Reuters Insider - Obama: U.S. aid "surging" to help Africa fight Ebola

GeoJunxion NV

08/08/2014 20:14

Click the following link to watch video:                              
 http://insider.thomsonreuters.com/link.html?cn=share&cid=1281770&shareToken=Mzo5ZTg3NWZiNi1iNjkyLTQ2NzEtYTFkMC03ZmRhMDkwMGM0MzY%3D&playerName=ReutersNews 
                                                                       
 Source:             Thomson Reuters                                   
                                                                       
 Description:        President Obama gives a news conference closing   
                     the unprecedented U.S-Africa Leaders Summit in    
                     Washington that advanced the Administration's     
                     focus on trade and investment in Africa.          
 
 
(To access all exclusive Reuters Insider programming visit: http://insider.thomsonreuters.com) 
 
 Short Link:  http://reut.rs/1ogL5yO  
 
 
Transcript (May be auto-generated)

 As I think everyone knows by now, this first U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit has been
the largest gathering we've ever hosted with African heads of state and 
government and that includes about 50 motorcades. So I want to begin by thanking
the people of Washington, D.C. for helping us host this historic event and 
especially for their patience with the traffic. As I've said, this summit 
reflects the reality that even as Africa continues to face great challenges, 
we're also seeing the emergence of a new, more prosperous Africa. Africa's 
progress is being led by Africans, including leaders here today. I want to take 
this opportunity again to thank my fellow leaders for being here. Rather than a 
lot of prepared speeches, our sessions today were genuine discussions - a chance
to truly listen and to try to come together around some pragmatic steps that we 
can take together. And that's what we've done this week. First, we made 
important progress in expanding our trade. The $33 billion in new trade and 
investments that I announced yesterday will help spur African development and 
support tens of thousands of American jobs. With major new commitments to our 
Power Africa initiative, we've tripled our goal and now aim to bring electricity
to 60 million African homes and businesses. And today I reiterated that we'll 
continue to work with Congress to achieve a seamless and long-term renewal of 
the African Growth and Opportunity Act. We agreed that Africa's growth depends, 
first and foremost, on continued reforms in Africa, by Africans. The leaders 
here pledged to step up efforts to pursue reforms that attract investment, 
reduce barriers that stifle trade - especially between African countries - and 
to promote regional integration. And as I announced yesterday, the United States
will increase our support to help build Africa's capacity to trade with itself 
and with the world. Ultimately, Africa's prosperity depends on Africa's greatest
resource - its people. And I've been very encouraged by the desire of leaders 
here to partner with us in supporting young entrepreneurs, including through our
Young African Leaders Initiative. I think there's an increasing recognition that
if countries are going to reach their full economic potential, then they have to
invest in women - their education, their skills, and protect them from 
gender-based violence. And that was a topic of conversation this afternoon. And 
this week the United States announced a range of initiatives to help empower 
women across Africa. Our New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition continues 
to grow, aiming to lift 50 million Africans from poverty. In our fight against 
HIV/AIDS, we'll work with 10 African countries to help them double the number of
their children on lifesaving anti-retroviral drugs. And even as the United 
States is deploying some of our medical first responders to West Africa to help 
control the Ebola outbreak, we're also working to strengthen public health 
systems, including joining with the African Union to pursue the creation of an 
African Centers for Disease Control. I also want to note that the American 
people are renewing their commitment to Africa. Today, InterAction - the leading
alliance of American NGOs - is announcing that over the next three years its 
members will invest $4 billion to promote maternal health, children's health, 
and the delivery of vaccines and drugs. So this is not just a government effort,
it is also an effort that's spurred on by the private sector. Combined with the 
investments we announced yesterday and the commitments made today at the 
symposium hosted by our spouses - that means this summit has helped to mobilize 
some $37 billion for Africa's progress on top of, obviously, the substantial 
efforts that have been made in the past. Second, we addressed good governance, 
which is a foundation of economic growth and free societies. Some African 
nations are making impressive progress. But we see troubling restrictions on 
universal rights. So today was an opportunity to highlight the importance of 
rule of law, open and accountable institutions, strong civil societies, and 
protection of human rights for all citizens and all communities. And I made the 
point during our discussion that nations that uphold these rights and principles
will ultimately be more prosperous and more economically successful. In 
particular, we agreed to step up our collective efforts against the corruption 
that costs African economies tens of billions of Dollars every year - money that
ought to be invested in the people of Africa. Several leaders raised the idea of
a new partnership to combat illicit finance, and there was widespread agreement.
So we decided to convene our experts and develop an action plan to promote the 
transparency that is essential to economic growth. Third, we're deepening our 
security cooperation to meet common threats, from terrorism to human 
trafficking. We're launching a new Security Governance Initiative to help our 
African countries continue to build strong, professional security forces to 
provide for their own security. And we're starting with Kenya, Niger, Mali, 
Nigeria, Ghana and Tunisia. During our discussions, our West African partners 
made it clear that they want to increase their capacity to respond to crises. So
the United States will launch a new effort to bolster the regions early warning 
and response network and increase their ability to share information about 
emerging crises. We also agreed to make significant new investments in African 
peacekeeping. The United States will provide additional equipment to African 
peacekeepers in Somalia and the Central African Republic. We will support the 
African Union's efforts to strengthen its peacekeeping institutions. And most 
importantly, we're launching a new African peacekeeping rapid response 
partnership with the goal of quickly deploying African peacekeepers in support 
of U.N. or AU missions. And we'll join with six countries that in recent years 
have demonstrated a track record as peacekeepers - Ghana, Senegal, Rwanda, 
Tanzania, Ethiopia and Uganda. And we're going to invite countries beyond Africa
to join us in supporting this effort, because the entire world has a stake in 
the success of peacekeeping in Africa. In closing, I just want to say that this 
has been an extraordinary event, an extraordinary summit. Given the success that
we've had this week, we agreed that summits like this can be a critical part of 
our work together going forward, a forcing mechanism for decisions and action. 
So we agreed that the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit will be a recurring event to 
hold ourselves accountable for our commitments and to sustain our momentum. And 
I'll strongly encourage my successor to carry on this work, because Africa must 
know that they will always have a strong and reliable partner in the United 
States of America. So with that, I'm going to take a couple of questions. I'm 
going to start with Julie Pace of Associated Press. Where's Julie? There she is.
Thank you, Mr. President. There's been a lot of discussion surrounding this 
summit about the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. And there's an untested and 
unapproved drug in the U.S. that appears to be helping some of the Americans who
are infected. Is your administration considering at all sending supplies of this
drug if it becomes available to some of these countries in West Africa? And 
could you discuss a bit the ethics of either providing an untested drug to a 
foreign country, or providing it only to Americans and not to other countries 
that are harder hit if it could possibly save lives? Well, I think we've got to 
let the science guide us. And I don't think all the information is in on whether
this drug is helpful. What we do know is that the Ebola virus, both currently 
and in the past, is controllable if you have a strong public health 
infrastructure in place. And the countries that have been affected are the first
to admit that what's happened here is, is that their public health systems have 
been overwhelmed. They weren't able to identify and then isolate cases quickly 
enough. You did not have a strong trust relationship between some of the 
communities that were affected and public health workers. As a consequence, it 
spread more rapidly than has been typical with the periodic Ebola outbreaks that
have occurred previously. But despite obviously the extraordinary pain and 
hardship of the families and persons who've been affected, and despite the fact 
that we have to take this very seriously, it is important to remind ourselves 
this is not an airborne disease; this is one that can be controlled and 
contained very effectively if we use the right protocols. So what we've done is 
to make sure that we're surging not just U.S. resources, but we've reached out 
to European partners and partners from other countries, working with the WHO. 
Let's get all the health workers that we need on the ground. Let's help to 
bolster the systems that they already have in place. Let's nip as early as 
possible any additional outbreaks of the disease. And then during the course of 
that process, I think it's entirely appropriate for us to see if there are 
additional drugs or medical treatments that can improve the survivability of 
what is a very deadly and obviously brutal disease. So we're going to - we're 
focusing on the public health approach right now because we know how to do that.
But I will continue to seek information about what we're learning with respect 
to these drugs going forward. If this drug proves to be effective, would you 
support fast-tracking its approval in the United States? I think it's premature 
for me to say that because I don't have enough information. I don't have enough 
data right now to offer an opinion on that. 

Jon Karl, ABC News. Thank you, Mr. President. When you were running for 
President, you said, "The biggest problems we're facing right now have to do 
with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch 
and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse." So my 
question to you - has Congress's inability to do anything significant given you 
a green light to push the limits of executive power, even a duty to do so? Or 
put another way - does it bother you more to be accused of being an imperial 
President, pushing those limits, or to be accused of being a do-nothing 
President who couldn't get anything done because he faced a dysfunctional 
Congress? Well, I think that I never have a green light. I'm bound by the 
Constitution; I'm bound by separation of powers. There are some things we can't 
do. Congress has the power of the purse, for example. 

I would love to fund a large infrastructure proposal right now that would put 
millions of people to work and boost our GDP. We know we've got roads and 
bridges and airports and electrical grids that need to be rebuilt. But without 
the cooperation of Congress, what I can do is speed up the permitting process, 
for example. I can make sure that we're working with the private sector to see 
if we can channel investment into much-needed projects. But ultimately, Congress
has to pass a budget and authorize spending. So I don't have a green light. What
I am consistently going to do is, wherever I have the legal authorities to make 
progress on behalf of middle-class Americans and folks working to get into the 
middle class, whether it's by making sure that federal contractors are paying a 
fair wage to their workers, making sure that women have the opportunity to make 
sure that they're getting paid the same as men for doing the same job, where I 
have the capacity to expand some of the student loan programs that we've already
put in place so that repayments are a little more affordable for college 
graduates - I'm going to seize those opportunities. And that's what I think the 
American people expect me to do. My preference in all these instances is to work
with Congress, because not only can Congress do more, but it's going to be 
longer-lasting. And when you look at, for example, congressional inaction, and 
in particular, the inaction on the part of House Republicans, when it comes to 
immigration reform, here's an area where, as I've said before, not only the 
American people want to see action, not only is there 80% overlap between what 
Republicans say they want and Democrats say they want, we actually passed a bill
out of the Senate that was bipartisan. And in those circumstances, what the 
American people expect is that, despite the differences between the parties, 
there should at least be the capacity to move forward on things we agree on. And
that's not what we're seeing right now. So in the face of that kind of 
dysfunction, what I can do is scour our authorities to try to make progress. And
we're going to make sure that every time we take one of these steps that we are 
working within the confines of my executive power. But I promise you the 
American people don't want me just standing around twiddling my thumbs and 
waiting for Congress to get something done. Even as we take these executive 
actions, I'm going to continue to reach out to Democrats and Republicans - to 
the Speaker, to the leadership on both sides and in both chambers - to try to 
come up with formulas where we can make progress, even if it's incremental. Do 
you believe you have the power to grant work permits to those who are here 
illegally, as some of your supporters have suggested? What I certainly recognize
with respect to immigration reform and I've said this in the past is that we 
have a broken system; it's under-resourced; and we've got to make choices in 
terms of how we allocate personnel and resources. So if I'm going to, for 
example, send more immigration judges down to the border to process some of 
these unaccompanied children that have arrived at the border, then that's coming
from someplace else, and we're going to have to prioritize. That's well within 
our authorities and prosecutorial discretion. My preference would be an actual 
comprehensive immigration law. And we already have a bipartisan law that would 
solve a whole bunch of these problems. Until that happens, I'm going to have to 
make choice. That's what I was elected to do. 

Margaret Talev, Bloomberg. Thank you, Mr. President. Along the lines of 
executive authority, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has previously said that the 
executive branch of government doesn't have the authority to slow or stop 
corporate inversions, the practice that you have called distasteful, 
unpatriotic, et cetera. But now he is reviewing options to do so. And this is an
issue that a lot of business, probably including some of the ones who were 
paying a lot of attention to this summit, are interested in. 

So what I wanted to ask you was, what prompted this apparent reversal? What 
actions are now under consideration? Will you consider an executive order that 
would limit or ban such companies from getting federal contracts? And how soon 
would you like to see Treasury act, given Congress's schedule? Just to review 
why we're concerned here. You have accountants going to some big corporations - 
multinational corporations but that are clearly U.S.-based and have the bulk of 
their operations in the United States - and these accountants are saying, you 
know what, we found a great loophole - if you just flip your citizenship to 
another country, even though it's just a paper transaction, we think we can get 
you out of paying a whole bunch of taxes. Well, it's not fair. It's not right. 
The lost revenue to Treasury means it's got to be made up somewhere, and that 
typically is going to be a bunch of hardworking Americans who either pay through
higher taxes themselves or through reduced services. And in the meantime, the 
company is still using all the services and all the benefits of effectively 
being a U.S. corporation; they just decided that they'd go through this paper 
exercise. So there is legislation working its way through Congress that would 
eliminate some of these tax loopholes entirely. And it's true what Treasury 
Secretary Lew previously said, that we can't solve the entire problem 
administratively. But what we are doing is examining are there elements to how 
existing statutes are interpreted by rule or by regulation or tradition or 
practice that can at least discourage some of the folks who may be trying to 
take advantage of this loophole. And I think it's something that would really 
bother the average American, the idea that somebody renounces their citizenship 
but continues to entirely benefit from operating in the United States of America
just to avoid paying a whole bunch of taxes. We're reviewing all of our options.
As usual, and related to the answer I gave Jonathan about executive actions, my 
preference would always be for us to go ahead and get something done in 
Congress. And keep in mind it's still a small number of companies that are 
resorting to this, because I think most American companies are proud to be 
American, recognize the benefits of being American, and are responsible actors 
and willing to pay their fair share of taxes to support all the benefits that 
they receive from being here. But we don't want to see this trend grow. We don't
want companies who have up until now been playing by the rules suddenly looking 
over their shoulder and saying, you know what, some of our competitors are 
gaming the system and we need to do it, too. 

That kind of herd mentality I think is something we want to avoid. So we want to
move quickly as quickly as possible. Just to clarify, the federal contracting 
seems like an area that you've liked. It's worked well for you on issues like 
promoting gay rights, or contraception policy. Is it fair to assume that that 
would - attaching this to federal contractors would be the first thing you would
think of? Margaret, I'm not going to announce specifics in dribs and drabs. When
we've done a thorough evaluation and we understand what our authorities are, 
I'll let you know. Chris Jansing, NBC News. 

Thank you, Mr. President. Russia said today that it is going to ban food and 
agricultural product imports. That was about $1.3 billion last year. At the same
time, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said that the massing of troops along the 
border of Ukraine increases the likelihood of an invasion. Are sanctions not 
working? Well, we don't know yet whether sanctions are working. Sanctions are 
working as intended in putting enormous pressure and strain on the Russian 
economy. That's not my estimation; if you look at the markets and you look at 
estimates in terms of capital flight, if you look at projections for Russian 
growth, what you're seeing is that the economy has ground to a halt. Somewhere 
between $100 billion and $200 billion of capital flight has taken place. You're 
not seeing a lot of investors coming in new to start businesses inside of 
Russia. And it has presented the choice to President Putin as to whether he is 
going to try to resolve the issues in eastern Ukraine through diplomacy and 
peaceful means, recognizing that Ukraine is a sovereign country, and that it is 
up ultimately to the Ukrainian people to make decisions about their own lives; 
or, alternatively, continue on the course that he's on, in which case he's going
to be hurting his economy, and hurting his own people over the long term. And in
that sense, we are doing exactly what we should be doing. And we're very pleased
that our European allies and partners joined us in this process, as well as a 
number of countries around the world. Having said all that, the issue is not 
resolved yet. You still have fighting in eastern Ukraine. 

Civilians are still dying. We've already seen some of the consequences of this 
conflict in the loss of the Malaysian Airlines airliner or jetliner. And the 
sooner that we can get back on a track in which there are serious discussions 
taking place to ensure that all Ukrainians are heard, that they can work through
the political process, that they're represented, that the reforms that have 
already been offered by the government in Kiev are implemented to protect 
Russian speakers, to assure decentralization of power - the sooner that we move 
on those, and the sooner that President Putin recognizes that Ukraine is an 
independent country, it's only at that point where we can say that the problem 
has truly been solved. But in the meantime, sanctions are working the way 
they're supposed to. The troops that are massing on the border are more highly 
trained. They seem to have more sophisticated weaponry, according to 
intelligence. Does that make you reconsider - as a few Democrats have suggested 
- providing lethal aid to Ukraine, given those troop movements? Well, keep in 
mind that the Russian army is a lot bigger than the Ukrainian army. So the issue
here is not whether the Ukrainian army has some additional weaponry. At least up
until this point, they've been fighting a group of separatists who have engaged 
in some terrible violence but who can't match the Ukrainian army. Now, if you 
start seeing an invasion by Russia, that's obviously a different set of 
questions. We're not there yet. What we have been doing is providing a whole 
host of assistance packages to the Ukrainian government and to their military, 
and we will continue to work with them to evaluate on a day-by-day, week-by-week
basis what exactly they need in order to be able to defend their country and to 
deal with the separatist elements that currently are being armed by Russia. But 
the best thing we can do for Ukraine is to try to get back on a political track.
David Ohito, The Standard. Thank you, Mr. President. You have been hosting 
African kings, prime ministers and presidents for the last three days. 

But back home in Africa, media freedom is under threat. The work of journalists 
is becoming increasingly difficult. In Egypt, our Al Jazeera colleagues are in 
jail. In Ethiopia, dozens of journalists are in prison. In Kenya, they have 
passed very bad laws targeting the media. What can the international community 
do to ensure that we have a strong media in Africa and, more importantly, to 
secure the release of the journalists who are behind bars? And, two, so many 
countries in Africa are facing threats of terror. I'm glad you've mentioned a 
few measures you're going to take. But what can the international community do 
also to neutralize terror threats in Mali, Cameroon, Nigeria, Kenya? Could that 
be the reason you have skipped Kenya in your visits to Africa? Thank you. I'm 
sorry, what was the last part of the question? Could the terror threats be the 
reason you have skipped Kenya in your visits to Africa? Oh, no, no, no, no, no. 
Well, first of all, with respect to journalists in the media, the last session 
that we had on good governance emphasized that good governance means everybody 
has a voice, that government is transparent and, thereby, accountable. And even 
though leaders don't always like it, the media plays a crucial role in assuring 
people that they have the proper information to evaluate the policies that their
leaders are pursuing. And so we have been very consistent in pushing governments
not just in Africa, but around the world, to respect the right of journalists to
practice their trade as a critical part of civil society and a critical part of 
any democratic norm. The specific issue of the Al Jazeera journalists in Egypt, 
we've been clear both publicly and privately that they should be released. And 
we have been troubled by some of the laws that have been passed around the world
that seem to restrict the ability of journalists to pursue stories or write 
stories. We've also been disturbed by efforts to control the Internet. Part of 
what's happened over the last decade or two is that new media, new technology 
allow people to get information that previously would have never been 
accessible, or only to a few specialists. And now people can punch something up 
on the Internet and pull up information that's relevant to their own lives and 
their own societies and communities. So we're going to continue to push back 
against these efforts. As is true on a whole range of issues - and I've said 
this in the past - many times we will work with countries even though they're 
not perfect on every issue. And we find that in some cases engaging a country 
that generally is a good partner but is not performing optimally when it comes 
to all of the various categories of human rights, that we can be effective by 
working with them on certain areas, and criticizing them and trying to elicit 
improvements in other areas. And even among countries that generally have strong
human rights records, there are areas where there are problems. That's true of 
the United States, by the way. And so the good news - and we heard this in the 
summit - is that more and more countries are recognizing that in the absence of 
good governance, in the absence of accountability and transparency, that's not 
only going to have an effect domestically on the legitimacy of a government, 
it's going to have an effect on economic development and growth. Because 
ultimately, in an information age, open societies have the capacity to innovate 
and educate and move faster and be part of the global marketplace more than 
closed societies do over the long term. I believe that. Now, with respect to 
terrorism, I think there's uniform concern of terrorist infiltration in many 
countries throughout Africa. Obviously, this is a concern that we have globally.
A lot of the initiatives that we put forward were designed to partner so that 
countries, first and foremost, can deal with these problems within their own 
borders or regionally. And the United States doesn't have a desire to expand and
create a big footprint inside of Africa. What we do want to make sure we can do 
is partner with the African Union, with ECOWAS, with individual countries to 
build up their capacity. And one of the encouraging things in the sessions was a
recognition that fighting terrorism also requires security forces that are 
professional, that are disciplined, that themselves are not engaging in human 
rights violations; that part of the lesson that we've all learned about 
terrorism is that it is possible in reaction to terrorism to actually accelerate
the disease if the response is one that alienates populations or particular 
ethnic groups or particular religions. And so the work that we're doing, 
including the security initiatives that I announced today, I think can make a 
big difference in that direction. It's not just a matter of us providing better 
equipment or better training. That's a part of it, but part of it is also making
sure that these security forces and the intelligence operations are coordinated 
and professional, and they're not alienating populations. The more we do that, 
the more effective we can be. Last point I'll make is, on good governance, one 
of the best inoculators against terrorist infiltration is a society in which 
everybody feels as if they have a stake in the existing order, and they feel 
that their grievances can be resolved through political means rather than 
through violence. And so that's just one more reason why good governance has to 
be part of the recipe that we use for a strong, stable and prosperous Africa. 

Last question, Jérôme Cartillier. Thank you, Mr. President. Earlier today, the
Israeli Prime Minister described the Gaza operation as "justified and 
proportionate." Do you agree with these two words? And Israel and Hamas seems to
be at odds over prolonging the ceasefire. Are you hopeful the ceasefire - a true
ceasefire can be achieved? And what exact role can the U.S. play in the current 
talks going on in Cairo? I have said from the beginning that no country would 
tolerate rockets being launched into their cities. And as a consequence, I have 
consistently supported Israel's right to defend itself, and that includes doing 
what it needs to do to prevent rockets from landing on population centers and, 
more recently, as we learned, preventing tunnels from being dug under their 
territory that can be used to launch terrorist attacks. I also think it is 
important to remember that Hamas acts extraordinarily irresponsibly when it is 
deliberately sighting rocket launchers in population centers, putting 
populations at risk because of that particular military strategy. Now, having 
said all that, I've also expressed my distress at what's happened to innocent 
civilians, including women and children, during the course of this process. And 
I'm very glad that we have at least temporarily achieved a ceasefire. The 
question is now how do we build on this temporary cessation of violence and move
forward in a sustainable way. We intend to support the process that's taking 
place in Egypt. I think the short-term goal has to be to make sure that rocket 
launches do not resume, that the work that the Israeli government did in closing
off these tunnels has been completed, and that we are now in the process of 
helping to rebuild a Gaza that's been really badly damaged as a consequence of 
this conflict. Long term, there has to be a recognition that Gaza cannot sustain
itself permanently closed off from the world and incapable of providing some 
opportunity - jobs, economic growth - for the population that lives there, 
particularly given how dense that population is, how young that population is. 
We're going to have to see a shift in opportunity for the people of Gaza. I have
no sympathy for Hamas. I have great sympathy for ordinary people who are 
struggling within Gaza. And the question then becomes, can we find a formula in 
which Israel has greater assurance that Gaza will not be a launching pad for 
further attacks, perhaps more dangerous attacks as technology develops into 
their country. But at the same time, ordinary Palestinians have some prospects 
for an opening of Gaza so that they do not feel walled off and incapable of 
pursuing basic prosperity. I think there are formulas that are available, but 
they're going to require risks on the part of political leaders. They're going 
to require a slow rebuilding of trust, which is obviously very difficult in the 
aftermath of the kind of violence that we've seen. So I don't think we get there
right away, but the U.S. goal right now would be to make sure that the ceasefire
holds, that Gaza can begin the process of rebuilding, and that some measures are
taken so that the people of Gaza feel some sense of hope, and the people of 
Israel feel confident that they're not going to have a repeat of the kind of 
rocket launches that we've seen over the last several weeks. And Secretary Kerry
has been in consistent contact with all the parties involved. We expect we will 
continue to be trying to work as diligently as we can to move the process 
forward. It is also going to need to involve the Palestinian leadership in the 
West Bank. I have no sympathy for Hamas. I have great sympathy for some of the 
work that has been done in cooperation with Israel and the international 
community by the Palestinian Authority. And they've shown themselves to be 
responsible. They have recognized Israel. They are prepared to move forward to 
arrive at a two-state solution. I think Abu Mazen is sincere in his desire for 
peace. But they have also been weakened, I think, during this process. The 
populations in the West Bank may have also lost confidence or lost a sense of 
hope in terms of how to move forward. We have to rebuild that, as well. And they
are the delegation that's leading the Palestinian negotiators. And my hope is, 
is that we'll be engaging with them to try to move what has been a very tragic 
situation over the last several weeks into a more constructive path. Thank you 
very much, everybody. And thank you all who participated in the Africa Summit. 
It was an outstanding piece of work. And I want to remind folks, in case they've
forgotten, of the incredible young people who participated in our fellows 
program. We're very proud of you, and we're looking forward to seeing all the 
great things that you do when you go back home. Thank you