 Good afternoon and welcome to our lunchtime event. And good afternoon to those joining us on live webcam. Thank you very much for your participation this morning. We are very, very honored and pleased to have as our lunchtime speaker the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Susan D. Page. Ms. Page has responsibility for that part of Africa that constitutes the DRC and its neighbors. She is a hover-trained lawyer with over 22 years of experience in and in and around African issues. She has been a political officer, a legal advisor and a diplomat with the U.S. State Department, U.S. AID and the United Nations. So you would see that quite apart from her current position, her experience would lend itself very, very readily to a lot of the issues that we discussed this morning. I'm sure that she's particularly well placed to tackle some of the more phony questions that we were grappling with. She's focused on African issues, not just at the State Department, but also while she was regional director for Southern and Eastern Africa as the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs here in Washington, D.C. From 2002 to 2005, she served as legal advisor to EGAD as part of the M. Sudan peace agreement for the State Department. Her bio is available outside, so I would not read through it, but all I could say is that at a meeting like this, where what we want is depth, detail and flexibility, I don't think we can do any better than someone with Miss Page's background, her experience and her passion for the African continent. We will start with her making some remarks that would give you some idea of U.S. DRC policy and her thoughts on the way forward, and then we would open it to Q&A. And so without much ado and taking up more time, join me in welcoming Miss Page for the podium. Okay, thank you all very much. I apologize, I've got a bit of a cold and so my voice is a little squeaky today. This was a really nice lunch. I was expecting to see some pondu, but well, we have to accept what we had. So I have a very strong fondness for Eastern Central Africa, especially DRC and have spent time in the region, so I'm really pleased to be here with you today. Let me just talk to you a little bit about the Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Johnny Carson's recent trip to DR Congo. He was just in DRC from April 14th through 19th and held productive meetings with Congolese and UN officials, other diplomats and representatives of civil society, NGOs and the media. He met with Joseph Kabila for two hours on April 16th. President Kabila, as you probably all know, does not meet very often with many foreign visitors, and Johnny Carson was the highest-ranking U.S. official to see him since Secretary Clinton met him in Goma in last August. It was a good opportunity for the two of them to take stock of how the situation has evolved since then. Can you all hear me okay? Sorry. First and foremost on both of their minds was the upcoming mandate renewal for the UN mission in the DRC or MONIC, as the current mandate will expire at the end of this month. It has been widely reported that President Kabila and others in his government would like some MONIC troops to depart by June 30th when the DRC, as all of you know, will mark its 50th anniversary of independence. And then he hopes for the remainder to leave by August of 2011. Assistant Secretary Carson expressed our grave concern about the dangerous security vacuum that would result if MONIC were compelled to draw down or withdraw based on an arbitrary date rather than on the situation on the ground. MONIC plays a critical role in the protection of civilians and the DRC's security forces require greater capacity and reform to take over this responsibility. MONIC's departure prior to the development of the Congolese security forces' capacity risks triggering broader insecurity that could spill beyond the DRC's borders and jeopardize hard-won improvements in stability in Central and Eastern Africa. The Congolese military or the FARDIC, the police, the PNC, and other security services unfortunately are more renowned for abusing people than for protecting them as we have thoroughly documented in our annual Human Rights Reports over the past several years. Only long-term comprehensive reform of these institutions with an integrated focus on the protection of human rights will result in security forces the DRC and its people can be proud of and trust rather than fear. President Kabila was receptive to these points and, in fact, has already undertaken some important first steps in the right direction through his announced zero-tolerance policies for both SGBV and corruption. Although we would like to see stronger implementation, as well as his personal support for USG-funded and implemented programs to train a light-inventory battalion in Kisangani, that training is beginning to instill in the FARDIC a sense of professional responsibility and a respect for human rights. Assistant Secretary Carson also went up to Kisangani. He met the local FARDIC commander, observed our training program, and held discussions with members of the public who were wary about our intentions. We have no delusions that this is anything less than a steep uphill climb and that our light-inventory battalion training is only one small part of a much larger long-term security sector reform process, but we are coordinating closely with our international partners, as well as with President Kabila and his government, and we do believe that our combined efforts have begun to make important progress. However, military reform alone will not solve Congo's ills. Soldiers are not the only ones who commit rape and other human rights abuses, even if they are the most visible and the most widely discussed. There is a fundamental lack of accountability for the perpetrators of these abuses. The Congolese justice system is broken. It does not have adequate personnel or resources, including necessary technological capabilities to conduct appropriate investigations and follow through with effective prosecution in fair trials. Although there are exceptions, corruption and political interference further undermine the process, as the accused are either protected by the military or political godfathers, or they bribe the police, judges or prison officials to avoid being held accountable for their crimes. It is no coincidence that the three issues I just touched on, sexual and gender-based violence, security sector reform and corruption, were three of the five themes identified by the Secretary and President Kabila when they last met, last summer in Goma, as areas on which our two governments could and should engage in closer cooperation. Just so you know, the other two were economic governance and agricultural growth and food security. We have talked previously about the five assessment teams we deployed to the DRC between December 2009 and February 2010, one in each of these five thematic areas, with significant support from the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization at the State Department and drawing on the expertise of participants from several U.S. government agencies. These teams conducted two-week visits, during which they met with a wide variety of stakeholders in their respective subject areas and drafted reports with a combined 200 recommendations for greater U.S. Congolese cooperation. We have carefully reviewed these and presented the DRC government a short list that we believe we can pursue to achieve short term but important results beginning now. It is important to understand that the deployment of these teams fit well into our overall approach and strategy on DRC, where our top goals are the establishment of peace and security in the East, the creation of more effective DRC government institutions, and economic growth and poverty alleviation. Let me take a moment here to note in particular two issues that the assessment teams looked at and that I believe are of specific interest to many of you. Sexual gender-based violence, or SGBV, and conflict minerals. On SGBV, let me start by repeating what Secretary Clinton has often said. Women's rights and women's issues cannot be an afterthought in our foreign policy. They must factor centrally in how we look at the world. We have made women a cornerstone of our foreign policy, not only because we think it's the right thing to do, but also because it's the smart thing to do. We have consistently called for respect of women's rights and increased participation of women in conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction efforts as both women's protection and participation are linked to maintaining international peace and security. As the Secretary has pointed out, sexual violence harms not merely single individuals, but it also shreds the fabric that weaves us together as human beings. There are few places in the world where the status and plight of women need greater or more urgent attention than in the DRC, where sexual violence has become frighteningly commonplace. The Assistant Secretary's recent visit to the Congo overlapped with that of U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's newly appointed special representative for sexual violence and armed conflict, Margo Walsstrom. Secretary Clinton had presided over the Security Council session last September at which the resolution creating SRSG Walsstrom's position was adopted, and we were particularly pleased to see that she had chosen the DRC as one of the first countries on her agenda. She and the Assistant Secretary had the opportunity to discuss SGBV, its causes and ramifications, issues he has also discussed with the Congolese Minister of Gender and numerous NGO representatives. They were all in agreement about the need to do more on all key aspects of this issue. Prevention of violence, including through education of both boys and girls from an early age, care and treatment for survivors, and prosecution of those guilty of these horrific crimes. The United States has been working assiduously on all of these, and we will continue to do so. Regarding conflict minerals in the Eastern DRC, over the past year and a half, the administration has expanded significant effort on this issue and all its complexities. Together with the DRC government, neighboring states and the international community, we are working to stem the illegal exploitation of and trade in Congolese minerals. Profits from their sale have been used for years to finance both Congolese and foreign armed groups operating in the DRC. Mining sites, communities and trade routes are rife with human rights abuses, including killings, rape, exploitative child labor, debt bondage and forced prostitution. At roadblocks along trade routes, armed individuals and groups engage in rent seeking, extracting so-called taxes from traders, including legitimate traders, and thus lessening the miners and traders' income. And because minerals are leaving the country via unofficial routes and methods, the DRC is precluded from collecting legal taxes and duties that the faltering Congolese economy could certainly use. To try to address the minerals issues more holistically, we have put together a strategic action plan for conflict minerals in the Eastern DRC, which the Secretary approved on March 22nd. This plan includes short, medium and long-term diplomatic and programmatic approaches. And later today, we will participate in a meeting with representatives of the U.S. industry to encourage them to ensure that their supply chains promote legitimate minerals trade and are free from conflict minerals. We are also working at the OECD on multilateral guidance for due diligence. Our attention to this issue is by no means new, however. As long ago as January of 2009, we were participating in a task force within the Great Lakes Contact Group that had been established to examine these issues. Moreover, both the Congolese government itself through the establishment of official trading centers and the regional states via the mechanism of the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region are likewise looking to find lasting solutions. I'd like to just touch briefly on the Congolese political situation. During the Assistant Secretary's meeting with President Kabila, he stressed to him the importance and urgency of organizing and holding elections. There are two different sets of elections on the horizon, local and national. The local elections scheduled for 2008 have been repeatedly postponed. The DRC government recently announced that the local elections will now occur in two phases. In 2012 and in 2013. It is regrettable that the Congolese people who have already waited so long to have a more direct voice in local affairs will have to await another two to three years, but we will continue to encourage the Congolese government to abide by this latest schedule. Regarding national polls, which will include elections for the national parliament and for president, these are now slated for September 2011. President Kabila is constitutionally eligible to run for a second five-year term, having been elected in 2006, and we believe he will almost certainly run. The government has made a commitment that all upcoming elections will be free, democratic, and transparent, which we welcome. But they will also be expensive and logistically difficult in such a large country as the DRC with so little infrastructure. There is no question that they will not be able to occur without significant international support. That was true in 2006 and it will be true again next year. While we continue to look ahead towards elections, we are also reminded of the ongoing humanitarian crises in many parts of the DRC. In North and South Kivu, despite some progress, armed conflict and widespread inability remain a regrettable fact of life for many Congolese citizens. The continuing presence of the FDLR, or the Fort Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, remains a key factor in that instability. As the FDLR, the weakened over the past year, continues to prey on the local population and exploit Congolese natural resources for financial gain. In northeastern DRC, in the Oileile territory of Oriental province, the LRA continues to prey on civilian populations, destabilizing large areas of the country and causing extensive civilian displacement, despite the relatively small numbers of fighters that remain in LRA ranks. Further west, the government and Monoc have responded to a new rebellion in Equatoria province where violent conflict has forced 200,000 Congolese from their homes, including to the neighboring Republic of Congo. Addressing root causes of conflict in these areas and responding to the vast humanitarian need has remained an imperative of our efforts in the DRC, but we know that much work remains to be done. I thank you very much for this opportunity to speak to you, and I'm happy to take some questions if you all have any. I can take questions in French, I just had prepared my statement in English though, so feel free. Thank you very much for that comprehensive overview, very informative. I'll open the floor for questions, and please introduce yourself. Introduce yourself, and I'd really appeal to you to make your questions short and direct. If your topic has already been covered, there's no need to go over again. We'll start on this side and take three questions, then go that side, take three questions, and then this side and take three questions, and I believe by that time half an hour should be over. We'll start with the lady at the back. Thank you. Is this on? Okay. My name is Sarantraure with the Friends of Congo, and for the past three days with different conferences addressing the issue of Congo, all the presentations that I have heard from the State Department puts me at a point of thinking that it's still observing, and although that's understandable and in a safe mode, I am still baffled by the fact that we have seen what caution has caused in the U.S. taking its time to intervene in situations such as the Congo. And on countless accounts, we have seen the U.S. actually omit accountability from foreign powers or foreign governments in the Congo, and before any pressure can be put on a government, before they can start cleaning house, it's also important to take out external factors. And I guess my question is, although analytically, it's understandable as to why the State Department is taking its time to cover all bases, can we really afford that? And all that we want is some kind of engagement, political engagement actually from the administration. An example in Guinea-Conakry, which is actually my country, after last September's event, the U.S. was swift in putting political sanctions in a country. The Congo has, although the situation is bad there, it's not as bad as in a Congo, but we still see this caution, and we just want to know when there's going to be any action taken by the State Department. Thank you. Another question from the gentleman in the tan suit. Thank you very much. My name is Borenda Babula. I'm from DRC. I'm currently living in Hawaii. I'm a political scientist. I have heard about your presentation, which I say thank you very much again. Could you use a microphone? A very good one. But my big question is this. Before I can give my question, I'm going to say one thing which I learned here. Being more Americanized because I have been formed here, I have been educated here, having done my military studies in this country, my colleagues, I know they say, Americans for them give me peace or give me death. And this, I take it deep in my heart, it has been a motto for me. What you said, ma'am, you highlighted some problems that brings the political turmoil in Congo. And beyond that, again, you said, no, Kabila is eligible for the next mandate. Which sounds to be contradictory as a political scientist? Why Congo is a failed state? That means if Kabila succeeds, Congo will remain a failed state and America will help Congo to remain a failed state. Could you ask a question, please? Excuse me. Yeah, I'm going ahead. But we don't have much time. That means it will remain a failed state. Are you going to bring this help to Congo to continue with the situation in Congo? As a man, who knows the situation that's going in Congo? As a man, who knows how Congolese are really running out from this country? I can summarize like that to give us opportunity to talk. Thank you. I have a third one from... Merci beaucoup, madame. Merci beaucoup pour madame Dépas, pour son exposé, mais qui suscite encore des appréhensions de notre part. Thank you very much for your... I won't do it further. Sorry. Thank you very much for your... Thank you. Thank you very much for your speech. Mais ça suscite beaucoup de peur et de qui étude de notre part. Yeah, it creates so many fear on our side. Parce que vous reconnaissez tous les tableaux comme il l'a dit de celle que M. Kabila a fait. You recognize all the facts of what is going on there and what Kabila has done. Et dernièrement, il y a eu un sous-secrétaire qui était au Congo. And recently, a sous-secrétaire he went to the Congo. Et quand il a parlé de problèmes du Congo, il n'a cité que l'Uganda comme responsable de ce qui s'est passé au Congo et pas aimant sur l'Uganda. He spoke about Ugana's responsibility, but no words about the Ugana's responsibility. Vous avez parlé de la situation au Congo que nous connaissons tous. Tous les services de sécurité You spoke about the situation of the Congo that we all know that all intelligence and secret service are working for Kabila. All the police services are also working for Kabila. How can you think or even believe in the transfer of elections in such conditions? Okay, well, we've had three questions and given opportunities to respond. Okay, thank you very much for your questions and for listening too carefully to what I had to say. I guess I'd like to say that I think that we are not on the sidelines and just observing the situation going slowly. We are one of the biggest contributors to Monuq. Monuq is obviously an international force that has been put into Congo. It's been there since 1999, I think. And one of the reasons that we don't want it to leave precipitously is because all of these situations on the ground... I'm sorry, I'm not giving you a chance to... No, he's okay. One of the reasons that we don't want to precipitous drawdown is because the circumstances really are not right on the ground, not just necessarily for free and fair elections, but the security situation is not stable. I think in terms of asking, are we just keeping Kabila in power because the elections in 2006 were judged free and fair? I'm not going to pretend that everything was perfect, that nobody came out and said they were perfect elections. I mean, our own elections are not perfect, so I don't want to hold people to a standard that is impossible to obtain. But nonetheless, he was elected. I'm stating what I think is the case, not what I hope to be the case, which is that we do believe that he will decide to run again. So under the Constitution, he's eligible to run. That's not our call about whether he decides to run in the next elections. And we don't support any candidate for elections anywhere in the world. We support a process of democracy and governance. So that's what we would be after in any elections that would take place. I guess lastly, I would just say in terms of process, I think that we do have to say the reality about what's on the ground. And one of the biggest problems in conflict minerals are the neighboring states, and it's not just Uganda. It is Rwanda as well. And that has to be addressed. So whatever public announcements or pronouncements might be made, it doesn't take away from the fact that we know that neighboring states are involved. I lived in Rwanda. I was political officer at the embassy in Kigali during the three Kisengani uprisings, wars. These were interventions by neighboring states. I mean, this was a proxy war fought in the DRC by neighboring states. So I don't think that people are not aware of what's going on, but diplomatically there are things that are said publicly and things that are not said publicly. That's maybe not a great answer, but I think that's the reality. Before the next set of questions, there was a question from webcast people this morning about what do we think could be practically done about the Rwanda issue with the V's Congo. Are there practical steps that the United States could either initiate a champion in collaboration with both regional and international affairs? Do you have any thoughts on that, or is that something that has to both rule the international peace-making process with itself? Well, I think there are a couple of things that we could do. I mean, I think it's really helpful to have advocacy groups that keep us on our toes and keep us fighting for the good fight. But at the same time, sometimes the advocacy groups make our jobs much harder. And Rwanda has a very good lobby of people who are extremely supportive of all the actions that Rwanda takes. So we have to be honest and realistic about what can be accomplished. And just like in DRC, in Uganda, in Rwanda, if there's no will on the part of the political leaders to do something about the problems, you know, you're really just fighting an uphill battle. So I think for us as diplomats, a big part of the job is trying to convince the political leaders that it's in their interest to do something about whether it's smuggling, whether it's human rights, all of these issues, because what happens in one country can just as easily spill over and the next country will be, they'll be dealing with the same issue in their own territory. So that's sort of what we're up against and trying to, again, convince leaders that it's actually in their interests. But, you know, at the same time, we have to be realistic about our own interests. We want the coltan that goes into our mobile phones and our computer chips, just as much as the Rwandans and the Ugandans and, you know, it's a worldwide problem. So we're all feeding into this and to just simply say it's a problem of the Ugandans or the Rwandans is really a bit unfair. Thank you. We'll have three questions on this side and again, please make your questions as brief as possible. We'll start with the lady right in front. I can't say I'm the voice of the Congolese women here. I'm the focal point of the Congolese women in New York and I'm the UN as well and I have been trying to raise awareness about what is going on with the women, the situation in the Congo and the sexual violence and so on. But what's stuck with me is that nobody raised the problem of impunity. It was in my notes. It's one of the things I did mention. Yeah, but it's just like a light. There is no debate about that because everybody is involved and until they raise the top tackle on that situation, it will never end. And this rape has been used as a weapon of war and there are 100,000 of women in Congo who have been raped and who will be accountable? Who is accountable for that? Not only the Congolese militia, but everybody knows that it's the proxy militia and their hand behind that. So that is one thing. Another thing is the silence at the media level here. Now we are talking about mineral conflict and we will not see the root cause of those conflicts and the rape and the displacement of all the population in the Congo. Nobody will talk about it. Nobody will solve the problem unless everybody is involved. And the media as well. Thank you. The lady to your left. Thanks a lot for your talk. My name is Marie-Anne Bunga. I'm a graduate student at Harvard Kennedy School and also a founder of the Congo Initiative at Harvard this year, 2009, 2010. I think I have a sequel to this question and one or two more. Regarding the gender-based violence, the way that it's depicted is a little bit as if gender-based violence in the Congo are done in a vacuum or really only by Congolese. And this is really a problem of the description of these issues because we have to take into account the other factors and I really here strongly support what Mrs. Chefu has said. How can we put that also in order to have more justice not only on the Congolese side, but also on the different other actors that are involved in the Congo regarding to this issue. This is especially that when you talk about having the boys and girls educated in the Congo, I'm a little bit, you know, because having grown up and as a Congolese, it's only like the last 10 years or the last 15 years that we hear about that. So if it were so much a problem of Congolese violence or Congolese, I don't know, sexual abuse, we would have heard that for the longest time. So this has to be really put into the context of the war and the exploitation that is happening in the Congo today. The second question and the second point is regarding the army. We are talking about the training of the army, but which kind of army do we have? We know that we have the brassage. We know that we have the imposition of different militias in the army. So which kind of Congolese army are we talking about? It's not the same one. It's not because we're using the same name of Congolese army that the members of this Congolese army are the same ones. So we have to take that into account as well. And until when are we going to continue this integration of human rights abuses? If we put the CNDP and we put them there, how do we human rights abuses? How do we want them to be professional army the next day? And it's repeated that this may be really the case that for the Congo we don't have enough attention and enough attention specifically from the American audience. So we have a problem there when you say that the advocacy group can be a problem, but at the same time it seems that if we don't have more advocacy and we don't have more voices for the Congo as we're trying to do with the Congo initiative at Harvard, it seems that nothing will be done the way that it could really push the envelope for the Congo. So what will be the solution then for that? Thank you. I think two excellent questions. Or five. Well, two excellent questionnaires. Okay. Thank you very much for the questions. Let me just talk a little bit about impunity. I mean, I think I'm a lawyer myself, so I think a big part of the problem really in DRC in so many countries, not just the DRC, is because there is no rule of law and the systems have broken down. And that's a problem not just with respect to sexual and gender-based violence, but all of this continues because no one is held accountable. And so from my perspective, when we talk about conflict minerals, if you don't have a system of justice put in place, you can have all these regimes in place for conflict minerals, but if nobody is ever held accountable for whether it's exploited outside of the country or whether they've displaced people from their land in order to get at the minerals, you don't resolve the problem. You just sort of push it elsewhere. So I agree completely. I mean, we don't have all of the answers. I guess that goes to the advocacy question. If you heard what I said, I said I think it's important what the advocacy groups are doing, not just on Congo. It's a lot of issues lately, Sudan, Congo, and certain other issues. I think it's important because they do keep us on our toes. They help us, they inform us, they help us to stay honest about what we're doing. That's important, but sometimes they get it wrong. And focusing on conflict minerals I don't think gets at the gender-based violence, for instance. It's one aspect of it, but it's not the whole reason. And that's because you've got a whole culture that has grown up with war for 16 years since the genocide in Rwanda spilled over in Ticongo. And I mean, all of these issues have to be dealt with, but that's part of what getting at the impunity is all about. And if you can't build up a good justice system, that's my mind, that's what has to happen. So, you know, it's not up just to Americans. I mean, you guys are Congolese and other, you know, other foreigners as well. I think it helps to have everybody working towards, you know, towards a goal and an objective. And that's why I think the advocacy is really quite critical. Let me just mention, lastly, about the army. I think most of you know, as students of history, we saw how Mobutu used the army and the various services of the military and the security forces over time. And unfortunately, we see this played out. It's as if rulers seem to have the same book that they all follow. And so I think we do have to be careful. One of the problems with training of military is that lots of different governments are involved in training battalion. So already, sorry, you know, different countries have different definitions of the size of a battalion, let alone what the military theme should be and what good training is all about. So I think one way to do this is by cooperating with other foreign governments that are doing the training so we're not all stepping all on each other's toes. And that's a problem in Congo because everyone has an interest for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily for the good of the Congolese people. Thank you. We have just a little over 10 minutes. So we'll try and take three questions on this side and please make them as brief as possible. I think I'll start with people from the gentleman in the middle who hasn't spoken as yet. Micro. My name is Jacques Mosagasha. I'll thank you very much for your presentation. But I'll come back to the issue of justice because I believe that that's the main point. If we happen to solve that, then things can go forward. Now, when you were answering the questions that the two ladies have asked, you tried to show that it's because in Congo the justice is not well-equipped. But we know that the international community has a well-equipped justice system and they know who are those perpetrators or the crimes there, war crimes there. Why the international community never took the opportunity or the courage to bring those perpetrators who are known to justice so that it can send a message to the people who are here on the ground. Thank you. Thank you. Let's have the gentleman in the white shirt. Thank you. My first question is regarding the role at home of the State Department as part of the administration. I have seen that the American awareness about the issue in the Congo is really low. What can the State Department as part of the government can do to raise a little more people awareness? Mostly when I look at the Congo, the role that this country played for the United States in Africa, this is a country that was called the Congo CIA since 1960. The problem in the Congo right now is part of the consequences of this role as a police officer of the United States in Africa. The other question I have, it's about the Africa, as you just said, the training of multiple troops in each country playing its role. What can you promise to the Congolese people that this time they can expect that there will be something for the people from this Africa? It's not something that will be again as it was in the past just for power and politics and the people does not have any benefit from that. So maybe the last question would be just to Monique. What can the United States do to improve credibility of Monique because Monique has been involved in sex business, in mineral trafficking, in armed trafficking? What can the United States do to improve the role of Monique? And Monique has felt in a role of training the Congolese army because they just mixed troops from rebel to army but they did not train. Thank you. Two last brief questions from Kitenge and Demira. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Ambassador. Two quick, they're not questions, I should just comment. The first thing has to do with impunity and it's been talked about for quite some time now and it's just a matter of a comment. We know for example Boscon Taganda who is in the military structure today is a well-known war crime perpetrator. What would it take for someone like that to be put to justice so that an example is made of the fact that you can't just go around and kill people and then get away with it? The other area is the area of elections which are coming up sometime next year and I'm sure the U.S. Department of State is interested in making sure that those elections are fair and transparent. The problem is though that this current structure of the Sene is such that the person who is running Sene has the rank of a minister, of a secretary of an area. And as such, he answers to the government. As a minister, he answers to the government. How can a minister who is accountable to the president run a system that is fair and transparent? Thank you. Hi, I'm Amira Woods with the Institute for Policy Studies. Thank you so much for your presentation and for being here with your cold and all. I have an explicit question on the training. It's two parts. First, with regard to U.S. private military contractors and their role in the training, giving the scrutiny of these private military contractors in Iraq, the role of these unaccountable and often human rights violators in training in the Congo is the first question. The other question more explicitly is related as well but with regard to the Wall Street Journal article on State Department granting Lockheed Martin a contract to train prosecutors in Africa, in several countries, including Liberia, where I'm from, and the DR Congo. And with all your comments about the rule of law in particular, the role of a defense contractor, a private military contractor in training for key actors within a judicial system. I'd love for you to share with us the State Department's thinking on that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Excellent questions and thank you for the cough drop. See, my voice is coming back. On elections, on transparency, I think it's important what the State Department or the U.S. government has done around the world is to help governments structure their elections boards, whatever they're called in various countries, to in fact be transparent, to be independent. And a lot of that assistance in the past has come from organizations like IFIS. I confess that I'm not sure what will organizations like IFIS and IRI, NDI, and whatnot have played in the past. I mean, I know some, but I don't know to what extent they might have been involved in 2006 and where they may be in the coming elections. But that's one way that we do try to address some of these issues to really insist that, you know, to the extent we can. I mean, we're, you know, we can insist, but of course it's the sovereign government that will say we do what we want to do. But at least try to insist upon free and fair elections by starting with the top, which would be the National Elections Commission or whatnot. I'm going to go next to your question. I must admit I haven't seen that article, so thank you. I really don't know so much about the Lockheed Martin training of prosecutors. So I certainly wouldn't want to comment about that, you know, half of the State Department, but I just don't know where that's coming from. In terms of private militia, yeah. Should I tell you more? Because it's explicitly Lockheed Martin as the professor of engineers getting contracts. So these were formally grants, I suppose, where the American Bar Association and others played a role that are now being contracted out to a DE that is now a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin. So it's explicitly training prosecutors, and this was published about three weeks ago. Okay, sorry. Because we're always, you know, going around and speaking, we don't have a chance to read. Which brings me to the question about media. And I think it's really important that somebody raised the question about getting the word out what's happening in Africa, what's happening specifically in DRC, very low level of knowledge. And I think that is what you're seeing more today than at least in my adult life. I've never seen this kind of advocacy before where for good or ill you have private sector people, business people, you have actors and actresses really getting out there and stumping for a cause. You know, I don't think anything like that has really happened since the apartheid movement, the anti-apartheid movement. So I think that that's one of the things that has come out of the different advocacy groups that are out there. I mean, we have to remember unfortunately, although we happen to be in this room because we follow foreign affairs and African issues, that's not really what America is known for. So I think we, you know, we have to remember that in fact Americans know more about Sudan and Congo than they probably do and maybe South Africa. But that's pretty much it in terms of Africa. So, you know, they've never heard of any of these other countries. So I think the bar is actually pretty high vis-a-vis where we're coming from. And I say that to mention the fact that I was watching a law and order episode about a month ago. You saw it. Did you see it? It was the Congo one and it was talking about, I mean, it wasn't bad, but I mean it raised the issue. This is, you know, contemporary law and order show and a woman had gone out of her way to help a victim of rape or attempted rape in New York and it brought back all the memories that she had had because she had fled from DRC as a rape victim, forced marriage, et cetera. I mean, that's just, you know, even if it wasn't perfectly right and, you know, you could, but the fact that it's in a contemporary, daily, you know, program that people do watch, I think is pretty amazing. And that's just, that's one show, but I know that DRC and other places have been popularly shown now. I might say, just to talk about the advocacy piece, there is responsibility that we have as well as citizens. So I'm not sure I can absolve us. I've been labored in the Guard for a long time and many of us are tired. At the same time, the issues run inexorably on. And so the issues that are transcendent, that affect all of us, you know, we have to stay steadfast in that and we need more advocates out there to address all of these issues. I'm coming from the NPR Review Conference at the UN last week and I can tell you I greeted thousands of people and the number of people of color that are interested in the issue of abolition of nuclear weapons is poultry. It's still a big issue. We still need to be involved in that issue, but we're, we don't, it's something that we haven't embraced perhaps. It might be the fatigue factor or whatever, but I'm suggesting that, you know, we do have to push the touches. I'm surprised there are not more African-Americans meeting here today. I want to be, you know, aligned with this kind of issue, but, you know, there's something that, you know, many of us have to do. Maybe I can just wrap up. I know people would like to comment and I don't want to, you know, take you away from, I want to hear what you guys have to say as well. But maybe just lastly, one thing that I think the U.S. can do in terms of improving the role of MONUK and their credibility, responsibility, et cetera, is in the new mandate that's coming up for review at the end of this month, is to really strike hard. I mean, one of the problems has been that MONUK has been saturated with all kinds of responsibilities. It didn't start out that way. Every, you know, every single issue has been put on MONUK, MONUK will do this, MONUK will do that, MONUK will monitor elections, MONUK will, MONUK is not the answer. I mean, so part of it is responsibility as all of us as human beings, people who care about the issue, as citizens of DR Congo, as diaspora, et cetera. But what we can do is try to insist on a mandate that's realistic and achievable. So, I mean, that's one of the things that can be done. But part of that is also let's not just take a leader because this is not unique to Congo. You have in Chad, Debbie is also trying to get rid of Minnercat. Some of it is because realistically these peacekeeping missions have not done what they were supposed to do. And some of it is they feel it's an infringement on their sovereignty. You know, Kabila's sitting here thinking, wait a minute, peacekeepers were in my country at independence. But they were asked it. I mean, you know, we can't forget history that there are times when a country is asked for these mandates, these missions to come in because they are not able to protect their own people, their own populations. But again, I think that's something that we can try to work on in the mandate renewal. And hopefully through these things you get the benefit to the Congolese people. You know, not everything is going to be a direct benefit, but that you have programs, quick impact programs some of which are not very quick, but that you can have some of the education benefits and things like that, reform of civil service, all of that, the ghost workers, et cetera, et cetera. And then lastly, in terms of known perpetrators, I find it interesting that in the ICC the cases that have come up before the ICC with only a very limited number of exceptions have been brought before the ICC by a member state. So Coney was brought to the ICC because Uganda requested that they look into the issue of Coney as a war criminal. Same thing with Bemba. Congo Brazzaville brought him before the ICC. So that's an option that is out there for states. And then that leaves a different issue of also advocating on behalf of the criminal court too. I think I'll stop there. Thank you very, very, very much. I think we're running out of time. I think, did you have a quick comeback on your question? Thirty seconds? Yes, I was just to know what is Mr. Obama's position on the combo just during Congress, because as a senator, the past is very fancy. I mean, he introduced the 2006 peace and relief and since then it seems that there's more information. So do you have more information on that? Mr. Obama is positioning himself towards the combo and also towards Uganda because so far, we have to talk about the combo. How do we also section? Sure. I can answer that very quickly. In my conversation with President Obama yesterday, I'm kidding. Obviously the State Department is there to try to follow up on the will of the President. These are not easy issues and unfortunately it's sometimes easier as a congressman, senator, representative to pass legislation that unfortunately doesn't always have an actual effect on the ground. And so it's up to us now to take some of that and to take the direction that he has given to the Secretary of State by following up on a number of issues and that's what I've tried to lay out to you today, which is, I mean, it's the U.S. government so it's President Obama's policy. Thank you very much. You've been very, very generous with your time and I'm sure we'd all agree that you've been not just informative but also engaging and you've given us a lot of food for thought. Next time I want my pondu. Food for thought. Food for thought as well. Thank you so much.