 Welcome back to the 13th annual HBCU State Department conference. As I listened this morning, I found it fascinating. My name is Learned Deeds and I am a proud alum of Morehouse College. And I welcome you to this session, which is a foreign policy thematic session. What we'll try to do in this session is discuss an issue that you may read about in the newspaper. Go behind the headlines a little bit with our special guest who will be the subject matter experts on this. And have a little fun. I mean at the State Department sometimes we're seen as stodgy diplomats. We can have a little fun today and we'll talk about the format of the session after we introduce our panelists. So let's start with Angela Chang. Would you please introduce yourself and in particular note how you got to the State Department? What was your path, Angela? Okay. Hi, everyone. As Leonard said, my name is Angela Chang and I currently work in the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs in the Office of Chinese and Mongolian Affairs. And I cover the Africa portfolio. After I graduated from college, I went to China for graduate school and then worked in higher ed, you know, international educational exchange between the U.S. and China. And then the opportunity to join the State Department as a Consular Officer opened up and here I am over seven years later. Fantastic, Angela. Let's shift over to you, Chris. My name is Chris Gertsen. I work in the Office of Russian Affairs here at the State Department in D.C. I actually began my career more in the kind of international development space as a Peace Corps volunteer at the World Bank and with USAID before coming here to the State Department. So I'm trying to kind of work my way around the world having a good time doing it. Okay. Thanks, Chris. And last but not least, my buddy Ben. Ben, how did you get to the State Department? And what do you... Thank you. Thank you, Leonard. Before I start, you said we're not all stodgy diplomats and I'm mindful that I'm stuck here in this anonymous cubicle with a cheap suit looking nothing if not like a very stodgy diplomat. So I apologize for that. Thank you. My background is not too dissimilar to yours. You know, I grew up from Brooklyn, New York. I was a teacher in New York City before joining the Peace Corps, served in Central America, and that really sort of opened up the world of international affairs, which I had never really considered before. I was an aid worker after that, working in South Sudan, in Eritrea, East Timor, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and then from there became a journalist. I was a reporter for several years in Hong Kong, Pakistan, Afghanistan. I was in Iraq for a bit and then joined the Foreign Service. And since joining the Foreign Service, I have really focused on China, Chinese Affairs, People's Republic of China around the world, working first in Beijing, in D.C., Costa Rica, and then most recently, the last four years in Beijing, finally as Deputy Spokesperson. And right now I work with Angela on what we call the China desk, really just focused on PRC issues. Back to you. Okay. Thanks, Ben. And Ben's our special guest. If you guys have questions about China and want to stump Ben, just put him in the chat box as we go through. And he's our guide to answer those difficult questions. So it's interesting, three of the four panelists are Peace Corps, return Peace Corps volunteers. It's a great way to get experience around the world and a great entry point. So I'll put that plug in for the Peace Corps. Today what we are going to do is we're going to use the format of a popular public radio television show called Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me. If you're familiar with that show, they have a segment called Stump the Listeners, where you read three scenarios and at least one of those scenarios are true. The others are totally false and made up by our writers here at the State Department. So the issue that we're covering is Africa, great, great power competition in Africa. So all the scenarios will be related to that. And in the context of the State Department using abbreviations, one of the abbreviations you'll hear is the PRC. The PRC is simply the People's Republic of China. It's the government of China and we refer to it as PRC because they make the foreign policy decisions for the people of China, but they're very much the government of China. So just a little heads up on that when you hear that scenario. So what I'd like you to do as you hear the three scenarios, go to the chat, choose the one or the scenarios that you think are real, at least one scenario in each of our sections will be true. There may be more than one scenario that's true, but you let us know what you think is the real scenario. After you vote, we will discuss the real scenario and have our subject matter experts describe in detail some of the issues behind the scenes and the context of great power competition in Africa, ripped straight from the headlines. So if that's good with you, let's get started. Scenario number one, we have three scenarios here, one of which will be true. The first scenario, a major global power recently approached a central African country with an offer to invest in developing the country's hydroelectric capacity. Under the proposed agreement, this country would provide funding and operational support for the African country. Local press reports indicate that the project is expected to create 12,000 jobs and provide enough electricity to power 1.4 million homes. Media reports also voice concerns about the project's possible environmental impact and the financing terms. That was scenario one. Scenario two, a major global economic power powers rehabilitation of a port in southern Africa serves as a model for the rest of the world. To avoid of natural resources, this port is a boon for the country's economy. As such, the port has become a trade hub and a gateway to major shipping lanes. Significant inflows of capital were set aside for grants for training local residents, resulting in 50,000 jobs. Scenario three, an investigation by the main independent newspaper in an East African country reveals that some provisions in a 2015 financing agreement with the government owned bank of a major world power for a $200 million loan to expand the national airport may expose the airport and the government assets to potential seizure upon arbitration. The African countries and a high level delegation to renegotiate the terms of the agreement. But the executives from the lending bank rejected any amendments to the agreement's clauses. Despite denials from both the borrowing and the lending governments, popular opinion in the country focuses on the risk of the country's only international airport being taken out of national control. So students, which is it scenario one major power to invest in hydroelectric number two, southern African port or number three, an East African airport at risk. Put your answers in the chat box please and tell me which ones you think are true. Give you a few seconds to do that. And if you guessed that scenario number three was correct. You are right on the money. The situation that was true was the local media reports suggested that Uganda is the East African country we're talking about was at risk of losing its only international airport to seizure by the PRC due to the default on a $200 million loan. Media sources alleged that the XM Bank of China rejected that Uganda's request to renegotiate some clauses of the 2015 deal. One of the main parts of the agreement under, one of the main parts of the agreement under contention is the clause that required the country's civil aviation authority to set up an escrow account to hold all of the revenues. Under the clause, the revenues in this account cannot be spent by the aviation authority without approval from Beijing. Persistent reports have drawn public concern about the mismanagement of the use of Uganda's resources, and that has had an impact on the country's sovereignty. The government's response is that the international airport is not about to go into default and they will honor their loan obligation. Airport authorities claim that they are still within the grace period of seven years and during that period, they have been repaying interest. The PRC embassy in Uganda countered that the allegations stating that all alone agreements including the Entebbe airport expansion and upgrading project were voluntarily signed by both parties after negotiation on equal footing. And without any hidden or political conditions attached, the embassy statement continues stating not a single project in Africa has ever been confiscated by China because of failing to pay Chinese loans. On the contrary, Chinese supports and is willing to continue our efforts in improving Africa's capacity for home driven development. The media in the public in Uganda have expressed concerns that a lack of oversight allowed the situation to get to this point. So that's the real scenario. That's the real backstory. Angela, what are you seeing in the larger context of PRC engagement on these types of issues elsewhere in the world? Well, the Ugandan airport scenario that you just discussed is one of countless projects under the PRC's Belt and Road Initiative or BRI. The BRI is aimed at recreating and expanding the famed Silk Road trade routes that connect the PRC to the world through a diverse array of infrastructure and development projects across some 130 countries. In 2008, the PRC has pledged an estimated one trillion in investments in hard and soft infrastructure from ports and high speed rail to telecommunications and cyberspace. The project's linked the PRC to Central Asia, the Middle East and Europe by land, also known as the Silk Road Economic Belt, and to Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, the Pacific and East Africa by sea, aka the Maritime Silk Road. The BRI is not just an international development program consisting of grants, aid or foreign direct investment. BRI's goal is to find new markets for the PRC's exports, new sources of energy and raw materials for the PRC's power plants and factories, and new avenues for Beijing to extend its economic, military, technological, political and soft influence abroad. Its infrastructure opportunities are alluring for countries around the globe, but they often come with a significant cost. The Ugandan case is not the only instance where a BRI project has caused alarm about the host country losing control of an important infrastructure asset. PRC investments in Sri Lanka's Hanban Tota port and the resulting 99-year lease have drawn public criticism of Chinese colonization from some civil society groups and the political opposition. There's also concern about the fiscal sustainability and viability of many BRI projects. Many of these projects have costly overruns that leave the host countries in debt. In Hungary, for example, a high-speed Belgrade Budapest railway will cost the government $2.66 billion, which is up from the $1.95 billion that was originally quoted. Other challenges for countries considering PRC infrastructure investment range from environmental concerns to the lack of local community engagement. Two years after the PRC state-owned construction company Sino-Hydro completed the Coca-Coto Sinclair hydroelectric dam in Ecuador, the dam barely functions. From the outset, locals were troubled because project leaders ignored warnings about the potential for environmental harm. As work got underway, the PRC firm building the dam disregarded safety and quality standards, and because of poor construction, downstream farms periodically flood. Additionally, the Ugandan case, where the loan-treated airport revenues is collateral, in this similar case, the terms of the PRC's loans require Ecuador to turn over 80% of oil exports for at least five years' payment. So, although the PRC promotes the BRI as economic development, the opacity of deals, burdens and debt, dual-use potential and corruption are often negative results. A project in Argentina exemplifies this. The PRC government financed and built a $50 million satellite and space mission control center in Patagonia. The PRC negotiated the terms of the deal largely in secret, excluding local firms for some aspects of the project, and it gives the PRC a 50-year rent-free lease on the land. Since construction, the site has been run by the PRC military. For its part, the United States offers development aid and investment that provides sustainable benefits for developing countries. Through Prosper Africa, the United States is supporting the African continent to improve the business climate and increase two-way trade and investment. Our Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, known as Agoya, provides duty-free access for 36 sub-Saharan countries to American markets. The Build Back Better World, or B3W partnership, announced that the G7 last June seeks to address the $40 trillion infrastructure gap in the developing world and to advance economic recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic. The program's guiding principles call for environmentally sustainable infrastructure projects that reflect democratic values. President Biden, who proposed the infrastructure partnership to the G7, characterized B3W as a much more equitable way to provide for the needs of countries around the world. Thanks, Leonard, for the chance to talk a little bit more about this. Great. How many of you got that question right? A lot of this is ripped straight from the news, so if you read about that, kudos to you. Let's go on to scenario number two. The president of an East African nation concerned about his prospects for reelection is approached by a political, a group of political consultants from a shadowy organization, rumored to have ties to a leader of a major world power. In return for a stake in the government-owned mine, they say they can promise victory. These undercover operatives don't stay secret for long, though, sticking out like a sore thumb as they flood social media with disinformation, pay protesters to demonstrate, pay spoiler candidates to enter the race and commit basic errors, like misspelling the incumbent's name on prominent promotional material. Shortly before the election day, the consultants realized that their candidate is headed for a loss, and they drop him in favor of the frontrunner. That's scenario number one. Scenario number two. In a recent bid to improve its image with African youth, a major world power invited several of the region's social media influencers on an all-expense paid tour of the country's major sites. The endeavor was hugely successful, garnering over 2 million likes. The most highly rated segments focused on designer shopping and interviews with well-known athletes. It's rumored that the most popular of these influencers from Africa was offered a full scholarship to study at one of the country's top universities on the condition that she continued to create favorable content during her studies. Scenario three. According to the media reports, a social media watchdog organization recently uncovered multiple networks comprising nearly 30,000 pieces of content linked to the same content creator. A spokesman for the watchdog organization stated that over an 18-month period, the network generated 20 million total interactions. Despite claiming to be the residents of several West African countries, the accounts creating, commenting, and forwarding the social media posts were linked to a troll farm believed to be funded by a foreign government. That's scenario number three. So which is it? Is it the troll farm? Is it the tour of a country to be an influencer or was it the undercover election operatives? Choose which one you think is correct. At least one of those is correct. Put your answer in the chat. I'll give you a few seconds to do that. Okay, I see we're getting some answers in the chat. Which is it? Number one, number two, or number three? At least one of them is correct. Keeping in mind sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. So looks like we have a good group of answers there. And if you chose scenario number one, you are correct. Let's talk a little bit about that real life scenario. Chris, what can you tell us about scenario number one and what's going on there? Thank you, Leonard. Well, you are absolutely correct. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. That first scenario is based on the true publicly reported events of the 2018 presidential election in Madagascar. And the shadowy consultants mentioned in that scenario are the Wagner group. You may see that spelled with a V or a W. It's an organization that offers not only political consulting elections interference services, but are really primarily soldiers for hire that have operated in quite a few different countries in various circumstances, but really uniformly have committed a whole range of really horrible, horrible abuses. Murder, rape, theft, ransacking schools, you know, stealing from the local populations that they were supposedly brought into protect. All of that happens pretty routinely whenever the Wagner group is involved. Wagner is led by a guy named Yevgeny Prugoshin. The Associated Press gave him the rather colorful nickname of Putin's chef, because he apparently got his start in the food catering business. But he's been involved with a whole range of illegal activities and has been sanctioned by the United States, by the European Union and by the UK. And according to press reports, Prugoshin was actually introduced to Madagascar's former president, Harry Rajau Nadi Mam Pianina. I hope I came close to pronouncing that correctly, by Vladimir Putin himself in early 2018, shortly before the elections. So anyway, we raise this scenario because I think it shows a few kind of key takeaways about how Wagner operates in Africa and elsewhere. One is plausible deniability. The Wagner group is not officially tied to the Russian government in any way. In fact, it does not even exist as a legal entity in Russia at all. However, when Wagner operates in Africa and elsewhere, it's in plain sight. They've been written about in the New York Times and by CNN and been discussed at the United Nations. They basically allow the Kremlin to have its cake and eat it too. If they come in and they do what they promise to do, then the perception tends to be, oh, the Russians helped us. If as it often happens, things turn ugly, then Moscow can say, oh, well, that's, you know, that's some kind of group that has nothing to do with us. That wasn't any kind of official Russian assistance or interference. Number two, I would say opportunism is a key hallmark of this group. You know, it can be, it can be frustrating oftentimes for nations in Africa and elsewhere who are looking to partner with western countries in terms of aimed projects or other initiatives. It often takes time. There are requirements in terms of transparency and human rights. And what Wagner kind of has to offer is that they move fast and there are no strings attached in terms of, you know, morals or legality or anything of that nature. Finally, I would say one key element of the way that Wagner operates is that they have a willingness to experiment. Often Wagner operatives don't bring a lot of real skill to the table as evidenced by the Madagascar example. You know, when you come in and you are putting out materials that actually spell the name of the candidate you're supporting wrong, that's a problem in most cases. But they are willing to throw things at the wall and see what sticks. They try new approaches and at the end of the day, if things fail, they will change course and try something new. In the case of Madagascar, they jumped ship right before the election and sought to back the other candidate that was clearly going to win. So, you know, basically a number of different governments have come to regret associating with the Wagner group. But it's still out there. It's still peddling its services and the Russian government continues to deny any connection to the group. Sometimes denying its very existence and sometimes just dismissing it as kind of a private company that's operating out there in the world and has nothing to do with them. I would say that looking kind of at the broader picture, these kind of gray zone threats, unofficial, non-traditional, unbound by international rules and norms are one of the really key challenges that we will face around the world in the years to come. So, I really hope that some of you watching today will be interested in tackling this challenge in the years to come. That's it for me, Leonard. Thank you. Hey, thanks Chris. As you can see, international politics is full of drama. And as we've mentioned, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. In a session earlier this morning, I heard my friend Tony Fernandez say that oftentimes we as officers know, think we know what's going on in a country and we get there and find out we really had no clue. One of the exciting things about the State Department, it's lifelong learning. Today you're learning about Russia, tomorrow it's China, the next day it's Kenya. So, if you like drama, if you like politics, if you like learning, the State Department is definitely a place for you. So, most of you guys got that one wrong. We tricked you. It was scenario number one, although scenario number two and three certainly seem plausible in today's social media world. Let's go on to the third one and see how you guys do. This one's going to focus on COVID-19 disinformation and vaccine diplomacy. We've got three scenarios. At least one of these is correct. Scenario number one, PRC vaccine diplomacy. Forbes reports that a major world power has promised to donate 600 million doses of its COVID-19 vaccine to African countries. A move that comes at a time when the new Omicron variant of the coronavirus continues to spread in the southern part of the continent and amid concerns about a lack of equitable vaccine access to poorer countries. According to the Guardian, a newspaper in the UK analysts say that the shift in approach signifies this country is rethinking its overall strategy on the continent at a time of COVID health emergency and great power competition. Scenario number one, scenario number two, on August 11, 2020, a major world power announced that its Ministry of Health had approved the country's vaccine as the world's first COVID-19 vaccine. According to the Council on Foreign Relations here in the United States, the approval itself was by scientific standards, misleading, since the vaccine had not begun phase three clinical trials. However, the country's Ministry of Health doubled down on its claim that it had manufactured the best vaccine in the world against COVID-19. That's scenario number two. Scenario number three, a major power agreed to finance the building of a factory to manufacture its COVID-19 vaccine in Africa. The deal would require the West African country to take a loan at favorable commercial rates and would pay back the loan with profits from sale of the drug with the 60-40 split in profits. The deal also required the West African country to reduce its pharmaceutical import restrictions on malaria drugs manufactured by the major power and require the host government to sell the imported malaria drugs at all government hospitals. So that's number three. So we've got one scenario with malaria, one scenario with a new groundbreaking COVID vaccine, and number three, just readjusting COVID policy. Let's see if you guys can guess which one of these or which ones of these are correct. I'll give you a few minutes to put your answer in the chat box. So what do you think? I see some answers in the chat. I'll give you another minute or so to think about it. At least one of those scenarios is correct. Which one is it? These are ripped straight from the headlines. Maybe you've seen the headlines. I know these days you can almost Google any answer to any question to find out. So what do you think? So if you guessed scenario number one or scenario number two, both are correct. The only one that's false is scenario number three. So this brings up the issue of COVID in Africa, COVID diplomacy in Africa. What are you seeing, Angela, in the context of great power competition in Africa and COVID diplomacy? Well, the PRC's messaging both overt and covert is good and getting better. And these include overt efforts to influence news coverage via their own foreign language media outlets, as well as investment efforts to expand its influence, control the global narrative about the PRC and delegitimize established voices. So as it relates to COVID-19, throughout the pandemic, Beijing has used propaganda and disinformation to emphasize positive stories about the PRC vaccine development and COVID-19 related policies, while censoring criticism of PRC efforts and manipulating facts and scientific context about vaccines to create a distorted narrative in the PRC's favor. When Beijing's COVID-19 narratives began focusing on the PRC's assistance to other countries, certain regions took priority, showing the PRC's use of the pandemic for geopolitical ends. Under President Xi Jinping, the PRC has increasingly sought a leading role in the global south, and the pandemic was no exception. When amplifying the propaganda that the PRC was helping the world respond to COVID-19, it was no coincidence that South Africa and Ethiopia were prioritized as keywords. PRC's state media outlets, including Newswire Xinghua, have signed content sharing agreements with news outlets in many African countries. It is often cheaper for Africans to access Xinghua than Western newswires. And Africans with internet service have played a significant role in making Xinghua, China daily, People's Daily, and Global Times the five most followed news pages on Facebook. Beijing also prioritized narratives that would resonate in Africa. The keyword cold was used 138 times in tweets over three months to amplify the message that the PRC's vaccines could be more easily used in the developing world than Western vaccines, which required advanced phrasers. One article claimed that the United States was hoarding a surplus of vaccines and preventing less developed countries from acquiring them. Meanwhile, the article claimed that the PRC had done well to control the spread of COVID-19 domestically and had been willing to export its vaccines to less developed regions of the world. Additionally, it noted that however you must note that while the PRC provides vaccines to 114 countries, most of these donations are routed through bilateral commercial deals rather than through existing multilateral mechanisms and donations are still dwarfed by sales. The PRC has sought to counter criticism that it is falling short and providing vaccine donations. During the forum on Africa China Cooperation in November, President Xi's announcement that the PRC would donate and jointly manufacture a combined 1 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses for the African continent over the next three years grabbed international and African media headlines. The announcement composed of 600 million donations and the joint production of another 400 million doses is a marked increase from the roughly 121 million doses delivered through bilateral agreements by PRC pharmaceutical companies to Africa so far, of which only 25 million have been donated. Also keep in mind that the 600 million donation pledge is over three times more than the PRC's global donations to date. The United States is the world's largest donor to global public health and committed to leading the response to the pandemic globally. We are donating vaccines to countries across the world free of charge and with no political strings attached, and we are the leading financial donor to COVAX. During a COVID ministerial earlier this week, the secretary announced the US government will make a direct donation of 5 million doses of Johnson and Johnson's COVID-19 vaccine to the African vaccine acquisition trust, which is the African Union's vaccine procurement and distribution effort. The first 5 million doses are already shipping to countries across the continent. Together with the doses provided in partnership with COVAX, this brings the total doses the United States has donated to Africa to more than 155 million, a part of the 435 million doses already donated worldwide. The shipments are among 1.2 billion doses that President Biden has pledged to donate to low and middle income nations. We are also supporting South Africa and Senegal in their work to manufacture vaccines themselves as well as global COVID core. The new public-private partnership which connects American businesses with countries that need logistical help with the so-called last mile, turning vaccine doses into actual shots and arms. Thank you. Sorry. Chris, what are you seeing in your part of the world related to these issues? Well, you know, I would encourage everybody tuning in today to check out some of the really interesting kind of open source analyses that are out there about vaccine disinformation and vaccine diplomacy going on, both from the PRC and from Russia. There are a lot of people who dig into this with the technical expertise that I find pretty amazing. I would say first off, the approach that Russia takes to this disinformation is a bit different from that taken by the PRC. One kind of core tenet of the Russian disinformation approach is that reality is whatever the Kremlin wants it to be. There is kind of a widespread effort to sow confusion, to mix up facts with fiction, to amplify voices that are meant to confuse. And if any of you out there are fans of the show Game of Thrones, one quote that often comes to mind for me with this is Littlefinger's quote that chaos is a ladder. Basically, when there's confusion all around it means there's opportunity and Russia seeks to take advantage of the opportunity that arises when there's mass confusion on the internet. And, you know, if there's anything that we've seen over the past two years with COVID and with vaccines, it's that. I would say stepping away from specifically the vaccine narrative, another really key narrative that Russian disinfo operatives look to drive is that kind of the collapse of Western civilization that the United States is an empire in decay. That morals have eroded that, you know, no longer are men men and women women and all sorts of things along those lines with the ultimate the ultimate point being that, you know, the US is no longer a global superpower that it's the the end of the line for our current kind of geostrategic position. And finally, another really key narrative that you often see in Russian disinformation is that of the United States acting as a puppet master or stoking color revolutions seeking to undermine governments and you know, kind of take control, especially of those countries that are Russia's neighbors and that that Russia considers to be its sphere of influence. And I see this in Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, and in an example that I think is probably on everyone's minds right now in Ukraine. Those kind of baseless accusations are meant to undermine Russia's sovereign neighbors and and make their people look like they're not actually in charge of their own destiny. Basically create opportunity for for Russia to kind of say they're not really speaking for themselves, we can speak for them. So those are kind of a few key takeaways that I would point to in that area. Thank you. Thanks, Chris. We haven't heard from you, Ben. Do you have any takeaways that you'd like to share before we wrap it up and open it to question and answers and I would encourage the students who are on the line listening. If this has raised any questions you'd like our panelists to to answer please put them in the chat now so we can save the last 10 minutes to answer those questions. Again, insights. Thank you, Leonard. Obviously, you know me I have nothing to offer here no insights really let's leave as much time as possible for the folks who are still with us to ask questions. Okay, we'll come back to you Ben for the questions that are specific to the PRC. In this session we've tried to do something a little bit different but thanks for your participation, Angela and Chris, but the US government has its own policy in Africa, and rather than focusing 100% on that we've focused on some of the other issues and he just sort of outlined some of the things that Secretary of State Blinken has laid out as US policy for Africa and then we'll jump into the questions. The Secretary of State made his maiden voyage to Africa in the fall. He went to Kenya, Senegal and Nigeria. It was a well received trip and he laid out our perspectives on what our policy in Africa is all about. One of the things that he said and I'll quote from his speech is the United States knows that on the most urgent challenges and opportunities we face in Africa, Africa will make the difference. We can't achieve our goals around the world, whether that's ending COVID-19, building strong and inclusive global economy, combating the climate crisis or revitalizing democracy and defending human rights without the leadership of African governments, institutions and its citizens. During the Secretary's visit to Kenya a few months ago, it was announced a new initiative to help more people get vaccinated against COVID-19, committed to, for the first time, to join the negotiations on a global agreement to combat ocean plastic pollution and launched a project with National Geographic to empower young people across Africa fighting against the climate crisis. In Nigeria, Secretary Blinken signed a $2.1 billion development assistance agreement that supports collaboration focused on the fundamentals of health, education, agriculture and good governance. The Secretary visited also Nigeria's Become a Tech Hub, Innovate 8, it's a startup hub to meet some of the innovators and founders who are making Nigeria's economy home. When he was in Senegal, the Secretary joined four U.S. companies, signing an agreement to collaborate with the Senegalese government on infrastructure projects, visiting the Institute Pester de Dakar, which is working toward a COVID vaccine for Africa in production with American support in investment. The trip, I think, as he noted, reflects the depth and breadth of the U.S. partnership with Africa. We are working to find innovative solutions to new challenges and leveraging long term sources of strength rather than short term fixes. So that gives you a sense of U.S. policy. We've got a little more than 10 minutes. Can I just jump in and make one quick comment? Yep, sure. So just very quickly, it's one of my sort of key talking points. We talk a lot about our Africa policy, and we do. We have a regional policy, just as we have regional policies for Asia for Europe. But there are, I think, 54 different countries on the continent, and we have a different policy for each country. So we have an Egypt policy for Egypt, a South Africa policy for South Africa, Kenya, Liberia, Morocco. We talk about Africa policy, but it's really important that as we approach each country, we do it in terms of what do you need and how can we partner with you so that we're not trying to create this one size fits all approach. I think that's very important for us to remind ourselves as we move forward, as well as to make clear to folks listening in. Thanks. Yeah, no, that's a great point, Ben. It reminds me of one of my favorite websites, Africa is not a country. So yes, Africa is not a country. We have an Africa policy, and it involves 54 different chapters, and each chapter is important. So you guys, please put your questions into the... Learned it. I think we lost your mic there. You might still be muted. That's probably my fault. Sorry about that. Thanks, Ben. Yes, so we have a number of questions. Let's get to them. Breonna, I asked, what is the most important skill for your occupation? This is occupational question. So can each of the panelists give us a little insight? What's the most important skill for what you do? Want to start, Ben? I'll just jump in. One of the things that I love about the Foreign Service is there are such a broad range of skills. I was not somebody who thought I was going to go into this career. I took a couple of extra years to get through college, so I took my time to figure things out. The skills that I think are really important to be a successful foreign affairs professional, whether it's with the State Department, whether it's with the private corporation, school, other government agency. I think curiosity, good writing skills, and the ability to work well with others. I think everything else you can develop, but that ability to really maintain that curiosity. And what I tell people is, don't worry about knowing everything. Pick one topic and really get to know it, and you'll appreciate what it means to understand deeply, whether it's a country or an issue. And then you can apply that as you move forward. But that curiosity is really key. Over. Great. That's a great answer. Angela, what would you say? Well, I then took my answer because I was going to say, you know, constant learning, which is what you referenced to earlier. Just every morning I wake up and I don't know what's going to happen. What is going to come in the news, what is going to come into my email inbox and whichever new country or issue that is going to come across my literal desk. And then I have to really, you know, be able to quickly learn about it, synthesize it, and then be able to provide that to leadership so that they can make those big decisions about policy. And I think that, you know, just what you're what all of the folks in the audience are doing right now, learning about different things, and then quickly making that decision in the scenarios, and then figuring out, okay, does that work? Does that not work? How do I tweak it? I think that's going to be a key skill moving forward in any career. Thanks, Angela. Chris. Geez, these are hard to follow up on. I think, yeah, just to build off of what Angela just said a little bit, I think that one thing that's very interesting in this career is that we have a lot of hierarchy and a lot of, you know, kind of the vision is set by the administration and by the folks on the higher floors of the whichever building you may be in. But there's a lot of room to be creative to propose new ideas, to build relationships that will kind of be fruitful over time, really from the very beginning. There are a lot of young diplomats around the world that are doing really impactful, impactful work in their little corners of the world, and that's something that I think is really exciting. So I certainly hope that the people watching today are thinking about this as a possibility in the future. Another work related question is, how often do you change posts in your assignments? You want to censure on Chris, want to answer that? Sure, happy to. Well, the answer is it varies, but it's generally every two to three years. I would say the majority of jobs out there are either two or three years if it's a very intense, high stress or even dangerous job that will generally be only one year, because that's generally healthy to take a break after that amount of time at a very, very high tempo. And you know, one thing that I would point out as we are rotating around every few years, we actually are required to take some time in between foreign posts back here in the United States to kind of reconnect, whether with family or community, or just to kind of relax and re-Americanize a little bit, which I think is an interesting aspect of the job. All right, thanks Chris. We got a question related to the Uganda scenario, and there were a couple of points that were raised. One point was the need to understand local culture and governing structures. And the other question or point was coverage of complex issues in the media. Let's start with the complex issues in the media. Ben, can you tell me how you sort of sort that out in a local context and I'll come back to the local cultural issue? Sure. It's a really good question. It's complicated, right? First of all, one of the things that I look at a great deal is the ways in which people in countries around the world are able to access reliable information. And what we are seeing in many parts of Africa, as well as other countries and regions around the world, the PRC, Beijing, is beginning to operate in a way at which limits access to information. So they are purchasing local media. They are influencing local reporters. So they're no longer comfortable or able to report the facts. And so when we look at a situation like Uganda, what's most important is that people have access to the facts so they can make their own decisions. So the United States certainly isn't going in trying to impose policy, but we do think it should be a level playing field. And that really demands that people are able to trust their local news sources and see what's happening and make up their own minds. And so that's something that we're working on. We continue to invest ourselves in training for local reporters, in providing greater internet security and access for local communities, government schools, et cetera. The other thing that we as an embassy do is we have to be very humble and just as diplomats recognize when we get to an embassy, we are not the expert. And so all of us depend on our local colleagues who work at the embassy and listen to them, and they really do provide us with expert guidance and insight. But what you see over time is we'll continue to work in the same country or region. So we do develop a degree of expertise that we can call upon. But over and over again, I'd say the most important thing for us as diplomats is to work closely with our local staff. Yeah, thanks, Ben. That also answers part of the other question. In order to understand the local culture, yes, it takes great humility and resourcefulness to learn. I mean, you wouldn't come to the United States, land in Washington, and say everything that happens in Washington happens in Minnesota or Missouri. And I think we take that similar approach. When we go to countries like Uganda, there's the Ugandan government, which is one thing. And there are pockets of different groups within Uganda, the Ugandan people that may have different opinions, and we try to put that puzzle together so it represents Uganda, the country. So yes, that is very important. We're almost at time, guys, and I'd like to thank our panelists for coming and sharing their expertise today. I'd like to thank the students. I encourage you to consider careers in foreign affairs. There was a question out there about which job was the most important in helping you get into the State Department. I'll take the chair's prerogative and say Peace Corps for me, maybe for some of the others, because it's really the international experience that counts. How do things work? How do you learn to listen? How do you learn a language? In two short years in the Peace Corps, you learn all those things. So for me, it was the Peace Corps. It really prepared me to be a better diplomat. In closing, I would like to give a special shout out to Maura Pfeiffer and to Nicole Peacock, who really, really did great work to put this together. Thank you, guys. Thank you, Zofia Budai, also for your recommendation. And thank you for students for staying throughout this session. I hope that you find this conference useful. And if you want to reach out to any of us, you can certainly find most of us in LinkedIn. But we're available to help make your journey to the State Department. If that's what you want, possible. Good luck, guys. Thank you.