 This program is brought to you by Emory University. Ladies and gentlemen, may I ask you to stand and greet one of the great men of the world, President Jimmy Carter. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to Emory Law School and the Center for the Study of Law and Religion Conference on What's Wrong with Rights for Children. My name is Frank Alexander, and I have the pleasure at this time of serving as the interim dean of Emory Law School and as co-director with John Witte of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion. It is my honor today to introduce one of the finest individuals in the world today. Most of you know his story, but I'll remind you of a few of the highlights. Born in Plains, Georgia, educated in public schools, he attended Georgia Tech and then entered the Navy, where he served for seven years as a naval officer leading a nuclear submarine. He then returned to Plains, Georgia, where he became a successful business person and entered politics. He was elected to the Georgia State Senate in 1962 and a governor of Georgia in 1971. In 1976, he was elected the 39th president of the United States. And during his administration, he oversaw the Panama Canal treaties, the Camp David of Cords, the SALT II Treaty with the Soviet Union, the establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, all while championing human rights throughout the world. After his term of office, he returned to Atlanta and opened the Carter Center, which has worked nonstop to deal with international conflict resolution, the promotion of free elections and democracies, the protection of human rights, and the prevention of diseases throughout much of the world. In his spare time, he has written 19 books in the recent years, many of which now are in revised editions. In 2002, the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize for decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development. Now, what most of you probably do not know about President Carter is that just two years ago, he was on this podium, at this podium on this stage with Professor Martin E. Marty. He challenged the audience of law students who were here with us two years ago to take action to benefit children in need. Of particular interest, President Carter said, was the United States refusal to sign the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Children. We are, quoting President Carter from two years ago, we are the only country beside Somalia that hasn't signed this treaty, and Somalia doesn't have a government. He suggested, again quoting, that the reason was America wished to retain the right to execute minors. He went on to say, however, what is Emory Law School going to do about this? And he suggested in his answer, I suspect it would do nothing. Well, Mr. President, Emory Law School has accepted your challenge. And during these two days in the past two years, we are going to do something about it. Ladies and gentlemen, join me once again in welcoming Emory's distinguished professor, President Jimmy Carter. Thank you very much. Well, that was a wonderful introduction, which I appreciate. As a matter of fact, I've just finished my 20th book, which will soon be on sale. My wife would like for me to announce. I had some good introductions in my life. That was a very good one. Jim Laney, when I used to come over here and give the lectures town hall meetings for students, one night he introduced me as the only man who ever used the presidency as a stepping stone to greater things. And he was referring to him as being a professor at Emory. So I guess it is a great thing. I was asked to make this keynote address this afternoon. I presume because of the consultation we had with Martin Marty earlier. But also because I'm probably the furthest person in here from childhood. So maybe in legal terms, when you're away from a subject, you can give the most objective and unbiased analysis. Well, I'm not going to try to compete with the great scholars on law and religion that will be addressing this group in my absence. What I thought I would do is to talk to you about my own personal impressions of the rights of children. In 1989, as most of you would already know, there was an assembly unprecedented in the number of heads of state that drafted the convention on the rights of children. And subsequently, 192 nations have ratified the treaty, with the two exceptions that Frank just pointed out. Somalia, which still does not have a government, and the United States of America. The following year, the director of the Carter Center, Bill Fagy and I, went to an assembly at the United Nations to see how we could implement or help to implement the convention on the rights of the children. And it became apparent to us that the United States was almost a hopeless case, as far as ultimately getting this convention ratified. And as Frank has pointed out, the number one prohibition was that the convention prohibits the execution of children or a life sentence for children. This has been a very disturbing issue for me. And I think for many Americans, to see our nation singled out increasingly as being the world champion, at least among the developed or industrialized or democratic nations in espousing the death penalty not only for children, but for adults. About a year ago, I learned that the Supreme Court was soon going to consider, on a pellet court decision, concerning the retention of a death penalty in the United States. I wrote an op-ed piece expressing my fervent beliefs that it should be changed. And then later last spring, I joined in with a fairly large group of Nobel laureates in peace as friends of the court. And we sent a message directly to the members of the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court did rule, as you know, by a very narrow margin, to do away with the death penalty. That was a major step forward. But that's not the only impediment to American ratification or adoption of this convention to protect the rights of children. Our country was founded on a premise that's not comprehensible to a lot of foreign visitors, and maybe to many Americans. Because we were a collection of semi-siberian or autonomous states. And in the negotiations to conclude our constitutional provisions, major rights were left with the states. And only a few were subsumed within the federal government. Over a period of time, under the Commerce Clause and other things, which you understand better than I, those central rights have been retained. But still, the state's rights are very precious to Americans. And so we have been averse for many years to the adoption of international treaties or agreements or conventions that would encroach on the rights of individual states. There are some very strong feelings in this country, too, about religion. And as you know, there is a biblical ordination that the father is the head of the household. And some provisions in the convention to protect the rights of children apparently contradict that supremacy of the father. In fact, one great argument within my own denomination now, Baptist, is that women are supposed to be subservient to the husbands. And a major portion of Baptists in this country believe that a woman has no right even to speak in a religious worship service. I disagree with that, but that's a premise. And for a child to be elevated, as the convention does, to a position of almost equality with a father is a very disturbing thing for some people who believe in that biblical ordination of a father as superior. There is a phrase in the convention that tends to get around it, because I see the convention recognizes, and I quote, responsibilities of parents to provide appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in this convention. So there is an escape clause there, if you want to find it. And I guess many nations in the world, 192 of them, as a matter of fact, have taken advantage of that escape clause, knowing that parents can deal with children who need correction, or who need restraint, or who need discipline in a way within the family itself. And that seems to be permissible. There is another very important element or circumstance that has arisen in the last few years. It's been there all the time, but it's become much more acute. And that is the move toward fundamentalism in religion and in government in the United States of America. And the increasingly overt effort to meld the two, even though Thomas Jefferson said that they should be offense built, a wall built between religion and government, that statement and the premise on which I was raised as a child, separation of church and state, is being increasingly challenged and broken down. And you've seen that. And this fundamentalist tendency is becoming more and more deeply ingrained, not only from the church pulpits, but also within the top councils of our government. And I won't go down in detail about the definition of fundamentalism. But one of the premises is among fundamentalists in religion and government is that there should be a strong aversion to any interference by a foreign government or a foreign organization, including the United Nations, in the internal affairs of our country, that America is indeed sovereign and that there should be no recognition of an international agreement that might challenge or decrease the right of Americans to be completely sovereign and independent. That's resulted in a number of disturbing changes, disturbing to me. One is the increasing derogation of the United Nations by not only subtle statements about open condemnations that come from the very top levels of our own government. I won't go into detail about that. Another one is the abandonment or rejection of key treaties. The president's father played a key role in Rio de Janeiro a number of years ago when the first move was made to deal with global warming. And he recommended, for instance, personally, that developing nations not be included in the formula that would reduce the expulsion of carbon dioxide and other toxics into the air. And that was followed up by a number of studies. And then when the Kyoto Agreement was reached, there seemed to be unanimous agreement by all the countries in the world that we will take care of this threat to the environment. If you looked at the New York Times this morning, you saw a big article about the melting of the Arctic. And I was in Alaska not too long ago. The headlines when I arrived that day said that the polar bear was doomed to be extinct within the next number of years. But this was a major premise. But we have rejected the Kyoto Treaty. But it may have caused more negative reaction against our country than almost anything we've done except to go into the Iraqi war. We've also rejected the proposal for the control of landmines. We've rejected all human rights agreements, including the agreement against the discrimination against women. We've rejected or subverted every single nuclear arms control agreement that has been negotiated beginning with Dwight Eisenhower, everyone. And in addition to that, we have added some new premises that change the policies of America against non-first use of nuclear weapons against a nation that doesn't have nuclear weapons. We've publicly announced this is no longer a restraint on the United States. In addition to that, we are now making plans to deploy weapons in space, which violates a long time agreements that space would not use for attacking another country. So because of these changes that I've outlined and they are not definitive, to be blunt about it, I don't see any chance in the foreseeable future, maybe in the lifetime of some of us, for the United States to ratify the convention on the rights of a child, unless there is a provision in it or caveat of non-applicability to the United States. We've done that in other cases. And as you know, the International Criminal Court is another example of how American leaders worked. The Carter Center adopted this as a major task a number of years ago. And now we not only have rejected the International Criminal Court, but we're putting tremendous pressure on small and weak and poverty-stricken nations to specifically exclude the United States from its provisions with the withholding of American assistance to them, unless they agree. So I don't see any chance that we will ratify the convention. And even if it was ratified with a reservation against its applicability to America, and OK, we'll approve it as long as it just applies to foreign countries, which we've done in the case of the International Criminal Court, even then I don't think there'd be any tangible benefits to children. Well, that's not the end of my speech. You know, the purpose of this meeting is to say, what can we do about the rights of the children? And I think it's almost a moot question to deal just with that convention on the rights of a child. We can work together as enthusiastically and individually and collectively as possible to implement the non-controversial provisions of the convention. I would hope that everybody here, if you haven't already done so lately, would reread the convention. Because it really just spells out for children what is normally believed, at least by Americans, to be the human rights of a human being, the rights of a human being. The convention refers to the safety of children. It refers to their, quote, right to life. But this is one of the rights that are subverted. UNICEF reported last year that more than 1 billion people live in extreme deprivation to use their words. And the primary cause for this extreme suffering and deprivation is war and poverty. Just since 1990, there have been more than 65 major wars. Uppsala University in Sweden has an official definition of major war. A major war is one within which 1,000 or more soldiers have been killed on the battlefield. I've traveled a lot in war-torn areas. The Carter Center has programs in 35 nations in Africa. I've been in East Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of Congo, which is looking for an election in the next few months. And I've traveled in southern Sudan. More than 2 million people have died. And I came back this weekend from visiting Liberia, which has been torn apart by war for almost 20 years. If you go into the capital city of Liberia, which is named for an American president, James Monrovia, with the exception of the embassies, residences, of the foreign governments like I was in Great Britain, there's not a single building that hasn't been completely destroyed or severely damaged. And the people in Liberia are living on less than $1.5 a day. You hear the terrible stories. So many people live on less than $1 a day. The Liberians are living on less than $0.50 a day. And it's incomprehensible. When you think about food and clothing and housing for $0.50, there's nothing left over for education or health care or self-respect or hope for the future. My wife and I stood in long lines. We visited 48 different polling places when the election was held on the 11th of October. And it was amazing how many people came there to vote who were blind. As a matter of fact, they had furnished a very simple pace forward folder that went over the ballot. And the blind people could count down how they could feel the holds in the pace forward over cover, and they could count down eight holds and put their thumbprint there to vote. The single most prevalent cause of blindness in the world except for cataracts is trochoma. There's not any program in Liberia for a trochoma, for instance. Malaria is another problem for children. About a million people die every year from malaria, 1.2 million. 80% of the human beings who die from malaria are less than five years old. And it requires a bed net that costs five bucks that's impregnated with a long-lasting pyrithrin insecticide. It lasts eight years. And on average of 1.4 people sleep under every bed net. You can figure how much it costs a year to keep a child from dying with malaria. The child mortality in Sweden, I noticed, I looked it up this morning on Google, is three before the age of five die out of 1,000 in Liberia, 235 die out of 1,000 before they're five years old. Well, you know what I'm saying is this doesn't have anything to do with a convention on the rights of a child. That's a moot legal question. If ratified, it wouldn't change the circumstances in Liberia. One, I order. But for you and me, all of us collectively, to ensure that a bed net against the kids in Liberia would transform their lives and save their lives. A lot has been done lately about this. I went to a convention in Monterey, Mexico in 2002. It was an assembly to talk about what was called the Millennium Challenge, how President George W. Bush was there, along with a large number of others. And we all pledged, I didn't have anything to pledge, but all the leaders pledged, that we would do a major effort to alleviate poverty in the world and be generous above and beyond what we are doing now. And there's a guy named Jeffrey Sacks, whom some of you may know, who now has this official responsibility for implementing the Millennium Challenge program. And collectively, he and other experts from UNICEF, the World Health Organization, and everybody else, have come up with a premise that if we could just provide $0.44, listen to this, for $100 by the year 2006, we could cut poverty, including the kids that died in Liberia, by half. And there's an exalted ambition that may be ridiculous to increase that to $0.70 per $100 in national income by the year 2015. Eight countries already comply with the 2015 requirement. And almost every country in the world has pledged to meet the $0.44 per $100. The United States contribution is $0.16, $100. And when this premise came up at the General Assembly meeting in September to set goals and reforms for the United Nations, the United States opposed a vote, that would have called upon all the nations to meet the $0.44 increasing to $0.70. I'm not here just to criticize my country, but to point out that we're Americans and in a democracy, our voices ostensibly have some impact. President Bush did announce three years ago, with great fanfare, what he dubbed as a millennium challenge fund of $5 billion annually. I was really happy and gratified. I was proud to be an American. $5 billion a year, that's three years ago. There were some restraints or caveats included. Countries had to meet certain criteria to qualify. So far, just one country has met that list of criteria, Cape Verde, and a total of $400,000 has been distributed in the last two years. That's less than 1 half of 1% pledged. The New York Times a few weeks ago had an article about the United States USAID funds for malaria. And they discovered that 95% of all the funds allocated were spent to contractors, American contractors, for administrative costs. Only 5% were spent for bed nets, or for spraying insecticides, or for treating malaria. Well, it's not a hopeless case. The fact is that the poverty-stricken children in the world who are suffering unnecessarily can be helped. Most of the diseases that the Carter Center now addresses in the remote areas of Africa, we had them when I was a child in Plains, Georgia. And they don't even exist anymore in the developed world. That shows that the diseases are waiting to be eliminated or eradicated. And the people we have found in Africa and other places, I won't name the other good ones, are just as intelligent and just as hardworking and just as ambitious, and their family values are just as good as mine. And when you go in to a village and tell them what they can do to eradicate guinea worm, one of the most horrendous and disgusting diseases, they respond with alacrity. The Carter Center adopted this as one of our goals to eradicate guinea worm. We had 3.5 million cases we found the first year. This year, we have about 8,500 cases. That's a reduction of 99.7%. And we're working in all the three-tenths of 1%. The Carter Center has a total employment of 150 people. And that includes gardeners and landscape architects and people like that. Last year, we delivered free medicine given to us by Merkin Company to over 11 million people. So they won't go blind from what's called river blindness or oncococciosis. The people respond beautifully when given a chance. We just got back recently with the president of Emory and the director of the Carter Center, executive director, Dr. John Hardman from a province in northern Ethiopia where we're trying to treat trachoma, which causes blindness. And it's emotional to see the degree of enthusiasm and alacrity and confidence that they use. We just taught them something they never did know. It's called SAFE to treat real easy surgery on the upper eyelid. With trachoma, you get filthy eyes because flies are on your eyes permanently. And your eyes get infected. And the upper eyelid turns inward. So every time you blink your eye, the eyelashes slash the cornea. That's what causes trachoma. And if you have surgery which nurses can learn, you don't have to have a medical doctor. And you give them an antibiotic which fires a company that gives us free of charge. It doesn't cost them anything. And you teach them to wash their face. It's surprising to us, but the little kids in a Maasai village in northern Ethiopia and Liberia have never been told by their mamas, you've got to wash your face. They never thought about washing their face. And flies are ubiquitous there. So we've taught them how to dig a hole in the ground and to put some bricks or hard clay around the top to make a latrine. On the farm where I grew up, my friend, we didn't have running water, electricity, we had a latrine. There were six other families that lived right next to us. They didn't have a latrine. They deprecated and urinated on the ground. And that was trachoma. So we've taught them how to do it. And we thought we might have 1,000 new latrines in this one territory in northern Ethiopia last year. We found out that women cannot relieve themselves in the daytime. It's completely taboo for a woman to urinate or deprecate and be seen. So when we introduce the concept of digging a hole in the ground and putting a screen around it, the women adopted the project, kind of a women's lived project. And in less than a year, they completed, not us, they completed 89,500 latrines. By the end of this year, we'll have 300,000 latrines. And the people, the kids who are washing their faces, the children, and going to the bathroom in a hole in the ground will never go blind. The concept of helping children is extremely important. Not just the giving them a chance to improve their own life, but to cut down on the threat of war. Nowadays, every soldier killed in battle, there are nine civilians who perish. A good portion of them are little children and their mothers. And with aerial bombing, the ratio is much greater than nine to one. I just saw the statistics in Iraq, the day before yesterday, 39,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq since the war was over. So the approach is peace and justice and generosity and respect and active, helpful, I'll say little children who are in need. To me, that's the best way to implement the convention on the right to the child. Thank you. President Carter has graciously agreed to take some questions. We've got about 15 minutes or so. We'll follow the same ground rules we did this morning. We've got mics being distributed. We ask that you state your name, identify where you're from and then pose the question, try to keep the questions short. Who would like to begin with questions? Ms. Thomas, down here. My name is Carol Napier. We met a couple of years ago in your church when my daughter, Sarah, was in daycare with your grandson, Hugo. You have great credentials already. But your picture, along with our family, hangs in our den. And I don't have a question, President Carter, but what I would ask is that the people in this room pray for you and pray for the people at the Carter Center for the work that you're doing to bring hope and healing to all of God's children. You are a man of miracles, President Carter, and we give thanks to God for you. That's a kind of question I like. President Carter, my name is Martin Cher. I bring a credential similar. Our kids went to Hardy Middle School together. All right. I was, I hate to be down, but I was a little bit disappointed in a statement that you made regarding future for American children, whether or not we ratify the CRC. That you said that you don't see much of a future, even if we do ratify it. No, that's not what I said. Okay, good. I don't think the ratification itself would substantially change the future of the children. Okay. Would you be willing to elaborate a little bit on that? Some of us are working on a campaign to promote ratification, and I sure don't want too much air to be blown out of the sails of that campaign. Well, I would like very much to see it ratified, and we've tried to get it ratified, and I'll be glad to help you with the campaign, by the way. I think it would help the attitude of the global community if America wasn't a powerful and very influential holdout. If it was unanimous, there's no doubt that nations that have ratified the treaty would be much more enthusiastic in implementing it. And I don't think there's any doubt that this would help with the generous or beneficent contributions of funds to go in and give the children the rights that are spelled out in the convention. So I'm not derogating the importance of the ratification itself. I have very serious doubts that the U.S. Senate, under the president administration at least, is going to even take it up much less ratified, but I would be glad if they would, and as I'll repeat my offer, I'll be glad to help you in any way. Thank you, you're on. Question right here? Yes. Good afternoon, President Carter. Hi. My name is Sarah Tyndall-Gazelle. You know me, my former life. I do. I would like to hear your impression on what impact you've seen the CRC have in countries that have ratified it where the Carter Center has a presence. For instance, Liberia ratified the CRC along with the Convention Against Discrimination of Women in the late 1990s where we had an office. So have you seen any impact in some of these countries after they have ratified the treaties? Thank you. It's good to see you again. She represented the Carter Center in Liberia, by the way, and stayed there, what, three years? Two years. She stayed there two years after Charles Taylor took over, heroically, I might say. Well, I really can't say that I have observed personally a difference between the United States treatment of children, which was quite benevolent, and the abuse that has been perpetrated by dictators like Charles Taylor or others where their governments have ratified the treaty or the Convention. I do believe, though, that for a president or king or prime minister of a nation and the entire government to consider the terms of the Convention, the Covenant, and say, okay, we're voting for this. I think it's a great reminder of them of the sometimes unforgotten and rarely expressed rights of a child. I was impressed early this morning when I reread the Covenant. I didn't realize it was so far-reaching and so aggressive in its approach. But I don't think there's any doubt that when the parliament of Great Britain or Canada or Sweden or Norway or Japan or whatever considers all the terms of the treaty, that it is a very strong reminder that we're committing ourselves to this. But there are some despicable regimes that don't have any respect for any human right. And they're quite often willing with alacrity to approve international agreements on human rights, including the abuse of women. And they don't apply, in a practical way, a compliance to what they've agreed to do. Also, as you know, Sarah, the United Nations Human Rights Commission, which has comprised 53 nations, is now in the process of being potentially revised. There's a study commission on that subject and I hope that it'll be successful. In the past, the most abusive human rights nations are the ones that sought with the most eagerness to have their top delegation and their most powerful debaters be members of a UN Human Rights Commission to protect their own government leaders from any condemnation or retribution. We hope that that'll be changed. And so this has been the case. So I think it's very good for the covenant to be debated in the past, even though some people later paid no attention to its provisions. Are there questions down here on the front left? Here's the mic. Get a mic so everybody can hear. I'm a middle school teacher, so I'm used to doing without the mic sometimes. I recently jumped off the no child left behind ship and trying to do work elsewhere. We learned this morning about main parts of the convention with that the children have the right to speak and be heard and take part in things that involve them. What do you think that Georgia children, American children, children around the world can do to speak up for their rights and fight this battle? Well, I have had 11 grandchildren. I still have 11 grandchildren, you know. I don't think that any of my grandchildren have ever suffered from excessive timidity. In speaking their views. And I think that in classrooms, it's very, maybe not entertaining, but it's very educational for the teachers and the other students to hear the outspoken opinions of maybe a very evocative or child. So that's one of the things obviously that the Covenant does guarantee. It's a right of a child to speak out, but that doesn't mean that they have a right to disturb a classroom or to speak out in an inordinate way. But I think that all of us can be reminded, even if our Congress doesn't ratify the treaty, I think all of us who are grandparents and parents can learn a lot about rights of children that we might have overlooked by at least reading the provisions of a Covenant. They are surprisingly broad. And they give a child the same basic rights that adults have assumed were ours. So I think in the classroom and otherwise, it's very beneficial to have the Covenant reminded. And I think it might be, I started to say good, or it might be somewhat disturbing for you to take the Covenant there and read the key provisions to your students. They may be a little bit more difficult to handle in the future, but I think it would probably enliven the classroom environment. I'm in favor of free speech for children up to a certain point. But as I read the one phrase in there that parents, and I'm sure that would mean school teachers too, have a right to let the provisions of the Covenant, the rights of a child be attenuated by counseling and propriety when the child is still in the learning stage. There is an effort in the drafting of the Covenant to let it be applied sequentially to children as they increase in age and with a degree of maturity and self-control. So there's a sum of a distinction between a five-year-old or a two-year-old on the one hand and a 12, 13, 15-year-old. We have time for one more question. I'm Susan Purr as I met you when you were teaching Sunday School briefly. You asked me to pray because I'm a ordained minister and a school counselor and I actually did read a little book published by UNICEF in my school guidance lessons on the rights of the children because I felt like they had a right to know the rights. My question is in reading your book, Talking Peace, when you talked about when you met with, in negotiation with Russian leaders, what your conversation with them that, you talked about American understandings of what human rights are and then they talked with you about Russians have a different understanding of what human rights are like basic necessities of life for housing and shelter and income and medical and just all these basic. And I wonder what hope there is for our country to grasp those, a broad understanding of human rights. I have to admit that when I was a governor and when I was president, that my definition of human rights was much more narrow than it is now. The average American, if you give them a sheet of paper and say write down the basic human rights, they would list freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of trial by jury, freedom of religion and then they would kind of run out of thoughts. And when I used to bring up human rights in my confrontations with Brezhnev and other leaders who were I've considered to be abusive also, they would point out that their definition of human rights was the right to food, the right to healthcare, the right to a job, the right to education. So this has been quite a learning experience for me to put together the totality of what is the definition of human rights. I think every human being has a right to food. And I think every human being has a right to at least a modicum of education and healthcare. But I have to say that 20 years ago, I probably wouldn't have mentioned those social and economic rights in the same breath that I would the right to free speech. So I think that's one of the things too that the covenant on the children covers. It covers the totality of human rights. And my hope is that all of us will adhere to that. I've had long discussions with decreasing degrees of disagreements with the Chinese on this. I mean, in some nations in the world that have a totalitarian government, everybody is educated, everybody has healthcare. The child mortality rate in Cuba is less than ours. The year before I visited Cuba, only one child in Cuba was born HIV positive. And there is no illiteracy in Cuba but they don't have the right to free speech or to assemble if they want to criticize the government. So I think the bringing together of all of them is a challenge that ought to inspire us. There's no doubt that America is the only superpower on earth now and most of us here are Americans. Our military budget is as great as all the other military budgets combined in the world. And our political influence is unequaled and our cultural influence is unequaled. And I think it's good for us to pause every now and then and say what is the definition of a superpower? It's not just how many airplanes or tanks or bombs or missiles we can deploy. But you come down to the same definition of what is an admirable human being? I would like for people all over the world, Muslims, Hindus, agnostics, whatever, to look on America and say that is the champion of justice. And if they have an altercation that might erupt in the Civil War, one going on, I'd like for them to look to Washington and say there is a repository of a commitment that will help us have peace because they believe in peace. I would like for our system of democracy to be impeccably balanced and honest and fair. And I would like for us to be the most generous nation in the world. There are not any tangible differences in my opinion. Between a super human and moral and ethical standards and a superpower, things to think about and for our nation to contemplate. Mr. President, we thank you, Mr. President, for what you have given us again today. Please join me in welcoming him and thanking him again. Give him a few moments to retreat out the back. We stand adjourned until 2.30, thank you so much. The preceding program is copyrighted by Emory University.