-behind parent is faced with the
daunting task of navigating unfamiliar legal, cultural, and
linguistic barriers. They suffer emotional trauma and face
significant and long-term financial stress to reunite with
their children. We are fully committed to serving left-behind
parents and children who are the victims of this crime.
Let me give you some highlights of what we have been doing
lately. Today, the Office of Children's Issues is one of the
largest offices in the Bureau of Consular Affairs. We have
almost a hundred people working on abductions. The growth of
the office enables us to broaden our prevention activities,
ensure consistently high standards of service, improve
training, and engage more vigorously with other countries. It
also allows us to monitor and improve our own compliance with
the Convention.
The Convention, although a successful operating agreement,
is not a perfect instrument. Fostering compliance with the
treaty is an ongoing challenge. Over the last few years, the
Department has participated in numerous judicial conferences
and met with officials from 23 countries. The efforts are
paying off; and my written statement details improving
relationships, but not perfect ones, with Mexico, Brazil,
Switzerland, and Bulgaria. In non-Convention countries,
examples of successful cases highlight how the Department of
State can play an invaluable role in helping left-behind
parents understand foreign laws and their options, and we can
point to some recent successes in the Philippines and in Iraq.
In conclusion, I want to assure you that we continue to
develop programs and outreach to prevent abductions through
increasing awareness of the issue. We work with other agencies,
with nongovernmental organizations, we use social media in what
we hope is a creative way, and we utilize our own consular
affairs resources.
Your support remains vital. We hope that Congress will
extend visa ineligibilities for those who abduct or aid
abduction to Convention countries as it now exists in non-Hague
countries. We also hope that Congress will continue to support
us in offering financial assistance to the Hague Permanent
Bureau. Congressional interest remains crucial as we encourage
other countries to join the Convention.
Since accepting this challenging and rewarding position, I
have met with many left-behind parents, some of whom are here
today, and I have been deeply moved by their stories. I want to
reiterate to them and to you that we will never forget our duty
to serve each of our citizens and, most importantly our
children; and I will be pleased to take your questions when
appropriate.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jacobs follows:]
----------
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Ambassador Jacobs.
Dr. Campbell.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KURT CAMPBELL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF STATE, BUREAU OF EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Campbell. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith; and let
me join Ambassador Jacobs by just saying that we very much
appreciate your compassion and your commitment to this
incredibly difficult subject. Frankly, your activities have
both motivated me and have given me a model for how to do my
job.
I also want to associate myself with my former Congressman,
Congressman Frank. I think his perspective is at least the
perspective that I try to use when undertaking the various
aspects of this job.
Let me just say that, as the Ambassador has indicated, this
is a human tragedy that, unless you experience and have a
chance to get to know these brave parents, it is just
impossible to imagine. And I have been struck by their
commitment, by their compassion, by a patience to try to keep
at it even when I just--I can't imagine how they go on, to be
perfectly honest; and every single one of them has demonstrated
the kind of courage that I am not sure I myself would be able
to summon in such a circumstance.
The first time I had a chance to meet with the parents was
on a previously scheduled meeting with the parents. I had just
been confirmed in my job, and I remember sitting down with
them. We had our team at the State Department, and after about
15 minutes into the meeting, I just had to say, I was just
woefully embarrassed. We just had not done a good enough job.
We were not organized. We had not brought to bear the full
capacities of the U.S. Government; and, frankly, we just
apologized there on the scene and just said we have got to do a
better job.
That was about 2\1/2\ years ago. Since then, we have put
together, working very closely with my colleagues and in
consular affairs, probably one of the most substantial task
forces we have inside the U.S. Government that involve key
officials from the White House, from the Justice Department,
the Department of Homeland Security, various other legal groups
around the U.S. Government, every aspect of the State
Department, also linking in with my colleagues on a very
regular basis in Tokyo.
I will also say, Ambassador Jacobs' job is primarily
global. Mine is in Asia. The two countries we have worked most
on over the course of the last 3 years are Japan and South
Korea. And I am very pleased to say, although it has not come
up, South Korea in January of this year agreed to accede, and
they are well along in implementing language. And I will tell
you that the steps they have taken are very impressive, and we
often highlight them as a model for what we would like to see
with respect to Japan.
So I just want to underscore that we take this
extraordinarily seriously. Every single meeting that Secretary
Clinton has with her counterparts this comes up, every single
meeting. Every meeting I have, this has come up. I have met
with almost all of the key officials in Japan on numerous
occasions, and I think, as has been pointed out, Congressman
Smith, the most senior officials in the Japanese Government
have indicated that they are going to sign the Hague
Convention.
Now, you know, I can understand why certain friends would
say, well, that is a step, but it is not that impressive. You
have no idea how hard it was to get to this point. And I will
also underscore--and you mentioned it a little bit in your
testimony--it would be very hard to describe some of the
cultural challenges that we face in a variety of different
countries. It is not unusual in Japan after a divorce that a
father will rarely, if ever, see their children. So this is an
issue that is not simply a source of great concern for the
United States, but I must tell you it is an issue that is
gaining momentum in Japan as well, and we actually hope to use
this campaign to help people understand what we believe are
some of the deep problems associated with separating families
in this way.
So I just want to underscore that we did not do a good
enough job, but what we are trying to do now is make sure all
of our databases are completely up to date, very regular
communications. When we get specific information about where we
have dropped the ball--that is why they call it government,
after all--we try to follow up, make sure that we are taking
the appropriate steps to be responsive to these particular
issues. And, to be honest, if I ever hear of someone at least
that I have some responsibility over or I work with that
doesn't treat one of these parents with respect and doesn't
understand the nature of the tragedy that they are dealing
with, we often will immediately look for a new assignment for
that person.
So I just want to underscore--and if I could suggest,
Congressman, if you would like, we are going to have a long
meeting tomorrow afternoon. I would welcome if you would like
to come to part of that or a member of your staff. We would
welcome it. Some of that is going to be--some of that will be
just on executive business, but I would love for you to come,
perhaps speak, and I have--I would welcome it. I think it would
be a great thing; and, frankly, I need to underscore that
bringing attention to this issue is important.
I don't want to go on too long, but I just want to make a
couple other points, if I can, before we open it up to
questions.
Our most important relationship in Asia by an order of
magnitude is with Japan. The U.S.-Japan security relationship
is of utmost importance, and I stand really next to no man in
terms of my commitment to this relationship. I will do anything
to preserve a strong relationship between the United States and
Japan because I believe it is in our mutual interests.
One of the greatest sadnesses that I have in this
relationship--I have been to Japan over 200 times in the last
25 years, and I have talked to innumerable Japanese friends
about this matter. Japanese people are a compassionate,
wonderful people, and when they are educated and know about a
topic, you can count on them to do the right thing. But I am
struck again and again and again and again when we meet with
Japanese friends and talk about these issues, the level of
misunderstanding on these issues is profound, deep, and
sometimes almost uniform. There is a view that these families
are divided because of abuse, and there is not a deep
recognition of some of the legal challenges that, frankly, we
are coping with.
And so no matter what we do going forward, and this will be
an important part of the effort associated with the Hague
Convention is an education campaign, and the area where I would
like to see more support not only from the families and others,
but I want very much for Japan to have a better sense of the
human dimension here, and I am doing what I can to support
this.
I must just take a moment for kudos. The Ambassador that I
have worked the most on this with is Ambassador Roos. No one
has done more on this issue than Ambassador Roos, and he has
made it his personal commitment and has met with all the
organizations, many of the legal groups inside Japan to support
this.
And I will say that in many cases it is very hard to
determine progress in life. We work on things for a long period
of time, and it is hard to see progress. I have to honestly and
modestly suggest that we have made real progress in the last 2
years. There is a big change under way in Japan, and we
anticipate when the Japanese leader visits in September that we
are going to see a big step forward, and that would not have
been possible, frankly, without your leadership, Congressman,
and without the passion and commitment of the parents behind
me.
I also want to say that there are a couple of people, young
people, professionals, Todd Campbell and others, who have been
relentless on this and who have also been seized by the
importance of this.
The signing of the Hague Convention, as you have indicated,
Congressman, is in no way a first--just simply a first step or
a last step. It has to be part of a process, and we have
underscored in all of our conversations with Japanese
interlocutors at the highest level that what we are concerned
by is not just cases going forward, not just improving
practices going forward, but retroactive, cases that came
before or that come before the signing of the agreement.
But here I must underscore to you--and I appreciate the
information that has been provided to you--there are actually
many cases globally where countries, particularly in Europe,
once having signed the Hague Convention, then implement
legislation or laws that allow us to deal with preexisting
cases, and that we have made very clear with Japanese
colleagues is important from our perspective.
Now, the truth is we need a legal framework. We need an
understanding of this issue that is global as a necessary first
step. This is not easy work. It is painstaking. I also
understand and appreciate the profound impatience. You want to
get to this and try to see immediate progress on these specific
cases.
We have tried to underscore to Japan that even during this
difficult period when they have some confusion in their
government--we have some of that ourselves--they are still
determined to take the necessary steps. The legal changes in
their canon of laws are quite deep, but their government
appears prepared to take the necessary steps. And I must tell
you, quietly, we have had a very significant dialogue with them
about what we expect in the implementing legislation and how we
will not rest until we see the kinds of changes that are
necessary and that we will certainly not abide by loopholes or
other steps that will, frankly, somehow negate or water down
the essential provisions of the legislation as a whole.
I would also like to say this very carefully and directly.
We have not ruled out any other legal process. We have not
ruled out anything in our overall approach. And I will also say
quite directly, we have also explored certain aspects
associated with the extradition process. I am not going to talk
about that any more directly. I want to just simply underscore
that we view every tool on the table with respect to resolving
this important issue.
I still think the process has gone too slow. I would like
to see it speeded up. And, frankly, one of the most important
things that we can do on this issue is to increase awareness in
Japan and to make clear that Americans are a patient people,
but we also have our limits, and that while our preference is
to solve these issues in a way that deeply respects the
national dignity, the cultural sensitivities of all involved,
we do reach points in struggles where we have to look at other
means, and we are approaching that situation.
So I am hopeful that we are going to see the necessary
steps very shortly. We are looking forward to a deeper process
with respect to Japan on implementing language, and we also
want to see specific progress on particular cases.
With that, and I am sorry to go on so long, Congressman, I
thank you for your opportunity to appear here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Campbell follows:]
----------
Mr. Smith. Dr. Campbell, thank you very much.
And thank you both for your--and I said this in the
outset--the strongest possible empathy and concern. There is no
doubt about that.
The key is how do we work out the best resource thing; and
I know, Ambassador Jacobs, you mentioned some 100 people
working, which leads to one I guess we call it oversight
question. Back in 2000, I was the prime author of the Admiral
Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Act of 2000. Section
201 of that Act directed the Office of Children's Issues to
report to each parent who has requested assistance at least
once every 6 months on the current status of the abducted
child's case and the efforts by the State Department to resolve
the case. Is that being done? Perhaps it is being done even
more robustly than that.
And, secondly, what is the average case count per Foreign
Service officer?
Ms. Jacobs. Thank you for that question.
I am pleased to tell you that we are talking to the parents
at least twice a year and more often when there is a change in
the case. And, also, thanks to congressional oversight which
limited the caseload to 75, most officers only have a caseload
of about 65 cases, but we have teams of officers working on
abductions with case assistance.
So what you have done for us is to make it possible for us
to have more information about the cases, to continue to do
training to improve our professionalism, and to just keep on
top of all of the issues that are involved. So I thank you for
that.
Mr. Smith. One of the amendments that we were able to get
into the foreign ops bill--it got pared down a little bit in
conference, and the final wording was still, I think, very
good--and that was to ensure that the left-behind parents knew
that one good advocate or one course that they might choose if
they wanted to opt in would be to contact their Congressman or
Senators, or both, and I am wondering how that is being
implemented. Are members being systematically advised, you
know, observant of Privacy Act concerns and the like, when they
have somebody in their district who is a left-behind parent?
Ms. Jacobs. As far as I understand, when we open a case and
the first time we talk to the left-behind parent, we tell them
that they might want to contact their Senator or Congressman.
Because we fully believe that your engagement really helps us.
When Congressmen visit overseas and they raise these cases, it
helps us tremendously to keep the momentum going forward in
seeking a resolution to the cases, and we appreciate your help.
Mr. Smith. If you could maybe elaborate on that, how many
Congressmen have been so notified. Because, again, members on
both sides of the aisle--Mr. Frank is fighting tooth and nail
to help his constituent. We all do that, and we think we do it
well. We want to work in concert, as a team, to use your
phrase, with the Department. But if we don't know about it, we
could travel to a country where somebody could be in the same
city with an abducted child and have no clue unless we are
somehow brought into the mix.
Ms. Jacobs. As far as I understand the process, we tell the
parents that they should contact their Congressman. We don't do
that directly, because, at that point, we don't know if that is
what they want to do. So if they do it and then congressional
staff inform us, then we can track the case; and, if you are
traveling, then we can give you points that you can use in
these discussions. I mean, we want to be as helpful as
possible, as transparent as possible, and give you the
information you need.
Mr. Smith. What I am trying to get at is that--and the
reason why I wrote the language which Nita Lowey accepted, and
Kay Granger was actually the one who brought it to her at our
request--was to say there is value added. We may be the other
side of town and a coequal branch of government, but we do have
caseworkers, and we do take this personally, and particularly
members who, like Mr. Payne and I, on the Foreign Affairs
Committee, the interface that we have with diplomats is every
day, but if we don't know about a case--so I hope it is being
done very enthusiastically.
Ms. Jacobs. It is done very enthusiastically, because we
really need your help and support.
Mr. Smith. Let me ask you a question with regards to
reciprocity. One of the more disturbing issues is the lack of
understanding that American judges rely upon with regards to
reciprocity obligations in the treaty. How does an American
judge know not to send a child for summer vacation, for
example, to a country that has both been either noncompliant or
exhibiting patterns of noncompliance?
Ms. Jacobs. We have a network of Hague judges who do an
awful lot of training, and I think that this is a concern that
they would raise. Judges can also certainly call us, and we can
provide information if they ask it.
Unfortunately, we don't always know when these cases are
being held. So what we have to rely on is a lot of training, a
lot of work with our Hague network of judges, and encouraging
them to do a lot of training so that these issues are at the
forefront.
Mr. Smith. Let me ask you, you know, I offered an amendment
to the DOD authorization bill, and it largely came out of Paul
Toland's case, which I know you are well aware of, which is a
heartbreaker and a very long case. He got very bad advice from
the JAG. And I know there has been one meeting. Have there been
additional meetings to get DOD in particularly Okinawa and some
of the places where there is more likely to be this kind of
abuse of children who have been abducted?
Ms. Jacobs. Thank you for raising that. I appreciate it.
We have been doing, since your amendment to the DOD bill, a
lot of work on training with DOD. We have had meetings with the
chief legal counsels of all five services, we have done some
JAG trainings both in person and through webinars, and I think
we are making some progress. And they have given us direct
points of contact, as we have given them, so that they can
communicate directly with us should they have any concerns
about a case. Because I think military personnel are at risk
for this. They are overseas.
Mr. Smith. Is this something that a status of forces
agreement needs to incorporate? It seems to me that--and, Dr.
Campbell, you very rightly point out in your testimony and
orally--I mean, Japan is a great friend and strategic ally.
They are key to both of our and their protection in that part
of the world or security. And yet if, as is the case, several
of our service members have had children abducted, and in the
case of Paul Toland, he was in Yokohama when he was stationed
there. It seems to me that the Japanese ought to be more
forthcoming and say it is in their own interests to ensure that
the courts are much more responsive than they were in his case
and virtually every one of the other cases.
Mr. Campbell. One of the things that we have learned over
the process--and, frankly, lots of help from the parents in
this--is that I think in certain circumstances we have seen a
culture of complicity in terms of providing passports sometimes
in situations that were inappropriate, legal corners cut that
would favor certain outcomes; and one of the things that we
have tried to underscore is that we are looking carefully at
every aspect of this. So one of the things that Susan has said
is that, you know, there are the issues going forward and the
issues that are pre-existing, and we are trying essentially to
divide our time to ensure that we address both issues.
For instance, changing the procedures under which passports
are issued, Japanese passports in particular are issued, has
been a source of enormous pressure that we are trying to bring
to bear. Because, as it currently stands, although it is
changing, it is possible to get a passport without appearing in
person.
Mr. Smith. Yeah.
Mr. Campbell. And we have also indicated that steps that
would somehow be taken that would facilitate such steps by
someone with diplomatic privileges would be viewed very
negatively by the United States, and we would lodge some formal
and official complaints.
Furthermore, the efforts that you are talking about,
particularly in Okinawa and around Yokosuka, are well under
way. There is much more knowledge and understanding, frankly,
not simply for the Japanese but for American service members,
who don't often know the nature of their own legal rights and
responsibilities. And so we have tried working with sort of
Embassy consular and Janice's good folks, working with JAGs,
but not just JAGs, the leading commanders of our major bases
both in Japan and Korea, so that there is a better
understanding of the nature of some of the existing laws and
some of the problems that a serviceman or woman might run into.
Mr. Smith. With regards to Michael Elias' case, obviously,
the Japanese Government said they were investigating. Had they
concluded that investigation? Is she being held liable,
criminally or civilly, in any way?
I traveled with Michael Elias' parents, and they would not
even allow the taking parent for the grandparents to visit with
Jade and Michael, Jr. The tears that were shed on that--and
there are people in this room who have shed those tears every
day, and it must be doubly hard at midnight to morning when the
full weight of this abduction weighs upon their hearts. What
can you tell us about Michael Elias' case?
And let me just say, and this will underscore, after I got
involved with David Goldman's case, people literally walked
into my office--Patrick Braden was one of those who is here as
well, and his daughter Melissa was abducted. He remains very
concerned about her welfare and well-being for reasons you know
and I know as well, based on the case.
We went over to the Embassy, couldn't even get a meeting.
And I will never forget this. It was her birthday that day, and
a birthday cake was out, you know, on the sidewalk, candles
were lit. We all sang happy birthday to his little daughter
Melissa halfway around the world.
The insensitivity was mind-boggling on the part of the
Japanese Government. And you talked about sensitivity. Here is
a man being deprived access to his daughter, and really custody
ought to be given.
The abducting case in, as we all know, Michael Elias,
absolute fraud seems to have been perpetrated, duplicate set of
passports created; and, of course, Toland and all the others,
many of whom are here. I hope the Japanese Government gets
that. This is not going away. It is only going to get worse in
terms of congressional scrutiny.
Two weeks ago, a group of parliamentarians were here from
the Diet, and they asked that we withhold food aid to North
Korea because of what? Abductions. And I am with them on the
issue of abduction. Whether or not food aid is the proper way
because of starvation that is massive in North Korea, I would
argue it is not, but still their point about abductions, I
agree 1,000 percent. Well, apply that equally to American left-
behind parents.
Let me ask a very specific question, two part, and then I
will go to Mr. Payne for any questions he might have and then
Mr. Frank.
You point out that among the reasons that the court could
reject the petitions, this is Japan, of course, and Dr.
Campbell to you, would be--and I guess this is Article 33 B of
the treaty--the taking parent has been abused or is likely to
be further abused. I hope that we are insisting in our
bilateral with them that this better be evidence-based and not
just mere assertion.
Secondly----
Mr. Campbell. Of course, of course.
Mr. Smith. I am sure you are, but if you could just
articulate, that would be helpful.
Secondly, the taking parent faces criminal prosecution, and
I know that very seldom is prosecutions--and you might want to
speak to this--the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act
does allow for prosecutions, but they are rarely done but you
might want to speak to how often they are done. And it would be
very helpful to know that and for Hague countries it is not
done, but these are pre-Hague.
And then the taking parent cannot make the financial cost
of living in another country. It seems to me that is like a
loophole that you could drive a Mack truck through. You can say
I can't buy a ticket, the taking parent, and it may cost too
much and that becomes an opt-out. That would be rife with
exploitation on the part of the taking parent if they were to
be able to assert that. So I hope we are pushing back, and
please speak to that.
And finally, if you would, Dr. Campbell, if you could speak
to the issue of a sidebar bilateral agreement and an MOU which,
again, this committee went on record recently as last week
calling for that. I hope that we do it on the full floor of the
House. It seems that there may be no other way. I know your
intentions are absolutely pristine and good, that maybe the
atmosphere may open up the possibility. But I think the day
that ascension occurs becomes a day that the left behind
parents, whatever that number is on that day, is a day of
mourning because it is more likely that the door just slammed
right in their face. So if you could speak to that as well.
Ms. Jacobs. Thank you for all those questions, and we will
try to address them.
In our discussions with the Japanese after they announced
their intention to ratify the Hague Convention, we talked to
them very specifically about taking reservations under section
139(b), which deals with domestic violence, and it was--I met
with them. They sent delegation to the Special Commission of
The Hague in June, and we had our side meeting with them about
this and said how are you going to determine. And they said
there would be a separate judicial hearing to talk about
domestic violence before The Hague return hearing was held. And
we made the point that there has to be provisions for the left-
behind parent to be able to represent him- or herself at those
hearings, and they agreed to that.
I think that there will have to be significant changes in
Japanese law. We just had one of our Hague attorneys visiting
in Japan, doing training with them, and he made those same
points, and they seem to understand it. So I am hoping that all
of these things will--the efforts that we are making in
training and discussions with them will make a difference and
make the exceptions that they take livable.
Now, many countries take exceptions to certain parts of the
convention, as we did on providing free judicial assistance,
and so we just have to make sure that the form of these
reservations that they are taking doesn't interfere with the
real intent of the treaty which is to get the children back to
the United States.
Mr. Smith. What about the other two provisions?
Ms. Jacobs. Now, on the criminal aspect of it, the Hague
Convention does envision civil remedies, and I think that if
there is a return, I mean, that is the best way for it to be--I
don't know right now of any cases where--we are not--I mean,
the State Department is not a law enforcement entity. So we
have to rely on the FBI and then the FBI would have to go to
Federal prosecutors to initiate a case. I am not aware that any
cases are active right now. So I mean that--that isn't to say
that there could be cases that are in the works, and so that is
not something that I can really respond to.
Mr. Campbell. If I could just be clear on that,
Congressman, Ambassador Jacobs has been very careful here. I
think that we would just simply say we are not ruling anything
out and we have explored a lot of different options, and
tomorrow in our private session we will be able to go over a
little bit of that. But shall we say that we have looked at
every case?
We have also been involved in, shall we say, an education
campaign. Some of the problems that we have, frankly, are local
law enforcement who don't fully understand some of the
circumstances, and working with various regional law
enforcement entities and judicial entities. We have explored a
variety of options, and we just want to underscore--and in
diplomacy, when you say you are not going to take something off
the table, there is a very clear intent associated with that,
and I would just like to stand by that if I may.
Mr. Smith. Here is the interesting thing, when you talk
about the violence issue, if a court of competent jurisdiction
in the United States had an enforceable order and allegations
of violence were not asserted, of if they were, they were found
to be infirm, does the court or would they contemplate that in
Japan, they would take that all up like it is brand new ground
or would, like in keeping with the spirit of the 1996
convention, look to enforce each other's court orders? Because
that is a major--otherwise it starts all over with a
potentially false allegation of violence that has to be
adjudicated all over again, and if you heard from David
Goldberg's case where there was no violence ever asserted but
they used the courts or misused the courts for 5\1/2\ long
years and, you know, to the tune of $0.5 million on his part.
Ms. Jacobs. The President signed the protection of a child
convention in October, and we are exploring--I mean, we are
working very actively with the Uniform Law Commission to figure
out what implementing legislation we will need. This convention
would be a great complementary convention to the abduction
convention because it calls for recognition of foreign custody
orders, and if there were a custody order, then we could
present that and it would really eliminate so many problems.
Mr. Campbell. It is a huge deal.
Ms. Jacobs. It would be done and so----
Mr. Campbell. And that is our goal. That is our goal. Can I
also say, Congressman, one other thing that we have tried to
do--and again, thank the parents. Sometimes they come up with
the most creative ideas and suggestions. And so in the
immediate aftermath of this, you know, horrible tragedy, this,
you know, tsunami, nuclear challenge that Japan has faced, some
of the parents contacted us and said, look, you know, we are
worried about the well-being of our family, of our children.
And working closely with consular affairs, we made it so that
every single one of those children could get a passport,
American passport. Now, unfortunately that was not taken
advantage of, but we are going to look to take creative steps
both legal, procedurally, and the like.
It is also the case, if I may say--and I want to be careful
about this. We have, in the last many months, had a couple of
other cases where we have made progress where the particular
parent has been reluctant to put too much attention on it for
fear that there will be backtracking, and so I do think we are
starting to get a critical mass both inside the Japanese
Government, certainly in the U.S. Government.
And if I can just conclude with this one thing,
Congressman. I mean, the biggest surprise in my job, when I was
in the Pentagon at the lower level 10 years ago, I had a lot of
people that were interested in foreign policy and a lot of, you
know, issues. I don't see very much of that today. I see a lot
of insular congressional focus, even--and this is not just
about American livelihoods, but it is also about how we
interact with the world.
I would love to have more people like you and Congressman
Payne focused on this, but I don't see as much as I would have
anticipated.
Mr. Smith. Well, one way of doing that is reaching out to
those Members of Congress, House and Senate, when there is an
abducted--I mean, really tell them how much value-added that
potentially could be. We would have more Members here, I think,
if they had someone in their district who all of the sudden it
becomes very real and very personal to them and if you could
speak to--because you didn't answer the question on that, the
final question about the MOU.
Mr. Campbell. Yeah. I will say honestly, Congressman,
almost every hearing is like this. So I don't--I wish--I hope
you are right, and I would like to see that, and I think we
will take further steps, but I find in general--that is the
general issue.
We have had some discussions. From the Japanese
perspective, it is a complete nonstarter, and the key here is
the letter ``U,'' understanding. It requires a degree of
partnership and engagement on the Japanese side. Their view is
that we are going--we are addressing this according to your
concerns. You have asked us to work on the issues associated
with Hague. We have indicated that we need to see progress on
existing cases, but on this particular issue, they are not
prepared to go down this path. They said, look, we are better--
we are better to focus on these other matters and think in many
respects----
Mr. Smith. Again, Madam Secretary, and Dr. Campbell, what
is our position? Is it our position to push for an MOU in a
bilateral agreement?
Mr. Campbell. If we could get an agreement with the
Japanese Government to return these children, we would have
gotten--we would have sought it years ago.
Mr. Smith. But are we pushing for that agreement at the
highest level? I know we pushed for Hague, and kudos for that,
but again, the day they sign is a bittersweet day for the left-
behind parents because by definition they are excluded because
it is often date of entry into force onward and the door closes
behind them. I mean, the idea is that the Japanese should say
all in, we are all in, we mean it, and it is a test of their
sincerity, frankly.
Ms. Jacobs. I think we have always pursued two tracks, both
of which are incredibly important. One was getting these
children returned to the United States and the other is Hague.
And we are not going to give up on getting the children back to
the United States, and we will figure out a way to do it.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. Mr. Payne.
Mr. Frank. Could I, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize but I
have been--if you just give me 1 minute, Don.
I have some questions I will submit in writing to
Ambassador Jacobs because I can tell they are not going to be
answered publicly. It has to do with law enforcement. I mean, I
want to get to the issue--in some places, we have clear-cut
violations of the law, and I understand you are not the FBI,
but I am going to submit some specific questions both about
extradition and about visa revocation for people who have been
involved.
But I would suggest, too, Mr. Chairman, I think probably
this is an intracommittee thing, and I think it would probably
be useful if this subcommittee, which has been the leader in
this, would be to talk to our colleagues in Judiciary and have
a joint confidential briefing of those of us who are
interested, and let's pursue the case of extradition. Let's
pursue the case of visa revocation letters.
I understand I am not going to get public answers because I
am talking about some period of actions against individuals,
but I would be glad to participate, and I am sure our
colleagues in Judiciary would, and we would ask for a private
briefing so we would have no holds barred. And I just want to
put people on notice, I want to know who you are trying to
extradite and why not, if not, and what about visas and what
about other very specific sanctions.
Mr. Chairman and Mr. Payne, thank you very much for
accommodating me.
Ms. Jacobs. We would welcome that opportunity, sir.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. I know that there is a time
constraint and the witnesses wanted to be out by 4 o'clock. So
I see that if that is the case, I need to stop now, but I will
be brief just in order for you to meet other commitments that
you may have.
I just might ask you, Ambassador Jacobs, as you note in
your testimony, the Office of Children's Issues in the U.S.
Central authority for incoming and outgoing applicants pursuant
to the Hague Convention. In 2010, the State Department's Office
of Children's Issues reported 1,495 international custody and
access cases involving 2,123 children. This is twice the number
of cases reported in 2006, and if indeed we start to really
circulate memorandums or Dear Colleagues asking Members of
Congress, do you have any concerns and issues, we would
certainly assume that there would even be a quantum leap in the
number of cases.
So my question is how is the budget, and as you may know,
there are proposed cuts in this area. And do you--one, do you
have the ability to handle the number of cases now in this U.S.
Central authority to the children's issue group, and with the
expectation that there will indeed be a bump up just by virtue
of their being more attention paid to this issue? We don't want
to raise expectations and then you be unable to handle the
load. I just wonder if you could deal with that for a moment,
Ambassador.
Ms. Jacobs. Thank you for that question, sir. Because of
the congressional limit on the number of cases that each
officer can handle, we are able to hire to meet demand. The
cases that are open are an accumulation from the last--these
are all the open cases. The 1,491 children are the total cases
that are still open over the years, and some of them--most of
them are active and we try to talk to the parents, call them,
make sure that they are still interested in pursuing a return.
But we always--you know, if we had more money, we could do
more training. We could do more outreach. I mean, there are a
lot of good things that we could do with additional funding, as
could the permanent bureau of The Hague. So we welcome your
interest and we will call on you to help us. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Payne. All right. Just another quick question.
Although the United States, Ambassador Jacobs, criminalizes
international parental child abductions, we know other
countries do not, including several of the Asian Pacific region
and that area. According to the State Department's Office of
Children's Issues Web site, examples include Indonesia,
Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand. So I guess my question
is, to what extent, in your opinion, criminalization, or
criminalizing international parent-child abduction an important
policy tool and what are merits and limitations as an effective
means to prevent, combat, and punish international parental
abduction?
Ms. Jacobs. Thank you for that very difficult question. I
think that I can understand why we have criminalized
international child abduction. It is a crime. Other countries
don't do it that way. In discussions, for example, that I had
in India, I was told that it is impossible for a parent to
abduct their child. And if countries would join The Hague, then
we could work on civil remedies. We would be able to use
diplomacy in order to get these children back. Having the
criminal remedy on the table, I think, makes it difficult for
some countries to cooperate with us, but that doesn't mean that
we don't keep pushing them to do what they ought to do.
Mr. Payne. In that same regard, you know, evidently there
are certain cultural differences around the world. That is an
understatement. In some cultures evidently, the maternal part
of the view of the family, just in general, that--or maybe just
that a mother is the natural--if there is one parent, the
natural movement is for it to be the mother. They are more
compassionate supposedly; they will do a better job. It is the
culture, in many instances, and so do--and either one of you
could handle that. How much do you feel that there are just
honest beliefs that their culture--I mean, I am not talking
about criminality or anything, but just a normal divorce case,
so to speak, in India or Malaysia, that culture would, do you
think, have a way of creeping into the decisions, even if it is
not intentional but it is just a matter of the culture?
Ms. Jacobs. Thank you for that. I do think it is cultural,
and I suggest to people that they watch Kramer v. Kramer which
shows that a father can be a loving, caring parent, and can do
just as good a job raising a child as a mother can.
Mr. Payne. Even here in the United States in parental
custody cases, you have almost got to be a Lady Simon Legree to
not get the custody in a lot of instances.
Ms. Jacobs. Unfortunately, I think there is that bias and
it still exists in many countries. In the Middle East, it is
assumed that the mother will raise the child until a certain
age, and then the custody goes to the father, and that can be
another difficulty. But there are biases and that is why we
like The Hague because it eliminates gender bias, and it is
based on habitual residence of the child and eliminates a lot
of those issues.
Mr. Campbell. Just two things, Congressman. These are
excellent questions, but first, on the issue of the legal
status associated with child abduction--and I think Ambassador
Jacobs is clear that sometimes in certain circumstances, that
it has created some challenges with other countries. But it is
also the case that almost all countries have specific
jurisdictional issues and assignments associated with
kidnapping, and it is those set of issues on which we believe
that we can make substantial progress. That would be the first
point.
The second is that, would that it be just maternal issues.
In truth, in many societies, it goes even further than that.
There are both maternal issues and there are also ethnic issues
that come to play sometimes that overcome maternal issues. And
so these are very complicated, very deep seated and hard to
tease out and also hard to confront sometimes.
And to be perfectly honest, as the Ambassador indicates,
there are many aspects of Hague that you would say, well,
imperfect, but overall, it is a remarkably effective tool to
address an issue that is going to grow in magnitude because the
number of cross-national marriages has increased dramatically
in the last decade, and will again in the next decade.
Mr. Payne. Well, thank you very much. I think that it is
important that we support international organizations like
this, and I think that The Hague is the type that we would
agree, although we are seeing somewhat of a growing move on
some folks' philosophies that we withdraw from international
groups. And so I think that if that trend tends to continue, we
are going to find ourselves at a disadvantage with things like
The Hague, and in my opinion, most international organizations
tend do much more good than some other times when they are not
as effective as we would like them to be.
But because of your time, I yield back and the chairman may
have some other questions. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Just a few follow-ups. I thank you very, much,
Mr. Payne, for your questions. If I could ask a couple of final
questions, and I know you do have to leave, and I thank you for
your patience.
Left-behind parents have received conflicting reports as to
whether their specific cases have been raised by name with
Japan. One left-behind parent received a response to his
inquiry that states the following, and I will just quote it. It
is from an e-mail. We have the e-mail.
``The State Department has not formally demanded the
return of any abducted children. As you know, one of
the challenges inherent in resolving parental child
abduction cases is overcoming the differences in law
between sovereign Nations. The policy of the United
States Government is to use bilateral relations to
press for ratification of, or compliance to, the Hague
Convention and for non-Hague countries, such as Japan,
to assist left-behind parents in obtaining access or
return of their children.''
Is this e-mail accurate? Do we raise specific cases with
the Japanese, and do we then report to the left-behind parent
as to what it is that was gleaned from those conversations?
Ms. Jacobs. Yes, sir, we do. We do raise individual cases
with the permission of the parents, and then we report back to
them.
Mr. Smith. Is that done for each parent?
Ms. Jacobs. It is up to the parent. I think some of the
parents have asked us not to raise their individual cases.
Mr. Smith. So everyone who wants their case raised by name
with the Japanese Government, and who are your interlocutors?
Mr. Campbell. I am not a consular official, but I have been
in many, many, many, many, many meetings where cases have been
made directly at very high levels, and so it is very hard--I
don't know who that e-mail is from. I don't know what it is
referring to. All I can tell you is I have sat watching either
our Ambassador in Japan or a consular official go through the
particulars of a particular case, not with a--you know, with a
legal person but a higher level political person in Japan in
order to make an important point that these are not just
faceless people, you know, just statistics, that we have real
people behind these cases.
Mr. Smith. The person at OCI is Courtney Houk, and I am not
sure what she means by has not formally demanded the return of
any abducted children.
Mr. Campbell. I don't--I don't know. I can't----
Ms. Jacobs. We will find out, and we will get back to you.
Mr. Campbell. I don't know what she means.
Ms. Jacobs. We will get back to you on that.
Mr. Smith. Let me, if I could, in your testimony, you point
out 123 active abductions involving 173 children. That is 17
more children just than just 2\1/2\ months ago. Is that because
more children have been abducted or new cases have just come
into the office or what?
Mr. Campbell. I think I can answer that, but one of the
things that I think we found generally when we started looking
at these cases is that the database was not uniform. A lot of
cases had sort of fallen off, and so Janice's organization,
consular affairs, all of our people in Tokyo have made a
concerted effort to contact every single person we can and try
to figure out what are the active cases. It is my belief that
those cases reflect a greater precision of what the nature of
the existing pool is, not new cases in the last 3 months.
It is also the case that there are some families, some
separated families that were not aware of some organizations,
not aware, and because of publicity, again a good thing, that
they have joined in this overall effort. So I think that is the
primary--I don't believe there has been any new cases of note
over the course of the last 3 or 4 months, not that I am aware
of.
Mr. Smith. Just two final questions. Michael Elias' ex-wife
has denied any welfare or whereabouts--visits with the
children. In that case, or in any other like it, what do we do
next? He doesn't even know----
Mr. Campbell. I totally understand. I completely
understand. I mean, there is several--I mean, very difficult
case like this, Congressman, the truth is you have to work on
many fronts. The first front is, again, try to establish the
larger overarching legal framework, which is The Hague,
establish the framework and then work on the corresponding
implementing language.
We press Japanese authorities who are in touch with various
taking parents to very assertively make the case about--yes,
can I just tell you I have just been informed and I apologize
for this, that the nuclear crisis did cause some left-behind
parents to get back in touch and we reopened some of those
cases. So that--I think--that I think is what I was trying to
say in terms of these are cases that have already been--that
have been in the works or had been around for many, many years,
but they are reopened because of the nuclear case, but I don't
think there has been anything new--not a new abduction.
Mr. Smith. Were the children minors throughout?
Mr. Campbell. I don't know the nature, but I did want to
give you accurate information on that.
So let me just say that it is also the case that we find
that many of the taking parents have legal counsel in Japan.
There are a group of lawyers that specialize in Japanese law,
what their rights are and how to use aspects of Japanese law.
Almost all of the most difficult cases we have found, or many
of them, involve legal advice that while technically accurate
within the Japanese context is frankly extraordinarily
unhelpful, and we have also asked Japanese authorities to look
carefully at some of these activities as a whole.
The truth is, Congressman, cases like this are just a
tragedy and we are applying--I think we are trying to make
clear to you--we are trying to apply every possible tool,
including some legal issues.
Now, the truth is we have made clear to Japanese colleagues
and friends that we are going to look carefully at all avenues
and that they need to understand the urgency and that outrage
is growing on Capitol Hill, indignation, not just among the
parents but a much broader group of the American people and the
electorate and in the executive branch. And they have a chance
to do this under the right conditions, right, in the spirit of
partnership, of humanity, of a strong bilateral relationship.
But ultimately, I come down where Congressman Frank
indicates, that in a case where the clear-cut needs of American
families come to play, then we are going to have to take a very
hard look, and I must say, I am not ashamed about the steps
that we have taken in support of the Japanese abductees, but I
think our parents have a right to say, look, let's expect the
same thing in return. And we make that point in almost all of
our meetings, very different circumstances obviously, but we
want the same compassion and commitment from Japanese
colleagues.
Mr. Smith. I will just conclude with this and throw it at
you one more time on the bilateral agreement as to whether or
not you would consider establishing a special court that would
adjudicate these cases? I mean, this is a festering sore that
will only grow, and I hope the Japanese Government understands
it. We are close friends and allies, but this is a human rights
abuse against American children and American left-behind
parents.
I will continue to push hard for H.R. 1940, and it is a
matter of when and not if that I believe we will get that
enacted, and I say that because there needs to be penalty
phase. Friends don't let friends commit human rights abuses
whether it be human trafficking, religious freedom, or any
other abuse. It is the Hague Convention, and its genesis shows
clearly parental abduction is child abuse. It hurts the child,
more than anyone else injures the left-behind parent, but it
hurts the child. I know you know that and I know you know that
well.
I do believe there needs to be a penalty phase at some
point for a country, ally or not, that continues its obstinacy
with regards to this. So I would ask you to--I am not sure who
has made the decision to accept no as no, but if the Secretary
of State, President Obama, if you, who deal with this issue
every day, could work it to try to turn that no to a yes for a
bilateral agreement, otherwise I have a sense of fright--and I
talk, like you, to the left-behind parents. They sense when
that door closes it will not create an atmosphere that will
resolve the older cases. They will be grandfathered in as older
cases, cold cases that don't get resolved.
There may be an exception somewhere, but I think human
nature being what it is, time and delay is denial. Those
children will grow. They will be 21, 30, who knows what it will
be, they will get to see Mom or Dad then, but these are these
years that are irreplaceable.
So I ask you, please, push for that bilateral agreement,
special court, call it whatever you want, or whatever modality
you choose, but there needs to be a process and an agreement
between our two countries. Otherwise, there needs to be a
penalty phase, and because they are getting away with
abduction. So if you want to respond to that.
Ms. Jacobs. I don't think the door's ever closed to trying
to reach an agreement on this. I think there are a number of
ways that we can try to do it. One of them is in changes in
Japanese domestic law that they will need to make anyhow in
order to join--to ratify the convention, and we can encourage
them to include the older cases in this ratification.
Mr. Smith. But, again, I would hope that President Obama
would talk to the Prime Minister and say solving these cases--
and it will take, I think, a mechanism--it won't happen by
just, say, a wave of the arm or the wand. So make that, you
know, his major talking point in his next meeting.
Mr. Campbell. Let me just say we have had great success
in--Secretary Clinton has made this a major issue with her
various meetings with the Japanese foreign minister, and we do
agree that this has to be an issue that is raised at the
highest level in our Government. It is also the case, frankly,
that we underscore to Japan what a success story looks like,
and the most recent one was really in the Clinton
administration.
We had a huge problem with Germany, lots of pressure.
President Obama--President Clinton went, worked with the German
Government. We now have a much, much better situation, and I
will underscore that many of those preexisting cases were dealt
with.
And so we understand--I don't know how else to say this,
Congressman--that it is not enough just to work on going
forward. It has to be--it has to involve the existing. When you
say ``preexisting cases,'' it sounds so antiseptic--the ongoing
crisis and the enormous challenge that these families are
facing right now, and we expect that those issues will be dealt
with. I don't know how else to say it, and frankly, I really--
every single possible thing we are doing right now, we are
doing, at least at my lowly level I am doing.
Mr. Smith. As you know so well, every day of continued
unlawful retention is another day of abuse. Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Just a quick closing comment. We have heard, and
you talked about the great success breakthrough finally in
Germany. We are at loggerheads here and Japan. So evidently,
the countries where we have the largest number of these cases
are countries where we have had military installations and
marriages between U.S. GIs and the current population.
Since we are having a 10-year war in Iraq and less than
that in Afghanistan, I just wonder whether, is the nature of
these rotations and wars and the manner in which war is
conducted today different, and therefore, we don't necessarily
have to anticipate that 2 or 3 years from now we are going to
see two additional countries where we are starting to come up
with a lot of clashes and loggerheads? How is the current
conflicts we find ourselves in, in your opinion, leading to the
situation whether because of the difference in the manner in
which we--war is waged, we may not have the same problem?
Mr. Campbell. Yeah. First of all, just two things,
Congressman Payne. In truth, most of the abductions are to
Canada and Mexico, just as a starting point; and secondly, the
nature of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are such that
there is not the kind of, you know, off-time fraternization
mingling that we see in circumstances where you are at peace
but living, you know, in another country and out on the
economy. So I don't anticipate this problem in many places, for
a variety of reasons, in the Middle East. Okay.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. I want to thank our distinguished
witnesses, Dr. Campbell and Ambassador Jacobs, for your
testimony. Look forward to working with you going forward.
I do ask unanimous consent that members of the subcommittee
have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks and submit--and
we will submit some additional questions. Mr. Payne might have
some additional ones as well on a number of other countries
that we have concerns about. So I thank you and this hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.