 Our next panel is a group of distinguished officials from and senior officials from the state department and we're going to start with Daphna Rand who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. She has a PhD in political science from Columbia amongst many other kind of qualifications. She worked on the Senate Committee on Intelligence and also for Senator Frank Lautenberg. Then we'll be followed by next door to her is Elizabeth Campbell who is the Senior Humanitarian Policy Advisor in the Bureau of International Organization Affairs. She also holds a PhD focused on her research on Somalis living in Kenya. And finally we have Simon Henshaw who's the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration. He was former Deputy Chief of Mission in Honduras and he served in places around the world for the State Department. So Daphna, thank you. We'll start with you. Thank you very much everybody. Hopefully you can hear me because I might, whoops. Thanks for having me. Yeah, sure. This is not great. Thanks for having me. Thanks very much Peter for convening us today. I have been nominated to go first on this panel for the simple reason is that I'm the bearer of the description of the root causes of some of the refugee migrations, the bad news or the horrors. And I have to say being given five minutes to describe the human rights situation in Syria over five years is a kind of an unfair task. So I will try to summarize key points and give you a snapshot of what we're seeing now on the ground in Syria and start with the question, the answer to the question most frequently asks this fall and this year and in the past four years of why are they fleeing in response to the incredible flows of refugees around Syria? Why are they fleeing? People are asking. And I hope to give you some idea of why they're fleeing, why these Syrian people from all parts of the country, from all walks of life are leaving their homes or moving elsewhere in their country in the next couple of minutes. And then I'll leave it to my colleagues to describe some of the other things that the US government is doing to respond to this humanitarian disaster. And anyway, so why are they fleeing? I want to convey to you the importance of remembering that the Assad regime continues to bombard the Syrian people to restrict humanitarian access and to commit violations of international human rights law. Of course, many violent extremist groups, including the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, ISIL continue to commit appalling abuses of human rights and violations of IHL, international humanitarian law at an ever-increasing rate. But I want to spend a few minutes on detailing and describing the regime's abuses. And here's why. When asked, Syrian refugees will say that they're fleeing for the most part because of the regime and its allies and its proxies abuses. In particular, there was a recent survey of 900 Syrian refugees in Europe just this fall, and 70 percent of the respondents reported that they were fleeing Syria due to the regime's assaults. 77 percent said they feared arrest or kidnapping by Assad's forces. 79 percent said it was Bashar al-Assad's military response to the 2011 peaceful demonstration that led most to the situation they found themselves in today. So I want to give you a what, a how, a when of what is going on in terms of the Assad regime's continuing human rights violations. The what? The UN commission of inquiry, the COI, as we call it, has consistently documented arbitrary arrests, detention, torture, sexual violence, forcible displacement, unlawful attacks, including those involving the use of barrel bombs and sieges of whole communities. The COI has repeatedly found that government forces and affiliated militias have committed international humanitarian law violations and serious violations of human rights. According to credible reports, regime-linked paramilitary groups have engaged in widespread violations and abuses, including massacres, indiscriminate killings, kidnapping of civilians, arbitrary detentions, and rape as a war tactic. Government-affiliated groups, including the terrorist organization Hezbollah, has repeatedly, have repeatedly attacked civilians. So I could give you many numbers and many statistics to confirm what the COI has found, but I just want to give you a few right now. The regime's ongoing attacks have resulted in ever larger and increasing numbers of civilian deaths and widespread destruction of schools, medical facilities, homes, and businesses. And the Assad regime government continues to conduct attacks on medical personnel, and this is something that we're following closely, including its facilities with dire effects, and there's been a crippling of the medical infrastructure of a country that was once renowned in the region for its doctors, its nurses, its hospitals. Our, the Human Rights Group, the Physicians for Human Rights, have reported details this fall of alleged Russian strikes, airstrikes, in addition, on medical facilities since October of this year. And I want to give you a focus in on a how. How are some of these human rights abuses being committed? And focus in on barrel bombs in particular. Hundreds of men, women, and children are killed each week by the regime's attacks upon Syria's cities, including with barrel bombs that destroy homes, schools, and lives. When Dimistora, US Special Envoy, Stefan Dimistora, has strongly condemned Assad regime's intensification of bombings across Syria with dire effects on civilians and infrastructure. And the COI report that I've just mentioned has called attention to the impact of the Syrian regime's use of these barrel bombs. And I want to talk a little bit about when, because I want to be clear that the human rights violations and abuses that I've just described are ongoing. They continue this fall. Contrary to claims to the, contrary to claims, the Syrian regime is continuing its bombing campaign. And Syrian documentation groups have said, have recorded that the regime has used 1,438 barrel bombs in October of 2015 alone. And the November 14th Vienna statement, which we can talk about in the Q&A, it recalled and referenced a UN Security Council Resolution 2139, which included that the demands that all parties to the conflict seize any indiscriminate use of weapons in populated areas. So despite this UN Security Council Resolution, we're seeing the continued use of barrel bombs in October of this year, November of this year, up until today. And finally, as we detail the abuses of the Assad regime, I want to underscore the importance of prisoners. This discussion has been lost in the past couple of years, but it's very important to recall the number of prisoners and the types of prisoners that are in jail. The Assad regime continues to imprison tens of thousands of individuals, many of whom are detained arbitrarily. Many of whom are subjected to torture, sexual violence, inhumane conditions, denial of fair trials, and execution. And according to a group that we work with, the Syrian Network for Human Rights, which is a very objective documentation group, SNHR, the regime has detained an estimated 215,000 prisoners, including 35,000 political prisoners. And according to the same documentation group, the regime forces have tortured over 11,000 people to death, including 157 children. To this day, hundreds of thousands of Syrians remain in detention, and many of them are arbitrarily held. So this gives you a snapshot of why so many people, when asked in a survey, why they're fleeing sight, that they're fleeing Assad regime's abuses. But, of course, other groups in Syria are committing vile, vile, vile human rights abuses. And I want to talk a bit about Daesh, because as human rights goes, Daesh is in a class of its own in terms of human rights abuses. Not because of its bombings and assassinations or its kidnappings, but because it targets entire ethnic people and religious groups for particularly horrific and persistent, with particularly horrific and persistent violence. And it's targeting these groups, not because of anything they did, but because of exactly who they are. It is murdering Daesh men and women who won't agree to accept its warped ideology. The group Daesh is seizing women, not only as hostages, but as commodities, as spoils of war to be raped or sold. These are tyrants. And they are committing crimes of unknown proportions, but of incredible severity. And they know on some level that their conduct is shameful. So they hide what they do, you know. It is the utmost importance to us in the U.S. government that those in Daesh who brag of their crimes and acts not be allowed to seize the narrative. So we are trying to combat their narrative of violence bragging and their propagandization of their violence. I let my colleagues describe some of our responses to the massive suffering in Syria, but I'll just add that the United States is providing more than $4.5 billion in humanitarian assistance and this is the more than any other single donor. So I want to conclude by just laying down the marker. The Assad regime continues to perpetuate vile, vile abuses of human rights. And the U.S. government is supporting civil society groups and documentation efforts to record objectively all of the human rights abuse that are ongoing and continuing. So for example, the U.S. government is supporting a group called the Syrian Justice and Accountability Center, the SJAQ, as one of the premier Syrian-led institutions that's leading an effort to very carefully database and analyze and train documenters inside Syria to document each death, each rape, each case of torture. The SJAQ gathers information from multiple sources, including oral and written reporting, videos and other resources. And the SJAQ is investigating and documenting a wide range of the violations that I have described today. So finally, in conclusion, I would urge everyone in this room and who cares about Syria to keep the human rights conditions and situation at the center of the story. There are reasons people are fleeing. And those responsible for these violations of humanitarian law will be held accountable. Thank you very much. Thank you so much, and to the New America Foundation for hosting this very important and timely event. I wanted to begin by trying to put the current global refugee immigration crisis into perspective. Today we say and we often do that there are more people displaced today than any time since World War II, some 60 million. The overwhelming majority of those people are not crossing international borders and seeking asylum. The majority, some 40 million, are displaced in their own countries. We refer to them as internally displaced people, for whom there is no UN mandated agency to provide them protection and assistance. There is a refugee immigration crisis in Europe, but the brunt of the global displacement crisis is really borne by the countries who are meshed in these violent conflicts and their neighbors. So for example, today Lebanon has the highest per capita number of Syrian refugees accounting for about one in four. Kenya, for example, is home to one of the world's largest refugee camps, hosting over well over 200,000 Somali refugees, some of them who've been there since the early 90s. It's a camp now hosting three generations. History can really offer us some instructive lessons on how world leaders and UN member states and governments have worked together to address past crises that we can then use to develop new tools, instruments, and ways of working to look at and analyze these current issues in a global comprehensive manner. So the post-World War II refugee crisis, it led to the creation of many important instruments. The most important was the 1951 Refugee Convention, which is the cornerstone of the international protection regime today, and the mandate of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. There was also the creation of the 1954 and the 1961 conventions on statelessness that were developed basically to address the phenomenon of people who have no nationality. After that period, the United States admitted over 250,000 European refugees as part of their effort to share global responsibility for ending the crisis. Many of you will know that after the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, hundreds of thousands of Indochinese boat people crossed territorial waters to places like Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and the Philippines, as well as Hong Kong. And facing what seemed to be no end in sight to the influx, many of those authorities began to push back people, which resulted in thousands drowning. Ultimately, the solution to that particular refugee crisis resulted in a comprehensive plan of action in 1989 under the leadership of the UN Refugee Agency. Refugee receiving countries in Southeast Asia agreed to keep their borders open, engage in search and rescue operations, and provide reception to the refugees or boat people. But they did so only on the basis of, based on two sets of commitments from other states. First, a coalition of governments, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, others, and some Europeans committed to resettle officially all those who were determined to be refugees. And second, alternative and humane solutions including return and alternative legal immigration channels were found for those who were deemed not to be refugees in need of international protection. And the CPA led to millions being resettled. Throughout the course of that scheme, the United States resettled hundreds of thousands through this basically ad hoc refugee task force, and that experience led to prompting Congress to develop the 1980 Refugee Act, which underpins our programs today. It incorporated the United Nations definition of refugee and basically standardized the resettlement services for all refugees admitted, which I know my colleague Simon will speak about in greater depth. So the CPA was not perfect, and the circumstances that gave rise to it do not provide a precise analogy to the contemporary situation. But if nothing else, it shows us that if you have political will and leadership, global comprehensive strategies and approaches are possible. So where does that leave us today? In addition to the ongoing support that we're already providing, 2016 will provide us a unique opportunity to engage in responding in ways that hopefully will lead to very measurable and seismic changes in responses thus far. There's a series of already planned events at which the United States will participate at the highest possible level to begin moving toward a more comprehensive global solution to the current crisis. One of the first events at which we will participate is in February the UK will be hosting a Syria pledging conference. And at that conference we will begin to sort of sow the seeds for this broader comprehensive plan that will include additional financing, resettlement and other tools that will be essential to responding. That will also be an opportunity for us to engage in diplomatic outreach to encourage new governments to step up to the plate to begin to fund the appeals as well as to ask those who currently are to contribute additional resources. The UN Secretary General has announced that he will host a high-level event focused on resettlement and solutions that will be organized and hosted in Geneva with incorporation with UNHCR. Again that will be an extremely important moment for us to look at in a very global way at the question about resettlement of Syrian refugees in particular but others as well. In May we will join the UN Secretary General for the first ever World Humanitarian Summit. This has been in the works now for over two years and the United States is deeply engaged in this effort. It's going to be an extraordinary opportunity for us to engage with world leaders, civil society, the private sector and others to make significant strides in advancing our humanitarian agenda very broadly. So the US goals for this summit for us include securing additional sources of financing, leveraging development systems and ways to help countries encourage countries to secure more access to jobs and education for Syrians and others, increasing protection especially for women and girls, updating and modernizing the UN-led system that is responding to these crises and building new partnerships with civil society and the private sector. The summit we are hoping will set the stage for a series of reforms and initiatives that we will undertake in the several years following the events. And finally the Secretary General has announced a high-level meeting on the global refugee and migration crisis next year during the General Assembly. This too, again, will be a critical moment for us, an opportunity for us to galvanize global support and respond in a way that we would hope would lead to more sort of comprehensive responsibility sharing and sort of measurable outcomes. So 2016 is definitely a year where you're going to see tremendous US leadership around the refugee question in particular humanitarian issues in general. As the President has said, the Syrian refugee crisis and the spillover challenges in Europe have evoked global interest that demands a global response and I think that you will really hopefully see some major steps forward on this agenda in 2016. Good afternoon. Thank you very much to our hosts and thank you especially to all of you who are here this afternoon on a late on a Friday afternoon at the end of December. Today's conflicts are just not numerous. They're often brutal, chronic and intractable. Long-term unceasing violence or oppression means that uprooted people aren't able to go home. These are not short-term emergencies. A child born in a refugee camp at a start of a crisis will often spend his or her entire childhood away from home. In some situations, camp midwives deliver the grandchildren of the original refugees. Refugees make up just one segment of the population that's on the move. But most of the 60 million people displaced globally are not refugees, but as Elizabeth pointed out, internally displaced persons who have not crossed international borders. For instance, when ISIL or Daesh sees roughly a third of Iraq, more than 3 people fled, 3 million people fled, not to neighboring countries but to other parts of Iraq, especially the Kurdish areas of the northeast of the country. And obviously, sometimes, most times, many times governments are the problem. Syria is a home to about 7 million IDPs or one fifth of the world's total. The Assad regime drops barrel bombs on its own people, destroying hospitals and schools and killing rebels and civilians alike. Like IDPs and refugees, migrants traveling without documents can be exceptionally vulnerable. Economic migrants suffer alongside refugees. Both are subject to the same threats. They can be abused, raped, kidnapped, abandoned, or crammed into the same trucks, cages, and leaky rubber boats. So what is the United States doing about this problem? The United States leads and contributing to humanitarian operations around the world. And my bureau, the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, has provided more than 3 billion in fiscal year 2015 alone, 3 billion dollars. We do this chiefly by working with the UN and other international organizations in this field. We fund the UN Refugee Agency, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Organization for Migration, and others. The U.S. Agency for International Development funds the World Food Program and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. We also channel relief dollars through other UN agencies you've heard of, like UNICEF, and through the best non-governmental organizations and charities that work in this field. These operations deliver essential life-saving assistance, food, shelter, medical care, and clean water and sanitation. They protect the rights of the displaced, care for survivors of sexual violence, reunify families, educate children and youth, and help people gain the skills they need to be self-sufficient. In addition, we manage a refugee resettlement program, which identifies some of the world's most vulnerable refugees, brings them here to the United States and offers them a fresh start. Most refugees get jobs, enroll their children in school, pay taxes, revitalize communities, and after five years may choose to take the test to become naturalized American citizens. Next year, we will accept at least 10,000 refugees from Syria. Some critics say that this number is too low. Others oppose admitting Syrians arguing that terrorists may seek to enter the United States as refugees. The US government is taking every possible precaution to make sure that doesn't happen, specially trained Department of Homeland Security officials screen applicants conducting extensive security checks and lengthy in-person interviews. We are determined to do more to help the world's refugees, which is why we will increase the number we will resettle here annually for all global refugees from 7,000, the ceiling for the past three years, to 85,000 in fiscal year 2016 and 100,000 in fiscal year 2017. US diplomacy and humanitarian aid are vital. In crisis after crisis, we have been able to spearhead the international response and use our influence to help keep borders open and aid flowing. This has saved millions of lives, but today aid groups are stretched thin. All of the UN humanitarian organizations are grappling with severely insufficient funds to address a long list of crisis. The United Nations is seeking 19.5 billion dollars for humanitarian assistance for this calendar year, 2015. And so far, and remember what date it is today, so far it's received only half of what it was looking for. How can we close the gap and meet such vast needs? Private giving could help. Private donors may be reticence because man-made crisis can be messy and complex. Image after image of bombings, barbed wire and misery can be overwhelming, even numbing. But seven million children have been affected by the Syrian crisis and many have been traumatized. A whole generation urgently needs help and care. And this is why my colleagues and I support the no-loss generation campaign launched by UN agencies and non-governmental organizations. We must adapt to changing needs and new technology to make humanitarian aid more efficient. The majority of the refugees today actually live in cities and towns, not camps. Instead of handouts, they may need to be handed a work permit. Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, vulnerable groups such as women and children, the elderly and the disabled need aid tailored for them. Development agencies should build more classrooms, hospital wards, and water systems so that the society hosting refugees do not suffer for doing the right thing. The World's Humanitarian Summit that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has scheduled for spring 2016 offers an opportunity to call attention to what does and doesn't work in humanitarian response and recruit more governments and more organizations to invest in best practices. We can help governments respond humanely when migrants and refugees arrive at their borders. We can crack down on human smuggling. We can explore legal alternatives to dangerous or regular migration. Legal migration can fill gaps in the labor pool and provide financial lifelines to families and communities back home. Finally, and most importantly, we must stay vigilant and engaged and take whatever action we can to stop ethnic, religious, and political rivalries from exploding into violence. We must do what we can to prevent life from being so bleak that risking death seems preferable. This means strengthening programs run by the State Department in the USA that foster the rule of law, fight corruption, and create economic opportunity overseas. Whatever we do, however incremental, matters. Thank you. Thank you. Let me ask the first question, which is, to the extent that you might be able to comment on this, which is with the House overwhelmingly passing this pause on refugees coming into the United States and also part of the bill that was passed was that the FBI director and the DHS director and other people have to certify personally that people are not terrorists. What is the practical effect of that, do you think, in terms of bringing refugees into the country? Or is it too early to tell? Well, it doesn't have any legs in the Senate. I don't think it will go anywhere. We're waiting to see what's in the omnibus, and that's very unclear to me so far. But if that kind of legislation were to pass, it would close down our program. I mean, I could go through the reasons of why it was, but I think it's more important to note that it's a political decision, a political vote, and it is designed to close the program down. Right. Because this certification, as a practical matter, would be immensely important. All aspects of it are impractical and impossible to carry out, and it was designed that way to close down the program. And as a follow-up, the Senate has passed- Oh, by the way, can I add that half of the Democrats, I think more than half of the members of Congress who are Democratic that voted for that have signed a letter saying that they were not supported at this point. And related question, the Visa Waiver program, there is in the Senate a much more sensible measure, which is essentially if you visited Iraq or Syria in the last five years, that you wouldn't automatically go through the Visa Waiver program if you're a country that enjoys that. That's the correct characterization of that. And so, that seems like a fairly sensible measure. Not my area, but it's something the administration supports. Okay, if you have a question, Tara McKelvie from the BBC. Thanks. I have a question for you about Donald Trump. I'm wondering how his remarks have affected your work. I think it's going to be very hard for these guys to answer. No, I'll answer. I mean, it makes it, I think first of all, just the remarks by themselves make it more difficult for us to work on our programs integrating refugees into the U.S. because it makes them more hesitant to be open and feel welcome within communities. But I think second of all, that the large number of people that spoke out against it afterwards is reassuring. Great. Another question, raise your hand. You have a question, sir? Thank you very much. I'm Ali Dodd Mofinez. How do you as representatives of the U.S. government see what Germany has done because their ambassador is going to be speaking here later, accepting close to a million refugees, a country that isn't traditionally seen as an immigrant receiving country versus the U.S.? Thank you. I think it's important to draw a distinction between what's going on in Europe and in here. It's always very different when you have a large, huge number of people approaching your border and walking across it and there they are and you have to work with them there. And the situation that we face in the United States with Syrian refugees and others, refugees, are they being resettled? So they're going through a very long measured process that gives us a lot of opportunity to both screen them and to resettle them. So I think generally we're very supportive and very much think that the Germans need to be praised for what they're doing because they're taking what is really an incredible number of people. I've heard close to a million now in a year and processing it and just amazed from the top of how the government is organizing this to the chancellor, her views to local government officials who are working on the ground to get everybody settled to the thousands and thousands of Germans who are volunteering to help. Any other questions? Sir? Quick question about the 10,000 refugees who will be scheduled to be resettled. Bobby McKenzie, the working institution. Question regarding the 10,000 who will be resettled here next year and the 20-some governors who have talked about not accepting refugees sent to their states. While legally that might not be tenable, just from a practical standpoint, could you talk about some of the difficulties connected to that? Yeah. Look, I get people's fear of terrorism. I've lived overseas. I've worked in embassies that have been under threat. My daughter was in Paris the weekend that the attacks were there. I understand that. I think it's our duty to reassure the American public that we take these threats more seriously than anything. That it's our number one duty to protect them and that the refugee program is designed to be as careful and as thorough as possible in making sure that we're not bringing anyone into the United States. It's a threat. It's an 18 to 24-month process. It's very closely monitored, and I think it works. So that's kind of a preamble to answering your question. And the question is we think that what we should be doing is informing the governors and making sure that they know about what we're doing and getting them to understand that this is a safe program, and that's been our major effort. Now legally, there's very little that governors can do about bringing people in the states, and you can't discriminate against people for nationality or race or religion. That's not allowed, so you can't cut benefits from them. But on another level, our program only not exists, but only works well if we have a lot of local support in getting people settled. So we're hoping that we can work with governors and others that are opposed to our program, bring them over to our side, and return to this sort of really well bipartisan supported program that we've had for 30 years. Just a sort of follow-up on that. Explain for the, particularly the viewers and the audience as well as here in the room, the 18 to 24-month process involves what? I mean, why would it be the last thing a terrorist would want to go through? Yeah, it's difficult to do because it's so detailed. But starting off, I think what it's important to remind everyone that only a percent of the world's, one percent of the world refugees get resettled. It's not aimed as the best solution. The best solution is for people to go home. The second best solution is to keep them safe in a place close to their home so that when the war of violence ends, they can go home. So this program has always been aimed at a very small amount of people who are vulnerable and not doing well in their country of first asylum. The typical examples we give are victims of torture, rape, female-headed households which are struggling to survive, LGBT cases in countries which are prejudiced against LGBT. So those are the people that we're aiming at. So it's not large numbers. So UNHCR gives us 75 percent of our cases. And in those cases, it's a very small percentage of the refugees that are in that country. So if someone wanted to get into our program, they'd have to somehow figure out how would they get into that very small percentage that they're being referred to us in the first place, which are by far mostly women and children. Then after that, once we have recommendations from UNHCR, we run extensive biographical checks on people's backgrounds who are a number of U.S. databases, which is very intensive and includes a lot of information gathered from overseas. And we look for any connection anyone might have to somebody that we don't want in the states. And we have a pretty high bar. And then after that, every single family is put through a multi-hour interview with really well-trained DHS agents who ask all kinds of questions about their background and look for other reasons, other inconsistencies that might be a problem, take fingerprints so that then fingerprint checks are done. And only after that, DHS officer is convinced that the person is a good case, are they cleared to come in the United States. And then there's some medical checks and other things that add to the time. So it would not be a very efficient way to get into the United States. And I think we have a lot of checks even to make sure that somebody doesn't do that. Hi. My name is Jack Kropansky. I'm an unaffiliated private citizen. Whatever that means. I wish I was. Can I quote you? Can the BBC quote you? Anyway, my question is, in hindsight, are there things that we should have done differently or expected differently back in 2011? I mean, doesn't it seem like, at least now it feels like it was a little naive to expect that Assad would just go quietly and quickly, and shouldn't we have expected that there would be more refugees and he would be more, as aggressive as he was? And, you know, I'm just wondering if there was anything we could have expected differently than what happened. So I guess I'll answer that one. I've been nominated. I mean, yes and no is the answer. On one hand, there was ferocious fighting and we saw the full color of the regime of uses and the terrifying use of types of weapons. Can you hear me? Types of weapons and, you know, the real, the viciousness of Shabihah, the militias that were allied with the regime back in 2011-2012. So the human rights abuses that I described, the reasons people are fleeing, the fear was real and present in 2011-2012. The staying power of the regime has surprised many. The degree to which allies, Iranian proxies, Hezbollah, and others have militarily supported some of these worse atrocities might have been surprising. But yes and no. I mean, so I don't think in hindsight there's any real support. There was movement of refugees, of course, back then. They have intensified in the past couple years for sure. The rise of Dahesh has certainly, in many parts of Syria, led to migration. But also, as I mentioned, the Russian strikes this fall have led to migration, right? So there's all kinds of factors that have happened in a civil conflict that have led to the refugee file. Hi there. My name is Elias Yusefim with Crisis Action. Dana, you mentioned the World Humanitarian Summit as well as the London Donor Conference and a number of other events that are beginning taking place in 2016. I'm wondering how civilian protection is going to be discussed at those events and possibly even Vienna process. And even in the Vienna process, how it's going to be incorporated. Right. So I mean, I didn't dwell on this, but it's absolutely at the center of US government humanitarian and other policy, particularly as we look at Syria. And I think that the opportunity we have in Istanbul in May is to really think about ways in which world leaders at the highest level can come together to make some new series of affirmations or commitments around that. But I think everyone understands that if you don't look at that piece, it's everything, right? I mean, that is the heart of what we are trying to address. And of course, we shouldn't expect miracles, but I think that if we can find ways to build some new agreements, coalitions, and partnerships, maybe we can start chipping away at some of what we've been witnessing. I want to thank Dr. Campbell, Dr. Rand, Simon Hanshaw. We know that you're representing the US government and it's a very difficult situation. Thank you for coming here and speaking on the record.