 peace and reconciliation, that's also the basis for reaching the sustainable development goals. So a lot is at stake to create the right circumstances for peace and reconciliation. And in the panel, we have a lot of experience related to this. Of course, it's easy to make a gloom and doom perspective, but for Africa, I think it's also very important to underline that there are a lot of silver linings and a lot of positive developments. Look just the last two years. Ethiopia has made peace with Eritrea. Who would have thought about that? Then Djibouti and Somalia followed. Lately, we have seen President Museveni with President Kagama in Angola. And they also agreed on how to deal with the challenges between the two countries. There is a peace agreement in Mozambique. Lately, we saw very positive developments in Sudan, in Khartoum. The same in Central African Republic. We can also make the list longer. Still, there are hotbeds like Chad, Cameroon. We also still have challenges. We know in DRC, even if there are some positive developments. But we know that a lot is at stake to create the right circumstances for peace and also to create real peace dividend. If there is a peace agreement, people have to see that something positive is coming out. I would like to start with the commissioner. He is really in charge of the whole peace and reconciliation work in Africa. And Commissioner, African Union has a 2063 agenda when African Union will celebrate 100 years. And one of the agenda points is silence the guns by 2020. That is a great aspiration. Will we get there? And how to get there? And how to enhance the work to make Africa even more peaceful? Thank you very much. Let me first thank you for the invitation and also see how much I am honored to be in this panel with two of our leaders of the continent. And to your question, let me, if you allow me first to indicate that, yes, we have this blueprint, which is 2063 agenda, which deals with all issues of peace, stability, development in the continent. But I would like first to indicate that as Africa and Africa Union is conducting those efforts, we have to indicate that the international order these days is really giving us a lot of question at a time when mutualaturalism is under attack, at a time when we see the surge of populism, denialism, and also external interferences in the continent. I think this is adding to the challenges that we have already. So I think the silence in the guns by 2020 was met or was designed first by our leaders to really ask each and every citizen in the continent to look every morning in the mirror and say, what did I do to silence the gun? What is my contribution? It's not only the responsibility of the government or the political parties or the civil society. I think this is a joint endeavor. And I think, quite honestly, we have done a lot. You just mentioned some of the achievements. I think some years ago we had 13 conflicts in the continent. And then through different programs that we had, either direct deployment like the one we have in Somalia, Amisom, or the joint deployment with UN in Darfur, or the other deployment that we did. And then we re-halted to the UN, be it in Central Africa, in Mali. So I think Africa UN has been always in the forefront addressing these issues directly. And I think we have got a lot of good results. You mentioned a lot of them. Let me, for example, indicate the agreement we signed on CAR on the 6th of February between the 14 armed groups and the government. And the latest agreement in Sudan to which also President Musevini here and the Prime Minister of Ethiopia and indeed our Chairperson contributed a lot. So these are achievements. But one has to say that these last years, some of the crises have become more complex because now they are associated with terrorism and with criminal networks. And this is a new challenge that some of our security apparatus in the continent were not prepared. So I would say that, yes, we have achieved a lot, but we need extra efforts. That's why we signed also another agreement with UN to really work together now to make things better. And this is, in fact, what is happening in many parts of the continent. Now we are even having joint visits on the ground. So the other, the African Union invested not only in addressing issues of peace, radicalization, but also we are of the view that the response to our problems in terms of stabilization and peace and security should be comprehensive. It's not only, yes, the response, the security and the military response is needed, but it's not enough. We need to invest in development. We need to give hope. We need to make sure that also the issues of political governance is in total play. So it's a combination between the agenda for governance and the agenda for peace and security. And let me here indicate the very big and important move that we had just realized in Yami, that is the launching of the free trade area, which will have immense implications in terms of development, in terms of hope, and thereafter its implication on peace and security. Thank you, Commissioner. A short follow-up question before we turn to the two Excellencies, the two Presidents. You were mentioning that terrorism and violent extremism is complicating the picture. We have al-Shabaab, we have a Boko Haram, we also have a very complicated situation in Mali. Do you think it's a possibility to mainstream these movements? We're seeing now there is negotiations between Taliban, the U.S. and the government in Afghanistan. Or are these movements that are so extreme that they can only be fought with arms? Well, I think normally we don't close any door for those who want to come back. And I think if you see today whether some Shabaab people are coming back and talking with the government in Somalia, or you see those now who are surrounding in Boko Haram area, we don't close such a door when we are acting in the respect of our values. I mean, we should not give up. So whenever someone wants to come back and discuss and see what are the options, I think we have always to consider that approach, but there is no compromise in terms of our values. So I think we can also arrive to a better, because in fact all these movements, these terrorist groups are imposed on Africa, they are not born in Africa. And what we need is the same mobilization of the international community as they did in Iraq and Syria. If you have the same engagement, the same development, because today Amisom is combating without even enablers, without force multipliers, and without even our troops are not paid, the level, the UN in the same town are paid. So I think these are challenges on which we need real engagement and genuine engagement of the international community. Thank you, Commissioner. I'm also looking forward later on to President Museveni's perspective on this. But first, to the first female president of Ethiopia, I was going back to your inaugural address where you said while peacekeeping is seen as a male domain, this needs to change through ensuring women's equal participation. How much difference do you think it will have on peace and reconciliation to also inject women in this and have ownership among 50% of the African population that is women? A big difference. Indeed a very big change they can bring. But first of all, I'm very happy to be at this World Economic Forum for the first time. I'm also really enjoying and I'm happy to participate in this very pertinent topic. Women have to be part of, you know, our quest to peace. It has been said for so long why they are the victims, they are those who have suffered most women and kids and children. And then are we expecting to have a solution that will be sustainable, that would be encompassing the whole society if the very victims are not associated? Women should not be portrayed as victims anymore. They are also, they should be part of the solution. And we have seen it in cases where they have been at the table, things have moved better. And I think we should remind everybody that there is a collective decision, Resolution 1325, which asks women to be part of the solution. So this is something that has not trickled down. We have to really process it. We have to really make it happen at any level. I truly believe, and I will go even further, please let's have more women and test it because I think it will work to have women leaders, to have women at those tables. Most of the time, some of the, I mean, quest for peace, the image, the figurehead that we see are women. But when we go to sharing power, they totally disappear. So we have to be very careful of that. And I think at this time and age where we are now, we have to be serious on this issue. So I say without conviction that this can make a difference. Thank you Madam President. Just a follow-up question related to Ethiopian Eritrea last year. This historic breakthrough and peace agreement was made. And no one really had expected this. It has been a conflict going on for decades. Who could this change almost overnight? Is it the illustration that sometimes a change in leadership can also make to this kind of changes in policy? Or was it already so ripe that it was a low-hanging fruit? And is it sustainable? Is it the real difference now? Because I also lately seen that there's been some, the border has been closed again. But if you can share a short perspective on this. Yes. Thank you. Any normalization or, you know, peace agreements and so on is based on a national interest, obviously. So for Ethiopia, the first thing to do was to really normalize and bring this no peace situation to a normal situation where we can handle between two neighboring countries. So that was the thing. But to answer to the question, yes, it requires a different way at looking at things, a different length on how you see things. So that was happened in Ethiopia. The change in Ethiopia has normalization with Eritrea. And it's a normalization. It's a relationship between two neighboring countries, like with any other, with ups and downs. We are trying to really institutionalize this relationship as we do with other neighbors. So we might have some problems, but I think this is going to be solved through times. But the one thing which is very important that we have to take away from this normalization between our two countries is that now, in this time and age, when we have this agenda in 2016, the commissioner has been very eloquent on that, we cannot have neighboring countries harboring our groups or opposition parties or opposition movements. We have to allow to open the political space in our own countries so that they come and exercise their rights wherever they are. So I think that would change the realities that we have seen on the continent, but which is really decreasing to my view under our control, but this is what should be done. Thank you. And I'll turn to President Museveni. You have vast experience as a leader, and also you have seen a lot of conflicts coming and going. You also have taken a lot of responsibility and paying quite a high price also in Uganda as the country in Africa that has received most refugees, 1.4 million people, refugees are now based in Uganda, according to UNHCR. Mr. President, based on your experience and what you have seen, how can we in the future better avoid conflicts like we have seen in Sotsudan, between Ethiopia, Eritrea, the unfolding of the situation in Somalia, but also difficulties in DRC and etc. What can we do to make sure that this doesn't happen again in the future? What can be done is to understand the causes of these conflicts. With war, generally, there are what we call just wars and just wars. In 1952 and 1994, you could characterize some of the wars in Africa as just wars, who are just wars. The wars which we are dealing with now, the ideological problem of emphasizing identity or religion, like in some of the places. So that is an ideological mistake to emphasize a pseudo or like in the Middle East, Shia, Sunni or like in some of the areas, tribes, because what does a modern person want? A modern person needs, does it come from belonging to the same tribe, or does it come from sharing my good or my service and services? Then who can buy my products? Most of the time you'll find that one who can buy your products is actually not a member of your tribe, the other group, different from mine. So when you emphasize identity, at the expense of interests, of progress. So when you talk about these wars, I don't know many people here talk about the ideological problem, but it cannot be anything else. Now, but however, also you must avoid pessimism in Namibia, the war against the use of decolonization, because what was causing those wars at that time was decolonization. So now where we have, now finally, on the issue of, you asked the question about the Taliban and all that, these groups must be ideologically not just sorted out what are the interests of society, the positive interests, and what do you represent so that in the first place, what were you fighting for? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you when it comes to more ideological warfare, but you also mentioned tribal warfare where the tribes don't see that really they're in the same boat. So Sudan. They got their succession from Sudan, so now it's mainly a Christian country, different tribes, a size of France. And that's how we're able to gain the upper hand in terms of thinking, to have a majority of the people looking at how will I get a job, where will I sell my products, to look at interests rather than identity. So Uganda was like that, it's not just South Sudan, what was the problem in Nigeria, Biafra? That was the problem. Even now, when you talk about Boko Haram, what is the problem? In Congo, the Katanga, the Session and all that. So even Sudan, the problem was identity, first of all race, people will say they are Arabs and others African, then Muslim, Christian, now tribes, because identity goes on descending. You go from race, you go to religion, you go to tribe, you go to clan. If you say identity, there is no end. In the end, you end up with families. So that's why we must challenge the defective ideology of emphasizing identity. That must be challenged and banished, but that's where the problem is coming from. So it's just South Sudan, it is in many places. If you don't challenge it, it will be a problem. Thank you. Susanna Marhad, you're the chair of OSD DAC. This is really one of the foremost think tanks when it comes to development. What does it take to move from being poor to become a country? President Museveni was also mentioning this importance of prosperity, and we know from peace and reconciliation that to make these agreements also strong, people have to see that there is a peace dividend. And how much of a focus do the donor countries have on this? And also, we see that many of the conflicts that we are faced with are protracted crisis. They've been going on for decades after decades, for example, Somalia, and we're still there with a huge amount of humanitarian assistance, food and all this. How does the humanitarians work with the development agencies? Isn't there a better way to work together so we can see more prosperity coming out of this? Yes, and thank you very much for inviting me on this panel. I think the short answer is we are doing better to support fragile and conflict affected states. There's about $80 billion a year of official development assistance that goes to them, but we still have a long way to go to improve our performance. These are, as we've heard, extremely complex contexts within which to work. There is no one-size-fits-all model, and it's where development and humanitarian assistance and critically politics intersect. One thing that the Development Assistance Committee has agreed to do is to join up humanitarian interventions with development interventions much more systematically and to hold each other to account for doing that. So to break down those silos that you so often see, and as you pointed out, sadly, with long-term conflicts, humanitarian crises become structural development crises. So this is essential. Conflict prevention, we're not very good at it. We spend a mere 2% of official development assistance on conflict prevention and need to do far, far more. There's overwhelming evidence to show that if you intervene to prevent a conflict or to stop a fragile state from becoming a failed state, it is much, much more cost-effective in terms of human suffering, but also in terms of pure economics and money. And we really can't afford, as the international community, not to come in behind fragile states. So we mustn't lose our nerve. We have to rely on the good offices of regional organizations, the African Union, presidents and leaders who are prepared to roll their sleeves up and do the hard work of conflict prevention, but we have to come in behind them. I think that the final point I would make is the criticality of economic integration and employment. I mean, the number of speakers have talked about youth radicalization. Unless, collectively, we can provide decent work for Africa's youth, then it's going to be very hard to see how we can really have a stable continent. And just the example of Ethiopia and Eritrea, when those two countries work together, there are economic benefits on both sides of the border and the case for conflict and fighting is reduced by the people. The Continental Free Trade Agreement of the African Union will be transformative when that happens. And finally, I would strongly support what President Salawak has said about engaging women. Again, women, when they work on peace agreements, mean those agreements are more likely to last 15 years or more. So it has to be the whole of society that comes behind conflict prevention and peacemaking. Has it been a problem that on some of these peace agreements there's been a very small group sitting in the room agreeing on something and signing a document, and the ownership has not been there? Have you learned from this, and are we approaching this differently in Africa today? Or is it still in a closed smoky room? I think we are learning from it. I mean, I think I would defer to African political leaders on that one. What we as donors have to do is to come in behind those multi-stakeholder agreements and put the resources in to help build the peace and to finance building the peace. Thank you. I turn to Zippo Petiana, the chairman of Anglo-Gold Chante. I looked at your annual report. It's a very good and interesting report, and there you say that number one risk now is political and country risk profile in core production areas of your company. So I'm also wondering if you could share some of these perspectives, but also with your vast background, also from government and foreign relations, where do you see the business sector can play a positive role in pushing and supporting peace and reconciliation processes? Well, first of all, I'd like to acknowledge our leaders, two presidents here. It's good to be part of this exchange, and my fellow panelists, it's so important that business is being brought in these conversations more and more because it's a very critical player in this very important issue. The first point I would like to make is that is one that has already been made in a way that we need to look at sustainable peace and post-conflict peace arrangement anchored around socioeconomic development as a sustainable project, and therein as business, we think that we can play a very important role. Part of that is that business must conduct itself honestly with integrity and in an ethical way so that its trust levels in communities, not just with governments that happen to be in power at a particular time, go a long way so that when there are changes of government, business continues to be a partner irrespective of what the ideological disposition of a party that in power is. That means not doing corrupt deals and not taking bribes and not looking for short-term dividend by extracting and dashing off. So a more developmental business, particularly multinational involvement that is looking at sustainability approach is absolutely critical. We should look at business arrangements, particularly with big business, that seeks to leverage the involvement of big business to create a multiply effect in those economies so that long after they would have exited those economies, business continues to thrive. I'll give an example in a number of countries. We as Anglo-Goldershandi were trying to push very hard for an approach to mining that recognises artisanal small-scale miners. Big multinational mining companies enter these territories and extract mines, finding smaller players in place, and when they leave, they leave them there. So we must have an empowering relationship that enables them to continue mining, sustainably safely taking care of the environment and also giving you regard to decent work and labour standards. So we're looking for those kinds of partnerships. They require that governments provide regulation. But one of the critical things about that is that they enable us to isolate illegal miners who more often than not get involved in syndicated international crime, fuel conflicts and sponsor wars in different countries. So it's very critical that we find a way to partner around this. The second one is that in DRC, we are involved with our partners in Barrick, where we have invested in infrastructure like electricity generation. We only use 10% of that electricity, but in fact, 90% of it has powered the surrounds and has created opportunities for sustainable small and medium enterprises. So our approach is that entrepreneurship creates opportunities for inclusive involvement and sustainable growth. And secondly, it creates jobs and prospects for decent jobs to have combatants that are being demobilized from wars to get involved in sustainably active economic activity and also employment of those and young people. So those are some of the interventions that we're looking at. And I think that the benefits that accrue from this are absolutely critical. So if business takes this kind of approach and there's a partnership with governments and with the African Union, we can begin to look at prospects where businesses don't get displaced with the change of regimes because even that continues, contributes to destabilization of countries because economic development is a critical component in sustaining post-conflict peace arrangements. Thank you. So if I understand you're right, you are still going to invest in Africa moving forward as a company. Well, 50% of our investment is in African continent and we believe that Africa is a good place to invest in. We have differences with government. We have opportunities to engage and work close to with them in different territories and various jurisdictions. We listen and we think that we have crafted ways of partnerships that are specific to circumstances of various countries. One of the key things that governments are demanding, some of which is in the agenda 2063, is that our involvement in different economies must be empowering. They must create opportunities for participation and growth and partnerships of locals, skilling of locals, creating opportunities beyond. This debate here is about fourth industrial revolution. Multinational companies in African countries must understand that they are in places which are about development. Must create opportunities beyond our immediate needs, for instance, to allow for education and skills development through distance e-learning programs that accesses world-class institutions in other parts of the world. Thank you, sir. I see there is a lot of heads nodding here. We should have continued this panel for another half an hour. At least I would have liked this because we are so privileged with so much insight. We unfortunately only have three minutes left. So I would like then to turn to the two presidents. If it's okay at the end, I'll start with Madam President and then go to President Nussevin. I know that you would like to comment. But if the two of you in one and a half minutes at the end also could share with us what are you most optimistic about moving forward for Africa when it comes to peace and reconciliation? And what keeps you up at night in one and a half minute? That's an easy task for two so able presidents. I don't know for that. But thank you very much. In my case, I mean, I think we have to be optimistic. For me, as it has been said earlier with the decrease of number of conflicts and so on, it shows that some of our major issues which has been there for quite some time, keeping us busy, is decreasing. That's a very good sign. But I wanted to really say that we have agreed on agenda 2063 with SDGs and so on. When we start with SDGs, which are coming much sooner, is the fact that the goals are interrelated. There is no situation where we'll have 100% peace for development to start. We have to know that development will contribute in bringing peace as well. So we are interrelated. We have to come out from this silo mentality when we think that peace is in one corner and development on the other. I think the fate of everybody is interlinked and we really need to encourage that. And for partners really to see, in a case where I have been in the Central African Republic, a DDR couldn't move because there was no agreement in financing host community, which would be the basis for combatants to go back. So we really need to join our efforts and to understand, to have a common goal and move on. So peace and development are really very much interrelated. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. President Museveni, you will have the honor to close the panel. Well, as a business, the business can play a very crucial role in changing the polarization in society from being vertical because that's what it is now. When you have got a pre-capitalist society, a society, traditional society, you have tribe A here, tribe B here. The cleavage is vertical. When you have business, when there is social transformation, society changes. You have got a big middle class, then the structure of society changes. You have employers and employees. Now issues become different. The arguments are no longer my tribe, your tribe, the arguments are now. I want more salary. I want more less working days. So the polarization now becomes horizontal, the employer, employee. So the business should be clear about this, that they can contribute because by investing, creating jobs, getting people from the tribal areas to the factories and to the companies, it is part of durable peace building. There must be social economic transformation. You cannot maintain a pre-capitalist structure of society and you think that you will have peace. It is not possible. That's what happened in Europe because if you go to Europe, even to the time of the French Revolution, 1789, what was the structure of the society? What was the structure of the society by the time of the Renaissance? There was a metamorphosis of society. It changed. That's what must happen here. You must have social metamorphosis. You must have a middle class. A middle class is more cosmopolitan than the tribes. The tribes are parochial. They are just looking at your area because you don't have interests beyond your village. You are looking after gods. Gods only need one hill. But if I'm producing motorcycles, then I need the whole of East Africa to sell my motorcycles. So business can be the transformative engine of peace after. Thank you so much. I think that was a very nice note to end on with prosperity. Peace also follows. When people strive for an income, education for their children, they will also be more horizontal in their thinking and not vertical in their thinking. That is a way of working towards peace and also silencing the guns, like the African Union has stated. I would like to thank this excellent panel for their insight. I learned a lot and I think also the participants feel the same. Thank you so much.