 Good morning everybody, thank you for joining us this morning. My name is Nancy Lindborg and I'm the President of the U.S. Institute of Peace. And it is my great pleasure to welcome everybody here to talk about a topic that is one of the most important conflicts that we need to continue to pay attention to and to solve. And I'm very pleased to be able to welcome back our guest speaker, Senator Russell Feingold, who's the Special Envoy for the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Great Lakes. Senator Feingold has served as the Special Envoy for the DRC in the Great Lakes since June 2011, and this is his third appearance here at USIP. USIP is very happy to be a member of the Great Lakes Policy Forum and part of an increased effort over the last several years to really focus in on what has been a persistent and very deadly, very costly both in terms of treasure in people's lives conflict in the DRC. Before assuming his position as the Special Envoy, Senator Feingold served on the U.S. Senate subcommittee of Africa for 18 years where many of us had a chance to get to know him and to respect the voice and the leadership that he brought to the relationship between the U.S. and Africa and the many ways that he promoted greater U.S. engagement in helping Africa deal with some of the critical challenges that it faced. And over the past 18 months, Senator Feingold has really been responsible for leading U.S. efforts to try to promote peace and stability in one of the longest-running crises. We're very pleased that the administration chose somebody of his caliber, of his commitment and his energy, and in his time he has relentlessly traveled back and forth to the region and worked with many of the other special envoys to promote peace, to improve security in the eastern region, to enhance human rights protection for the vulnerable populations and to promote better relations around regional states. And he very importantly pushed the DRC government to reform its military, to go after the rebel militias, particularly in the eastern part of the country, and to stick to the constitutional and electoral timetable. This has been a very important 18 months. In a conflict that has claimed over the past several decades, five million lives, there are currently still 2.6 internally displaced people in Congo. And that often gets overlooked as we focus on other global crises. So it is my great honor to introduce Senator Feingold in his last major appearance as special envoy and to hear his assessment of the current situation in the eastern DRC and the Great Lakes, what's been accomplished, and what are the challenges that remain. So with great pleasure, please help me welcome Senator Feingold. Thank you all for being here and thanks of course to the United States Institute of Peace for hosting this and other useful events during my tenure as special envoy. Thank you Nancy for that kind introduction and congratulations on your well-deserved appointment as president of USIP. Of course Ambassador Johnny Carson is here and Johnny I want to take this chance to thank you as I have in the past but I never get tired of doing it for your consistently good advice and generous support. Having the benefit of your expertise in Africa has always helped me and your wise and thoughtful approach has always helped the United States. It is truly a pleasure to work with you. When in spring of 2013 President Obama and Secretary Kerry asked me to take on the role of special envoy to the Great Lakes region of Africa and the DRC I was intrigued. I felt that the United States could do more actively to support and compliment regional and international efforts already underway to stabilize the region. President Obama and Secretary Kerry's appointment of a full-time special envoy is a testament to their commitment to ensuring high-level American attention to this region. So I thank them for this opportunity to further US engagement in and partnership with Africa a challenge I have embraced and enjoyed. I will always cherish having had this experience. In our efforts I believe we have successfully broadened US engagement with the African Great Lakes region better connecting it with US international priorities in the process. Fortunately, most of our goals for and priorities in the region are shared in most respects by most of the international community and the broader Great Lakes region. There are however some priorities that are especially crucial to America's overall foreign policy objectives that should be part and parcel of our analysis of and action in the region. In my view the Great Lakes region implicates our own national security, environmental and economic challenges going into the heart of the 21st century. Indeed these very real linkages between the Great Lakes region and our broader national priorities justify if not demand the noticeable increase in our focus on the region in recent years. Now I view these linkages as both troublingly easy and crucial to make. In this regard we have worked to align the focus among Africa watchers including those within the US government in international capitals and also with outside experts to avoid seeing the situation in the Great Lakes region as one of moral and humanitarian obligation alone. Our national interests including our commitments to democracy, political freedom and national security and our international leadership position must be part of our approach to the African Great Lakes as well. Happily these combined interests including the moral and humanitarian are more than sufficient to justify even more American attention to the region in the future. Now I have made 15 trips to the region in the past year and a half meeting repeatedly with heads of state, civil society and other donor partners to bring sustained attention and a comprehensive approach to resolving the ongoing crisis in the Great Lakes. The signing of the February 2013 peace security and cooperation framework agreement proved to be a touchstone in stepped up US and international engagement in the region. Our goal has been to help support the peace process launched by the signing of the framework agreement including the implementation of the region's specific commitments not to support armed groups and to respect each other's territorial integrity. As President Obama said in July of 2013 during his trip to Tanzania, the framework can't quote, just be a piece of paper. There has to be follow through unquote. Our office at the State Department, known at least internally as Siegel, has worked hard to make sure that there has been and will continue to be follow through and support from the United States as the region furthers the implementation and spirit of the PSCF. Through the framework peace process, which has included annual heads of state meetings, the countries of the regions of region have seized the opportunity to examine and address the root causes of chronic instability and underdevelopment, including such complex issues as refugees, citizenship, land reform, ethnic discrimination, border security and democratic and governance issues. Of course efforts to address the root causes of conflict in the Great Lakes region must be led by Africans but with the sustained support and attention of the international community. Now it's no surprise to me that two years later many, many of the root causes identified in the PSCF and related processes remain unresolved. But in the midst of many worrying signs and incidents, there has been some improvement on some very complex, long standing problems that have plagued the Great Lakes countries and there is good reason to be optimistic about the long term trajectory of the region. We continue to see progress in addressing the threat from the array of armed groups that have been a leading destabilizer in the DRC and the region that inspired the signing of the PSCF. We're also seeing increased interest and commitment to regional economic integration exemplified by the UN organization of a regional international investment conference later this year. The region's attitude toward the United States has improved in recognition of our consistent, high level engagement and principled approach to recent challenges. There are many issues on which I focused as a special envoy that I unfortunately will not have time to address in depth today. Among those is the deeply upsetting and ongoing crisis of violence against women as a weapon of war and the commendable efforts being spent to empower and improve the lives of women and youth in the region. We have also pursued solutions to issues surrounding the need for continued security sector reform, countering wildlife poaching and promotion of wildlife protection and increasing the legitimate trade and natural resource from the Great Lakes region. I was pleased also to play a supportive role in trying to resolve the difficult situation surrounding adoptions in the DRC that has affected hundreds of American families. They have found their dreams of adopting a child who was born in the DRC and definitely delayed as the DRC government has sought to reform its adoption policies. These are only some of the other issues we worked on and that deserve more discussion and attention than we have time for today. This morning, however, I want to discuss some of our specific Siegel efforts in three parts. First, the initial task that confronted me of dealing with the ongoing rebellion from the M23 rebel group in Eastern DRC. Second, Siegel efforts aimed at addressing the long-standing root causes of the conflict and third, some unique initiatives our Siegel office has begun and I hope will continue after I leave this position. First with the M23. When Secretary Kerry first contacted me about this position in February of 2013, he mentioned the problem of the armed group known as the M23. He was clear, should I take this job that helping the region end this armed rebellion and the threat posed by this armed group would be my first, if not my primary, priority. Over the course of my first six months as Siegel, three developments contributed to the military defeat of the M23. First, the DRC government put in place more operationally effective and accountable military officers in the embattled region of North Kivu. In addition, in March 2013, the UN Security Council approved the establishment within Monusco of the first regionally led 3,000 troop strong intervention brigade or IB. With the establishment of IB, the Security Council also expanded Monusco's mandate to include the explicit task of neutralizing the threat of armed groups. Monusco and the IB provided critical support to the Fardik in the final months of the M23 rebellion, helping to finally turn the tide against the rebel group after more than 15 months of fighting. Finally, most important, outside support to the M23 significantly decreased toward the end of the rebellion. This was in large part the result of American-led, sustained, high-level diplomatic and financial pressure on Rwanda to cease support for the M23. A second development was the political resolution of the M23 rebellion, which came via the Kampala Dialogue, successfully facilitated by Uganda and its role as chair of the regional organization, the International Conference of the Great Lakes Region, or the ICGLR. While the Kampala Dialogue started in December 2012, it lagged for months. This was in part because of the lack of sufficient military pressure on and continued external support to the M23. However, the dialogue gained traction when the M23 was forced to drop its more unrealistic demands in the face of increased military pressure from the Fardik and Monusco in late summer 2013. Third, I also believe the eventual success of the Kampala Dialogue was significantly aided by the added participation of five international envoys, the UN Special Envoy, the Special Representative of the Secretary General, the Special Representative from the African Union, the Senior Coordinator for the European Union, and me. Prior to September 2013, the international community had not participated in the Kampala Dialogue or even been allowed in the room during the substantive negotiations. This changed when during the envoys' first joint trip to the region, we made the decision to travel to Kampala and meet with the DRC and the M23 delegations in an effort to overcome the stalemate in the talks and, frankly, pressure the parties toward an internationally acceptable outcome. The Inauropa declarations of December 2013 were the outgrowth of five critical negotiation sessions over the span of three months. As of late 2013, the Kampala talks had grown largely moribund as the parties focused their energies on a new stepped-up round of hostilities. It was at this point that this group of five international envoys chose to meet in Kampala to press the participants of the Dialogue to either conclude with an agreement or perhaps with a recognition that an alternative approach would have to be sought. My staff and I were deeply involved in all five of the final negotiation sessions that culminated with the Nairobi declarations. All the envoys were involved in the first session in September 2013. I personally led or co-led with the excellent UNSRSG Martin Kobler three of the subsequent sessions and in one very protracted session, my senior advisor, Brennan Gilmour, took the lead along with Kobler. One of our top priorities during these sessions was to ensure that whatever agreement came out of the talks, it would break away from the litany of failed agreements in the past that had granted amnesty for all crimes and sought to end the threat of rebel groups by incorporating them wholesale into the DRC military. That recipe has repeatedly failed to bring any lasting stability to the region and served only to sow the seeds for future rebellions. But we were steadfast in our position that peace in the DRC demands justice and the end of impunity for war crimes. Crimes against humanity, including sexual and gender-based violence and the recruitment and use of child soldiers. The 12-month-long Kampala Dialogue was successfully concluded in December 2013 when the DRC government and the M23 signed their respective portions of what became known as the Nairobi declarations. Most important, the Nairobi declarations included provisions for the disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration of the M23, accountability for those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and excluded the possibility of incorporating all of the M23 into the DRC military. Let me turn to the second topic. Some might think that the end of the M23 rebellion would have been a logical place for the Great Lakes Special Envoy approach to conclude. Yet the end of the M23 rebellion did not resolve any of the so-called root causes of the decades-old conflict. It was by all accounts a major step in the right direction for a troubled region, but I was not ready to conclude this work, and the Secretary was not either. And so he asked me to keep going. Secretary Kerry has been a great support in this work and has shown a strong vision for and commitment to the region. We both felt that the combination of positive momentum from the end of the M23 rebellion and the high-level focus on the Great Lakes region by the international community had set up a unique opportunity for more progress toward lasting peace in the Great Lakes region. There have been several instances where Segal and American-led initiatives relating to the root causes of the conflict took U.S. engagement in the region to a new level. First, I'd say that one of the most important developments during my tenure has been the sustained high-level attention paid to the region by the international community. Too often, the international community, including the United States, has zeroed in on the Great Lakes during times of extreme crisis only to vacate the region after the slightest sign of progress. What anyone working on the Great Lakes knows is that there is progress being made, but it is often slow and intermittent. Takes decades for the conflict in the Eastern DRC. It will inevitably take years to achieve a stability that is durable and can be the foundation for long-term development. The sole pace of progress in no way undermines the value of the work done in the region by the host governments and by donors. Rather, it highlights the importance of sustained high-level attention by the international community and the complex nature of the sources of conflict in the region. Now part of this sustained attention is effective coordination between donors and other interested stakeholders. One of the unexpected highlights of my tenure as Special Envoy has been the exceptional coordination between the international envoys. I remember in June of 2013, my first phone call with then-UN Special Envoy, Mary Robinson, and our initial discussion of public relations. That first coordinated trip came early in my tenure in September 2013 and quickly set a precedent for joint action by the group of international envoys and created what came to be known as the E-Team. I've already described the E-Team role in the Kampala talks, but our work together went far beyond that. Since that first trip in September 2013, I have been working on the E-Team role in the Kampala talks. But our work together went far beyond that. Since that first trip in September 2013, the envoys have communicated with each other nearly every day, if not multiple times a day. This ensures that we are on the same page, have the same and most up-to-date information, and are able to coordinate on messaging, priorities, and travel. I believe that the E-Team's commitment to coordination increases the impact of each envoy and their respective country organization. It also demonstrates a greater collective resolve to the region than has been seen in recent years. I want to also say that the same can be said for our coordination with the UK, France, and many other donor partners, as well as the International Great Lakes Contact Group. With an active UN envoy as part of the ongoing discussions with other international envoys, our coordination has set a platform for consistency in messages at the UN and from the UN Security Council to the region. Now let me turn to a second point. The need to insist on the elimination of the FDLR. In order for the DRC and the region more broadly to fully realize its development potential, the end of all illegal armed groups in the region is an absolute requirement. I have already discussed this morning the end of the N23 Rebellion, and there have been some positive steps taken with regard to the Allied Democratic Forces Armed Group, or ADF. Continued efforts must be made to end all illegal armed groups like the ADF and groups known as Mai Mai and others who contribute to a lawless environment. The openings left by conflict are the cracks in a society that simply represent an invitation or an opening for extremism to come in and wreak further havoc. It is in the security interests of the United States to prevent these armed groups from continuing to destabilize the Great Lakes region and to remove the threat posed by ungoverned spaces by returning state authority across the DRC. Accordingly it was obvious that one of our priorities had to be to end the threat of the Democratic Forces for the liberation of Rwanda or the FDLR. A group whose members include some of those responsible for the 1994 Rwandan genocide, and a group that has been destabilizing the region and praying upon the people of the Eastern DRC for close to 15 years. Beginning in January of 2014 and throughout the last year, I have made the elimination of the FDLR a personal priority in my work. We have clearly been one of the strongest and most consistent voices in favor of solving this problem. There have been multiple efforts to end the threat of the FDLR. And these efforts have succeeded in reducing the group to a fraction of its original size. The FDLR is now estimated to be about 1,400 strong. The group, however, remains a threat to civilians in Eastern Dark DRC and its continuation is a roadblock to increased trust and cooperation between the DRC and Rwanda. Now in one of the moments I will always remember, I was told back in May that the FDLR are quote, comfortable, unquote, comfortable in Eastern DRC. That is unacceptable. No armed group, especially one with a list of committed atrocities as long as that of the FDLR should be comfortable. I share the frustrations of many, including Rwanda about how long the FDLR has been allowed to sit comfortably in the DRC and even travel within the region while other armed groups are targeted and militarily forced to demobilize. And even the threat of the FDLR is not just a DRC responsibility or even a regional responsibility. It is an international responsibility. We all have a deep interest in assuring accountability for those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity and acts of genocide. It is therefore an obligation of the DRC government, the region, all African countries, the UN Security Council and donors to do everything we can to end the threat of this group and bring its leaders to justice, including ensuring that Sylvester Mudejamura has his day at the International Criminal Court. We often hear claims from FDR leaders that they represent the interests of refugees. Well, those would seek political change in Rwanda. Let me be clear. The FDLR, with its shameful history of horrific violence against the people of Rwanda and the DRC, have absolutely no legitimate claim to participate in a political process or to represent the interests of civilians in the region. In fact, the FDLR's continued existence presents a substantial roadblock to addressing the concerns of legitimate actors pursuing peace and democracy in the region. For more than a year now, the FDLR has repeatedly promised to demobilize but after a year of largely unjustified waiting and a specific six-month grace period granted the FDLR fewer than 400 actually surrendered in 2014. The FDLR has proven that a purely voluntary surrender process will not bring about the end of this group. Now, I want to be clear that the United States strongly supports the ongoing DDRR process of any and all ex-FDLR members who lay down their weapons. Over the years, thousands of ex-FDLR combatants have safely and successfully returned to Rwanda. I visited the demobilization camp for former FDLR combatants in Matoba. I talked to these young men. And I was impressed with the program Rwanda runs there to support the return of ex-FDLR. Rwanda has repeatedly shown its willingness and readiness to receive ex-FDLR members at any time. Even after military operations are launched, the DDR process remains open to FDLR combatants who lay down their weapons, which we strongly encourage them to do. The moment is now for ending the threat of the FDLR. And the onus is on the DRC government to rely to deliver on its commitment to do so. The government announced the start of operations on January 29, but as of yet, operations have yet to be launched. The only entity that benefits from further delays in military operations is the FDLR. The DRC government owes it to its people, to do everything it can to immediately and permanently end the threat of the FDLR. Let me turn to the third topic. A country is haunted by former and present conflict as the DRC. Achieving stability requires more than just ending conflict. It requires justice and accountability. It is not enough to silence the guns and disarm rebels. There needs to be real accountability for human rights abuses in order for the population not only to return to their communities, but for the people to heal and move on with their lives. Accountability is also necessary to create a strong deterrent against future rebellions and armed groups. This is why we fought so hard to ensure that the Dinrobi Declaration included language and accountability and denied complete amnesty. If the leaders of these rebel groups are never prosecuted for their crimes, what deterrent is for them not to return to the bush? And what assurance is there for the general population that another rebellion is not just right around the corner? Now, accountability is not easy, especially in a country where the judicial sector is under-resourced and underdeveloped. The ICC has made it clear that they cannot handle all the cases being sent to them, and countries must be ready and willing to seek accountability on their own. Throughout my tenure and in strong partnership with Ambassador Stephen Rapp, we have advocated for the creation of mixed chambers in the DRC, which would create additional courts within the DRC judicial system with both Congolese and international staff, including judges, prosecutors, and support staff. Mixed chambers would increase the capacity of the existing judicial sector and bring in much-needed expertise from international jurists. The end goal for the DRC would be comprehensive judicial reform that establishes a credible and self-sustaining judicial system. But this is still a long way off, and it is neither fair nor practical to wait that long to hold perpetrators accountable for crimes being committed now or in recent years. Mixed chambers would provide a solution in the short-term and foster a judicial reform in the process. We had hoped that the DRC government would pass legislation establishing mixed chambers during the last fall's parliamentary session. We understand now that there is a new draft legislation working its way through the executive branch, which has yet to be presented to parliament, and we strongly encourage the DRC government to move ahead with this draft legislation for parliament to pass it during the upcoming March session. The United States stands ready to support the establishment of these courts when the appropriate legislation is passed. Now a bit about the refugee issue. Let me turn to the issue of refugees in the Great Lakes region. Along with focusing on the ending the threat of the FDLR, the envoys have also been attentive to the need to address the fate of residual refugee populations in the DRC and surrounding countries. Much of this attention has been focused on the population of Rwandan refugees who remain in the DRC and who, in many cases, are tied up with the issue of the FDLR, a key point to reiterate. The FDLR does not represent the interests of Rwandan refugees. Despite an attempt in 2005 to create a political party separate from the armed elements, and despite including elements of traditional leadership of some of the refugees, the FDLR has never been a legitimate representative of refugees. Many of the Rwandan refugees are judged in fact to be held hostage by the FDLR. UNHCR has convened semi-regular tripartite commission meetings with the DRC and Rwandan governments. These meetings address the question of Rwandan refugees in the DRC as well as that of Congolese Tutsi refugees in Rwanda. In October of last year, I led a mission to Geneva with my fellow envoys to discuss these issues at length with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Following these meetings, I was very pleased to see the UNHCR develop plans to begin a new biometric registration of the Rwandan refugee population. UNHCR expects to start the biometric registration of the Rwandan refugee population in the DRC soon as a first step towards accelerating durable solutions for this case load. The United States has contributed $1 million above our usual contribution to UNHCR to allow this registration process to begin in the highest priority areas in the Kibuz. The registration exercise is an essential step in demonstrating that the international community is focused on the Rwandan refugee population in the DRC and on accelerating repatriation. The last topic I want to discuss in this section has to do with elections and political freedom. It is a critical issue and necessary for peace and development to take root in the Great Lakes region. Timely, credible elections are the cornerstones of democracy and are the key to unlocking the vast potential of this region. Over the next three years, several countries in the region are scheduled to hold national elections. Much attention, however, is focused on the future of four countries in the Great Lakes region, Burundi, the Republic of Congo, the DRC, and Rwanda. These four countries have the opportunity to establish their place among the community of nations who defend democratic ideals and promote the free, fair, and transparent election of its leaders. On the other hand, the possible spillover effect of bad elections or the postponement of national elections in these countries could have regional repercussions as well as severe consequences for the individual countries themselves. These countries and their leadership can signal to their citizens, the region, and the world their commitment to the future of their countries and the value they place on the electoral process by adhering to their constitutions, including constitutional provisions regarding term limits. I have spoken out about my concerns regarding deviation from the path to peaceful transition of power throughout my tenure as special envoy. These national elections, as I just mentioned, are 2015 for Burundi and the Republic of Congo, 2016 in the DRC, and 2017 for Rwanda. The presidents of these countries have the opportunity to safeguard their legacies as the leaders with the vision to ensure their countries are firmly on the path to democratization and to a future that is not scripted by a few. In the United States and Africa, former presidents continue to serve roles as experienced leaders on the national and international stage. We are particularly encouraged by ongoing efforts to pass legislation regarding the future roles of past presidents in the DRC. And with regard to the DRC, in mid-January, people in the DRC took to the streets when it became known that the parliament was considering mandating the holding of a census prior to elections, a step that would have almost surely delayed the electoral process by at least a year, if not more. In the span of a week, we saw the very real potential for crisis in the DRC over elections, as well as the strength of the DRC democracy. When it's elected officials, listen to the people and serve in the best interests of the country. The DRC Senate and National Assembly jointly deliberated over electoral legislation and reached consensus about removing the requirement for a census. The legislation was recently signed by President Kabila and promulgated. And when I spoke to the National Assembly president and the foreign minister afterward, I expressed my belief that this decision by the parliament will go down in DRC democratic and constitutional history, particularly if the electoral cycle moves forward from here in a timely, organized, and transparent manner. Just less than two weeks ago, the DRC's National Independent Electoral Commission, or SENI, finally released a comprehensive electoral calendar, something that we have advocated for almost every day since we started this work. Most important, the calendar officially scheduled presidential and national legislative elections on November 27, 2016, thereby reflecting the constitutional mandate to hold presidential elections before President Kabila's current term ends in December 2016. The release of this comprehensive calendar is a welcome and important step in the electoral cycle. The announcement of the presidential elections with the timeline is particularly important in assuring what the Congolese people expect will be the first peaceful transition of presidential power in their entire history since independence. As to another important country in the region, Burundi. In late May of 2014, at my suggestion, the team of international envoys made a special trip to Burundi to discuss political freedom and upcoming elections. Now, Burundi is sometimes overlooked in a region that tends to be dominated by eastern Congo and regional tensions. Burundi demonstrates both the progress and the concerns that we see across the region. The country has made tremendous progress in recent years, coming out of civil war, establishing a constitution and a government, and holding its first election since the end of the war. The prognosis for the country could be bright, but a caveat to that is how the country will handle their next elections scheduled for this summer. Burundi has proven its ability to hold an election and for parliamentary seats to change hands, but it has yet to demonstrate a peaceful transition of executive power. Unlike the DRC and other countries on the continent, the Burundian constitution could be read to allow President Nicarunziza to seek a third term. The United States does not refute that there is a legal argument for a third term. Instead, as a friend and ally of Burundi, the United States is urging the Burundian government to ensure that the upcoming elections are consistent with the Arusha Accords, which state unambiguously that no president shall serve more than two terms. It is our belief that upholding Arusha, including its provision on term limits, is key to maintaining a still fragile stability in Burundi in the near term. So we're not making a legal argument here. President Nicarunziza has overseen Burundi's incredible progress over the past 10 years, and his legacy will reflect that progress. His legacy will not be the same, however, if he runs again and violates Arusha. Furthermore, the test for Burundi is not merely in the outcome of the elections, but also in the electoral process. The credibility of an election depends not just on the election day but the whole electoral process. With this in mind, we are paying close attention to the treatment of opposition members in Burundi in any attempt to undermine the rights of Burundian citizens. The United States looks forward to further partnership with Burundi and will remain active observers of the upcoming electoral process. And as the region works to overcome its history of conflict, there needs to be just as much effort put into ensuring free speech, freedom of assembly, due process, and voting rights. While investors and donors certainly care about economic indicators and growth, they also care about the civic stability of a country, a country with economic credentials. But that infringes upon its people's civil rights can cause the same level of concern to investors and donors as countries experiencing conflict. The concern comes from doubts about long-term stability. These issues are coming to the forefront as many countries in the region gear up for these elections. The rights to free speech and freedom of assembly are important every day of the week, but especially important in the run-up to elections when voters are most likely and most driven to speak out. Public commentary spikes during an election year. An outspoken populace is not a sign of instability, it's quite the opposite. When people can peacefully and openly speak their minds, a country demonstrates its truth strength, its values, and its national pride. I conveyed this message on more than one occasion in my meetings with each of the presidents in the region. The DRC has a lively civil society and should be commended for it. But we are deeply troubled by recent increases in arrests of opposition members, of people who have spoken out against revising the Congolese Constitution, and of journalists, including crackdowns by the security services during the public protests in January, which we believe resulted in the deaths of more than 40 people. Similarly, we are concerned by the decline of political freedoms in Rwanda and reports of extrajudicial killings. Rwanda has an incredible story to tell about development and overcoming tragedy, but that story is undermined if there is not equal progress and promotion of political freedoms and democracy. As I said with regard to Burundi, elections are more than the day votes are cast. They are about a process, and that process must be free, fair, and transparent. Let me turn to the third and last section. Last, I want to mention three original initiatives that we were able to launch during my tenure. I hope these have injected some new energy and ideas into the efforts to meet the challenges and embrace the potential of the Great Lakes region. First, one of the truly positive stories during my tenure has been watching and encouraging the emergent role of the nation of Angola as a leader in the region and on the continent. Following Uganda's successful chairmanship of the ICGLR, highlighted by its shepherding of the Kampala Dialogue, Angola assumed the head of the regional organization in January 2014. We hoped that Angola would be proactive in consolidating progress in the region following the defeat of the M23 and addressing the root causes of persistent instability, including the FDLR. Angola's leadership has in fact proven to be outstanding. Shortly after assuming the chair of the ICGLR, Angolan President Dos Santos led a series of meetings of regional heads of state to discuss how to end the threat of remaining armed groups in the DRC. These sessions reflected what I had been advocating for many months, the need for a broader, high-level, African-led dialogue to address core issues of instability in the region and to look for positive opportunities for economic development and regional collaboration. It is not just the United States that has commended Angola. Indeed, regional leaders speak highly of President Dos Santos and Foreign Minister Chacote's leadership and objectivity and all have expressed willingness to expand their dialogue to include broader security issues, regional economic integration, and confidence-building measures. Angola has spearheaded a clear, consistent, and fair approach to ending the FDLR scourge, recognizing the roadblock that the continued existence of this group presents to addressing broader issues and moving the region forward. I've had the pleasure of traveling to Angola four times to encourage this Angola initiative, including with Secretary Kerry in May of last year. Our increased engagement with Angola helped strengthen the U.S.-Angola Strategic Dialogue, which was held in Washington last December. We also welcome Angola's election to the UN Security Council and look forward to strong cooperation with them during their two-year membership. I have complete confidence that U.S.-Angola relations will continue to expand as we work together to address security concerns and embrace economic opportunities across the continent and across the globe. A second initiative relates to China's role in Africa. One thing many Americans seem to be aware of with regard to Africa is that the Chinese are very active on the continent and have been for some time. Yet it surprised me to find that very little was known about their activities in the Great Lakes region and how we could better coordinate with the Chinese on matters of common concern. Part of my approach as special envoy is involved outreach to non-traditional partners of the United States in the region to identify areas of mutual interest and potential cooperation. In so-called like-minded groups with traditional mostly Western countries, we already work to harmonize strategy and messaging and share information. These groups, including the International Great Lakes Contact Group, play a critical role. However, these groups do not always include some major players in the region and the continent, and I have strived to reach out and include these non-traditional countries. I supported including South Africa, Germany and Sweden as members of the Contact Group as a means to widen the interest and experience represented in these discussions. And there is no denying the role and impact of China and Africa, including in the Great Lakes region and beyond with Secretary Kerry's strong encouragement. I started meeting with representatives of the PRC in countries I was visiting on the continent, but also in Europe, New York and in Washington. In these meetings, we discussed similarities as well as differences in our diplomatic approach to the region. And each time I was left with the impression that there was significant room for common understanding and collaboration on key issues to both of our countries. Also each time, I was encouraged to continue these conversations in Beijing. This outreach thus culminated in a very productive visit to Beijing in November of 2014, where I met with government representatives, academics and think tanks to explore areas for greater cooperation on peace and security issues in the Great Lakes. In Beijing, I proposed inviting China for the first time to participate in the Contact Group. And I'm glad to report that Ambassador Zhang, China's special envoy for Africa, participated in the last meeting of the Contact Group, which was held in Berlin in January. As a major partner of Africa, China's voice is to be welcomed on messaging on peace and security issues in the Great Lakes, particularly on the need to eliminate threats to regional security such as that posed by the FDLR. Like China though, the United States believes that Africa and the region must be in the lead in efforts to address peace and security challenges with the international community playing a supporting role. Finally, since taking up this position, one thing kept nagging a little bit with a little nagging for me and that is we're always talking about the Great Lakes in Africa, but nobody ever says anything about the lakes themselves. And of course this was a bit sensitive to me because I'm a Wisconsin native. As I've told my staff to the point where they want to scream, one of my favorite conversations when I took this job is I called one of my political supporters and said I'm not going to be doing politics for a while. I'm going to be doing this job relating to the Great Lakes and he was very encouraging. He said he thinks it's a terrific thing and asked me whether I'd be measuring lake levels in Lake Michigan. And I said no, it's just different Great Lakes, but coming from the Great Lakes region of the U.S., questions about the African Great Lakes naturally occurred to me. We're always talking about the resources of this region, but almost never about these great bodies of water. Like how can the potential of the African Great Lakes be maximized as a source of healthy food and livelihoods? An idea for an information exchange between scientists, academics and policymakers from the North American Great Lakes with their counterparts from the African Great Lakes began to take shape through discussions with EPA, members of the U.S. water partnership such as the Nature Conservancy and relevant offices in the State Department. In fact, a very good friend of mine, Susan Hedman, the Great Lakes National Program Manager for the EPA and of course, a Wisconsin native, was the first to suggest to me this idea for an information exchange. Together, the North American and African Great Lakes system hold nearly half of the world's surface freshwater resources. This was a surprising statistic to me and drove home the need for careful stewardship of these waters. The countries bordering both Great Lakes systems grapple with similar problems, toxic contaminants and contaminated sediments, nutrient loading and runoff, the impact, the introduction impact of exotic non-native species and climate change. In the beginning of February, my office hosted a kickoff meeting of what we are calling the Great Lakes to Great Lakes Initiative. Over three days on the shore of Lake Tanganica in Kigoma, Tanzania, experts from the United States and Canada engaged in an in-depth exchange with colleagues from countries around one of the African Great Lakes. The meeting attracted 48 participants from a range of disciplines to discuss the connected nature of agriculture, fisheries, water and sanitation and ecotourism activities with the goal of expediting environmental and economic improvements in the countries surrounding the African Great Lakes. Participants expressed great enthusiasm for continuing the exchange of information and ideas beyond the meeting in Kigoma. They identified priority areas for further collaboration, including how to extend further exchanges to other African Great Lakes. The Executive Director of the Lake Tanganica Authority, with whom my office worked closely to organize this event, summarized the view of many in his closing remarks at the Kigoma meeting. He said, Discussions with experts from the North American Great Lakes allowed us to understand that many of the problems we are facing are shared by our colleagues. This initiative has given new hope for a sustainable partnership to find new solutions. My friends, such gains are the type of peace dividend envisioned by the signers of the peace, security and cooperation framework. And you've been patient, so now it's time for some thank-yous. First, I'd like to thank the Africa Bureau's Assistant Secretary, Linda Thomas Greenfield, for her kindness and for welcoming attitude towards me. She is a true pleasure to work with, and the United States is lucky to have someone of her caliber in such an important position. I was told many times that my working relationship with the Assistant Secretary for Africa would be a key factor in my work as an envoy, and I couldn't have been more fortunate. We also benefited on a daily basis in the support of many other members in the African Bureau under Linda's expert leadership. This includes the many desk officers, all of the DASAs and directors and deputy directors and AF who helped us on a daily basis, and I've learned some of the abbreviations now. Outside groups and advocates are one of the main reasons I have this job. Their tireless work to make a special envoy role for the Great Lakes of priority and their support for our initiatives was a constant void to our efforts. Many of our friends at ENOUGH, Human Rights Watch, San Egidio, Dialogue Advisor Group, the Eastern Congo Initiative, and others who have steadfastly and diligently expressed their passion for the success of the Great Lakes region to us and with us. We were of course the recipient of excellent support and guidance from the ambassadors and their staffs in the region, and all over the world where we visited. In particular, I want to thank ambassadors Lalim, Swan, Koran, Barks-Rubbles, Ruggles, Liberi, Delizi, Childress and Godic, all of whom had the experience that is always a bit challenging of having us sort of invade their missions and treating us extremely well and facilitating our work every step of the way. It's great to see how well the United States is represented in these countries. I'd also like to express my thanks to the regional governments who were open and generous with their time and consideration of the U.S. point of view. And of course the international envoys. Mary Robinson, her successor, Syed Jinnat, Hubekar Diara of the AU, Kuhn-Virvaka from the EU, and Frank DeConnick of Belgium, and of course Martin Kobler who has been an enormously good partner in all of this. Let me also thank David Wade and John Finer, the Secretary's Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief, who are constant in their willingness to collaborate and were extremely responsive to our many requests from the engagement from the Secretary. And the same goes to the NSC staff we work with regularly. Anna Cave, John Gundome, and of course President Obama's National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, Senior Director for African Affairs, Grant Harris, and Special Assistant to the President, Gail Smith. My thanks also to the excellent help we received from our U.S. U.N. colleagues. Many thanks especially to Ambassador Samantha Power. And most of all, we were so fortunate in the people we worked with directly every day in our Segal office. And through constant day and night Blackberry messages, and I do mean day and night. My once current and I hope future Chief of Staff, Mary Irvine, known to most people as Murph, started with me on my very first day as an envoy in the State Department in July 2013, just as she was there every day for my tenure in the U.S. Senate. She has brilliantly held the Segal operation together. And Jeremy Tollison showed up at just the right time to help our office achieve some important goals. Now, Murph and I couldn't have asked for a better Senior Advisor than Brennan Gilmore. He's actually a great friend and a true expert on Africa. Brennan was an integral part of and a leader on everything we worked on in our office and has been there every step of the way. Jeanne Hirosco was detailed to our office from the Africa Bureau by the generosity of Linda Thomas Greenfield. Her truly tireless work is an example to everyone at the State Department. And I thank her for her dedication and superb work as an expert in the Great Lakes region and her role as the real force between the organized coordination of the International Contact Group. Amy Truesdell came to us from the CSO Bureau. And we are grateful to her detailed analysis of election issues and the truly fantastic job she did in organizing the Great Lakes to Great Lakes initiative. It's an enormous contribution to our work. My friends, I started visiting African countries in 1994, meeting the people beginning to understand the challenges. Today, this more than 20-year interest and devotion to Africa has become an important part of my life. I found, as many of you have, that Africa becomes part of your heart, stays inside you. So having an opportunity to do this job concerning Africa was very compelling. And it was particularly compelling because it involved trying to achieve peace. As Pope Francis has said, peace is always possible, but we have to seek it. And I believe that this effort of seeking peace has to be an ongoing and sustained effort. Peace is best realized through constructive dialogue. True dialogue inspires growth, reveals shared interests, and can motivate parties in conflict to find peaceful, equitable solutions. And where discussions are held publicly, more voices can be heard to contribute to a common goal. There is a well-known quotation about the DRC that keeps coming back to me and relates to much of the Great Lakes region, too. The Communist from Congolese author Bampongo de de Bilamba. And it reads, Congo is like a nightmare in heaven. It's heaven because you know Congo is the heart of Africa. So much natural resources, the people, the animals, the flowers, everything. Congo is a heaven, but the thing is that people are living like in hell. Now we know that this is by no means the whole story. I have witnessed many successes in both the DRC and the Great Lakes region in general. And we understand the DRC may never be heaven on earth, what place really is. Yet while there are still so many people living in the DRC and the Great Lakes region who have been through hell and have lost loved ones in hellish circumstances. And while in my travels I have certainly seen suffering that has fueled my desire to see positive change. I have also seen the vibrancy and energy and resourcefulness and intelligence of the Congolese people and the Great Lakes people in general. This is especially striking given the circumstances they've lived through. And so as Americans, we do have a responsibility to do everything we can to be a good partner. We must guard against feelings of despair and seek hopefulness over a feeling of futility, just as so many people of the Great Lakes region do every day in these difficult circumstances. Let us all renew a pledge today that we will maintain our own sustained attention for Africa and this Great Lakes region. I can assure you of the sustained attention of our friends here at USIP and in the State Department. I am certain of the commitment of Secretary Kerry and President Obama. I can attest to the commitment of the many friends I see here in the room today who are our true partners in the past year and a half. And I will promise you, from my heart, my own continued interest and involvement and support for the heart of Africa. Thank you very much. Let me, on behalf of our President Nancy Lindborg, thank all of you for joining us this morning to listen to a fabulous policy speech by Senator Russell Feingold. I think that special envoys count and we have seen in this speech the work of one of our better special envoys on one of the most difficult policy challenges we faced across Africa over the last 20 years. With expertise, with commitment, with patience, with persistence and with high-level policy interests from the Secretary of State and from the White House, things positively can be done. And over the last 18 months of Senator Russell Feingold's responsibilities as special envoy to the DRC and the Great Lakes, we have witnessed progress. When we look ahead five years from now and look back, I think people will look at his tenure as special envoy and what he has in effect achieved along with others as a seminal turning point in that region's policies. I would say to all of you, get a copy of this speech. Remember the progress that's been noted and the markers that have been laid down. Accountability and justice, no impunity, strong commitment to democracy and human rights, commitment to regional integration and a commitment to keeping Africa and African leaders out front in the resolution of these problems with strong U.S. and international support and commitment to bring about good policies. Again, thank you all for joining us this morning. I think this has been extraordinary speech and one which we hope a lot of others in Washington and the region will read. Thank you.