 Well, good morning. My name is George Moose, and I have the honor of serving as the vice chair of the Board of Directors of the United States Institute of Peace. For those of you who may not know, USIP was founded by Congress in 1984 as an independent nonpartisan national institute dedicated to reducing violent international conflicts and the threats they often pose to US security interests. We do this by working in conflict zones around the world, providing people, organizations, and governments with the tools, the knowledge, the training to manage conflicts so that it doesn't become violent and to resolve it when it does. And we use our global headquarters here as a place to convene leaders, policymakers, researchers, practitioners, to inform pressing foreign policy conversations, as is the case here today. It is in that spirit that I am especially delighted to welcome all of you here today to hear from a very distinguished guest, the right Honorable Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Foreign Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom. Foreign Secretary has served in Parliament since 2005, he has held previous cabinet positions as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. He joins us today to share his vision for Great Britain's foreign policy in a rapidly changing world where the rules-based international order is confronting a host of significant challenges. Over the past 70 years, the United States and Great Britain have played central roles in creating, elaborating, and upholding this order and the system of international institutions on which it rests, a collaboration I know firsthand, notably from my experience working with the UK in the context of the United Nations. Before we are especially welcoming of this opportunity to hear the Foreign Secretary's thoughts on how we can continue to work together in the future, in concert with other international institutions and partners, to strengthen that order and its ability to address the urgent needs of an increasingly interconnected global community. During his remarks, the Foreign Secretary will take a few questions from the press. He will then be joined on stage by the Institute's Executive Vice President, Bill Taylor, for a moderated conversation before opening the floor for your questions. For those of you joining us via webcast, we encourage you all to follow along and contribute to today's conversation on Twitter and Facebook using hashtag USIP. Without further ado, it's my honor and privilege to welcome the Foreign Secretary to the stage and to invite you to join me in welcoming him to USIP. Ambassador George, if I may, thank you. It is an honor to be here in the city and in this very distinguished institute. And I want to start, if I may, by going back not to the last century, but the century before that. During 1898, when Theodore Roosevelt had just completed his tenure as the relatively lowly Assistant Secretary of the Navy, he said, there comes a time in the life of a nation, as in the life of an individual, when it must face great responsibilities. We have now reached that time, all that we can decide is whether we shall bear ourselves well or ill. History will surely judge that the United States lived up to Roosevelt's challenge. Thanks to wise decisions made by him and his successors, strong American leadership has put in place a global order that has led to unparalleled peace and prosperity. No small part of that contribution has been made by the United States Institute for Peace, and I am privileged to be making these comments here today. This period in our history has seen not just the defeat of fascism and communism, but the emergence of an international order based on the application of a law rather than might. And the result? An exponential growth in trade leading to extraordinary advances in economic and social prosperity across the globe. This is borne out by virtually every indicator, even if they struggle to capture the headlines. For example, notwithstanding terrible recent bloodshed in Syria, the number of conflict-related deaths has fallen from five per 100,000 people across the globe in 1984 to just 1.2 people per 100,000 in 2016. At the same time, average life expectancy has risen from 31 in 1900 to 72 last year. And if you look at the poorest countries, you see even more spectacular progress. When I was born in 1966, half of humanity lived in extreme poverty. Now it's just 9%, with 137,000 people emerging from this condition every single day over the last 25 years. It's probably not hyperbole to say that this period has been the most productive and successful in the 300,000 years that Homo Sapiens has existed. But how confident can we be that this democratic, political and economic order, which has done us so proud, will actually be sustained? After the fall of the Berlin Wall, many assumed that we'd reached the end of history, that Western liberal democracies were so obviously the best way of running a society that no one would ever question their uniquely successful combination of economic and political freedoms. Indeed, what we used to call Western values have in some ways become universal, adopted by citizens in Africa and Asia, as much as Europe and America. But we do now know that such unalloyed optimism was misplaced. Not only is our democratic model declining in attractiveness for too many people, but globalization itself appears in retreat. Whilst in the 30 years after 1970, the number of democracies grew from 32 to 77. In the period since 2006, freedom has been in decline. According to Freedom House, 71 countries suffered net declines in political rights and civil liberties just last year, and less than half of UN member states are designated free. Four developments in particular should give us cause for concern. Firstly, the established rules of international conduct are repeatedly being flouted by major countries like Russia. The seizure of Crimea in 2014 was the first time that territory has been annexed in Europe by force of arms since 1945. But in fact, it was not the Kremlin's first territorial incursion this century, which was the invasion of Georgia in 2008. At the same time, we've also seen the open flouting of international norms on the use of chemical weapons by both Russia and Syria in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1997, to which both countries are parties. As a result, hundreds have died horrific deaths in Syria. At this march, the Russian government even used a banned nerve agent on the streets of Salisbury in Britain in an attempt to assassinate Sergei and Julius Skripal. One British citizen was tragically killed as a result. Such aggressive and malign behaviour undermines the international order that keeps us safe. And of course, we must engage with Moscow, but we must also be blunt. Russia's foreign policy under President Putin has made the world a more dangerous place. The second challenge is the changing east-west balance of power. By 2030, China is forecast to overtake America as the world's biggest economy. 800 million Chinese have lifted themselves out of grinding poverty, surely something everyone should welcome. By 2050, China and India are projected to account for a greater share of global GDP than the G7, compared to less than half of that level today. But with economic power comes political responsibility. And whilst China has been vocal in its support for some features of the existing system, particularly elements that enable it to trade freely with the world, it's been less supportive in other areas, refusing, for example, to oppose Russia's annexation of Crimea or support measures to strengthen the international ban on chemical weapons. Our hope must be for consistent, strong backing from China for the international rules-based order. And the key will be to get the right balance of competition and cooperation so that we can secure shared objectives wherever possible. Then there is the third challenge, namely the fraying domestic support for democratic systems in our own countries. Since the financial crash of 2008, many voters have started to question globalization and reject political leaders they associate as defending it. This is combined with a sense that attempts to export our own economic and political model to countries like Iraq have ended up as spectacular failures. This enchantment is so bad that according to one poll, one in 10 people in Europe and one in six in America think it will be a good thing for the army to rule. Added to which are basic challenges to the plumbing of our systems. The heart of any democracy is freedom of expression, which allows citizens to access independent information to help decide who to vote for. But the ubiquity of fake news, social media targeting, and foreign attempts to manipulate elections have undermined confidence that this can actually happen. The result is cynicism about both democratic systems and the elites who run them. A cynicism that will be fueled further if companies with a global reach such as Google were to accept censorship as the price of entry into the Chinese market. And the result of all of this is that those of us myself included who strongly support the basic tenets of the post-1945 international order find that we are not just having to make the arguments for it abroad, but at home as well. And we should never be complacent about one further challenge, namely the continuing threat from Islamist-inspired terrorism. This continues to use distorted religious dogma to reject the entire basis of the international order, including the modern state system itself, which they would like to replace with a so-called caliphate. Since the dark days of 9-11 in New York and 7-7 in London, we have made great military progress towards defeating extremist organisations. But truthfully, we've made far less progress in understanding why those movements arose in the first place so we can prevent their re-emergence. And all have we successfully reassured our own peoples that such ideologies will never be allowed to threaten our own open culture. So how should we respond to these challenges? I want to suggest three things in particular. Firstly, we need to rebuild the strongest possible alliances between countries that share the same values. The visible advantage that won NATO the Cold War was military capability. The invisible weapon was a rock-solid alliance of like-minded nations that sat behind it. Those shared values meant that no opponent was ever in doubt about our red lines. Henry Kissinger, who I'm privileged to be meeting in a couple of days in New York, said that credibility for a state plays the role of character for a human being. It provides a guarantee that its assurances can be relied on by friends and its threats taken seriously by adversaries. But instead of building up our credibility, we've been weakening it. A limp response to Russia's intervention in Georgia in 2008 can only have made the 2014 annexation of Crimea more likely. Our failure to respond to Assad's use of sarin gas in 2013 must at least be part of the reason why he chose to use chemical weapons again in 2014, 2015, 2017 and in April this year. Not every hostile action constitutes the crossing of a red line and we'll always need a graduated menu of responses. But the strengthening of our credibility in support of a rules-based international order must become a central goal of foreign policy. Those who don't share our values need to know that there will always be a serious price to pay if red lines are crossed, whether territorial incursions, the use of banned weapons or increasingly cyber attacks. And part of that credibility comes from unity. We showed that this year with a strong united response from 28 allies to the use of chemical weapons in Salisbury. 153 Russian intelligence officials were expelled, including 60 who were removed by the United States, more than any other country. And the US has since gone further by announcing sanctions combined with the decisive US military response to Assad's use of chemical weapons in Douma in April joined by Britain and France. We can see that the red lines on chemical weapon use have started to regain credibility. And today the United Kingdom asks its allies to go further by calling on the European Union to ensure its sanctions against Russia are comprehensive and that we truly stand shoulder to shoulder with the US. That means calling out and responding to transgressions with one voice, wherever and whenever they occur, from the streets of Salisbury to the heart of Crimea. We need to remember the importance of unity, not just on this issue, but on other issues too, whether it's halting the malign influence of Iran, ending the conflicts in Syria and Yemen, denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula, or fair burden sharing within NATO, where President Trump is surely right to urge higher defence spending by European allies as Britain is doing. Making compromises for the sake of unity will always be necessary. We should never forget Margaret Thatcher's words. It is in a country's interests to keep faith with its allies. States in this sense are like people. If you have a reputation for exacting favours and not returning them, the favours dry up. And one of the biggest threats to European unity would be a chaotic no-deal Brexit. Britain would of course find a way to prosper and we've faced many greater challenges in our history. We will always be a dependable ally for the US and all countries that share our values. But the risk of a messy divorce, as opposed to the friendship we seek, will be a fissure in relations between European allies that would take a generation to heal. A geostrategic error for Europe at an extremely vulnerable time in our history. So as I've been saying to European governments, now is the time for the European Commission to engage with an open mind with the fair and constructive proposals made by the Prime Minister. For all of us, the United States, the European Union and the UK, the strategic choices we make on these issues will have a profound impact on the solidity of our democratic and economic systems. In the face of these new challenges, now is surely the time to rebuild the unity of purpose we know is essential. The second response to the challenges we face will take longer, but is even more important. We need to regain the economic momentum that ultimately lies at the root of power. Power follows money. If we want to project our values, we need competitive economies. Professor Paul Kennedy of Yale University defined the process of rise and fall amongst the great powers as being the result of differentials in growth rates and technological change leading to shifts in the global economic balances, which in turn gradually impinge upon political and military balances. Britain, of course, knows this well. In the 19th century, thanks to the Industrial Revolution and the invention of steam-powered mass production, we eclipsed all of our rivals and became the first truly global power in history. Now, of course, as poorer countries develop, their share of global wealth will increase, and we should welcome that. But we also need to stay in the game. Recent improvements in US growth rates are encouraging, but all of us need to play to our strengths. Free and open societies are not just the best hedge against the corruption that disfigures and constrains economic growth in so many countries. They're also the natural incubators of innovative technological advances that power modern economies. As John Stuart Mill put it, genius can only breathe in an atmosphere of freedom. Of the top 10 countries in this year's global innovation index, nearly all are liberal democracies. Britain is fourth, the US comes sixth, and those two countries account for 19 of the world's top 20 universities. Now, China's astonishing march into AI and robotics show that our leadership in creativity and innovation is not unchallenged. We in Britain are responding with a modern industrial strategy focused on the fourth Industrial Revolution and including major education reforms, along with the biggest investment in rail since Victorian times. But there's much more to do, and we must all prove in this new era that free, open, capitalist values are the key to economic renewal and prosperity. Free trade is critical to that. And the United Kingdom warmly welcomes the support from the US administration for a UK-US free trade deal. The final response to the challenges we face must be to get our own house in order. Disatisfaction with the way society works is nothing new, although social media can make it spread like wildfire. But we are putting our heads in the sand if we think we can blame social media by pretending that some of the causes of that resentment are not real, whether caused by the decline in real incomes for many Americans and Europeans, dislocation caused by changes in technology or the identity concerns of many voters caused by immigration. To reject those concerns as being held by a minority of voters with illiberal views is to make a dangerous mistake. In Britain, the 52% of our country who voted to leave the EU cannot be dismissed as far-right extremists, nor the many who seek change in the US. Our two histories share a common thread of the benefits of freedom and prosperity progressively being shared by more and more of our peoples. But if our electorates believe that such benefits are no longer being shared fairly between political elites and the people they represent, then resentment boils over. Expressing such resentment is an affirmation and not a rejection of the core democratic instinct that a society must work for all its citizens. So the sooner we address those concerns, the stronger our democracies will be. Part of that must be to address concerns about the basic functioning of our democracies. Given the importance of the online world for political communication, the rules governing online activity and the run-up to elections should surely be as strict as those elsewhere, and modern electorates should be given confidence that the results cannot be influenced by the cyber activities of other countries. At the same time, we need to restore confidence in the multilateral institutions whose job is to protect the stability of the international order and the values it depends on. No one understood the importance of this task better than Kofi Annan, a humane and principled leader who embodied the best of the UN during his 10 years as Secretary-General and whose death last Saturday, we all mourn. But he would have been the first to acknowledge that all too often those institutions are seen as talking shops with little capacity to engineer real change. And given that they sit at the heart of the international rules-based order, the UK and US must continue to make common cause to progress bold and necessary reforms. These are just three of the many possible responses to the challenges we face. But if the issue seemed daunting, history also tells us that nothing is inevitable. The progress we made didn't happen by accident, but rather as the result of extraordinary endeavor and difficult choices made at critical moments. I started with Teddy Roosevelt, so let me finish with his formidable niece, Eleanor, who said that in working for the dignity and freedom of the human race, to stand still is to retreat, just as others before us now is the time to move forward with clarity and purpose. Thank you. So we're now just going to start with a small number of questions from the media, and I'm going to start with Susanna from AP. Where's Susanna? Thank you so much for doing this. You talked about the relationship between credibility and unity and the importance in building confidence in multilateral institutions. How do you propose doing this when so many countries, the UK and the US, are increasingly going it alone and withdrawing from the rules-based international order that you talked about? Well, I don't believe that either the UK or the US are doing that. We have to recognize that the way that multilateral organizations were set up in the 20th century is not necessarily the way that they need to work in the 21st century. And we need to work together to reform those institutions, because as you rightly say, they're very important for the rules-based order. But I think it's very clear from President Trump's first period in office that he is not an isolationist. This is a president who wants to engage in the world, but is very open about the parts of international alliances that don't work. So I think he's right to say that European allies need to share more of the burden of keeping NATO military defense spending properly funded. And he's right to challenge all of us where things aren't working as well as they could. But in the end, this is about finding a way to make these alliances work. And I think that's what's incredibly important. That's the argument I'm making this morning. Next, Cordelia from Sky News. Thank you very much, Foreign Secretary. You're calling on the European Union to go further in its sanctions against Russia. The European Commission has already said that robust measures are in place. You also have countries like Austria and Italy that want to maintain economic ties with Moscow. Exactly what are you asking for and exactly how do you intend to influence the European Union when you're leaving it? Well, the first thing is I think it's important to say that the European Union and our European allies actually joined with Britain and calls from Theresa May and my predecessor in taking very, very robust action earlier this year when we first had those Salisbury attacks. So I think this is why I think we can draw some confidence from what's happened to date, that we're beginning to restore very important red lines when it comes to the use of chemical weapons. But we've heard very recently that the United States is prepared to go a step further. And we're now in that 90-day period where they are considering whether they will be legally obliged to implement further sanctions. And all I'm saying in my speech here is that this attack happened on European soil and we must make sure that we are standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States. It doesn't mean to say that we will react in exactly the same way as the United States. But this is a very important time for transatlantic unity and for European Union. So I'm sure we will have big discussions inside the EU whilst we're still a part of it about these issues. But actually, when I go around and visit European foreign ministries, and I've met 15 foreign ministers so far, this is one thing, actually, that everyone agrees on, that we need to protect, preserve, and strengthen the transatlantic alliance. And that's the point I'm making. Next, Krishnadev Kalamur from The Atlantic. Thank you. Today is the first anniversary of President Trump's South Asia review in Afghanistan. The UK recently announced that it was sending 440 more military personnel to Afghanistan. Given the carnage there this week, over the past week, is this an open-ended commitment? Well, we hope not. And it's a very important priority for both the United States and the United Kingdom that we can find a way of drawing these conflicts to a close as quickly as possible. But we are also in this for the long haul. And a stable Afghanistan is very important for both our countries. And I think it's very important to say in that context that there is no closer military alliance anywhere in the world than between the United States and the United Kingdom. We have a British defense personnel in 34 of the 50 US states. We have 23,000 US defense personnel in the United Kingdom itself. And the work that we're doing in Afghanistan, as in many other places, is, I think, a symbol of just how important that partnership is between the US and the UK in terms of upholding the international order. Jessica Donati from Wall Street Journal. Trump has been openly pushing Britain to give up on the Iran deal and to work on squeezing Iran economically through sanctions and other measures. And we were wondering if the UK is prepared to reconsider its approach towards Iran. And if it doesn't do that, what impact could that have on the UK-US relationship at this time when you're trying to negotiate a deal with them? Well, you can be the closest of allies. And that still doesn't mean that you don't have things that you occasionally disagree on. And that was the case in the Cold War. There were very lively discussions between Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan at that time. And this is one way we do have a genuine difference of opinion because we think the best way to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons is to stick with the nuclear deal. And the administration has a different view. But I don't think we should let that obscure the huge numbers of areas in that part of the world and, in fact, across the globe where we are absolutely aligned. And when it comes to Iran's activities in the Middle East, we work with the administration, with the United States, very, very successfully to curb their activities in Lebanon, in Iraq, in Yemen, in Syria. And this is something where I think we have exactly the same vision. But we do have this difference as to how we get there. Final question from Robert Moore of ITV. Thank you, Foreign Secretary, and good morning. As an aside in your speech, and just in reference to this last answer you talked about, your ambition to end the conflict in Yemen, I wonder as an incoming Foreign Secretary, as a new Foreign Secretary, how personally comfortable you are with British and, indeed, American weapons sales to Riyadh. I'm asking in the light of an attack that killed 40 schoolchildren, possibly a missile with a UK guidance system on it. I wonder if you're having second thoughts about that, about whether you're thinking of putting conditions on it to Riyadh, given the escalating and cataclysmic humanitarian situation in Yemen. Well, we look at that humanitarian situation with a huge amount of concern. It's possible to see the reports of what happened in that bus in Yemen without being very concerned about what's happening. Saudi Arabia is a close military ally, and they help us keep the streets of Britain safe. And so that relationship is very important to us. It doesn't mean that we don't raise concerns about what happened with the Saudi foreign minister, Al-Jabir, as I did last week. So that is a very important part of what I have to do as Foreign Secretary. But when it comes to the mechanics of arms sales, what I would say is that we have one of the strictest systems in the world in Britain. We constantly keep under review the agreements under which the sales are made and make sure that they are used in a way that is consistent with the agreements made when they were sold, and that is something we'll continue to do. And last but absolutely not least, Kylie Morris from Channel 4. Thank you, Foreign Secretary. Donald Trump's public protestations aren't in line with Britain's view that Vladimir Putin is a real danger to democracy. He has been reluctant publicly to admonish Russia. Then there's his personal embrace of Vladimir Putin and his slow embrace, indeed, of sanctions. How can he be confident that President Trump agrees with Britain in terms of the threat posed by Russia? Well, President Trump is the most active president on social media that there's ever been in the history of the United States, probably the history of the world, actually, and he's particularly active on Twitter, and it's a very different style of politics, but I think it's very important to look at what he does as well as what he says. And when it comes to sanctions, it was this administration that first said that they were going to take economic action against Russia as a result of what happened in Salisbury. It wasn't Europe, it was the United States that were first to do that. And I think if you look at the actions of President Trump, what you see is an approach to foreign policy that is different to his predecessors, but is absolutely focused on upholding the international order, but he does it in a different way. And what he's saying is where there are things that are not working, he's going to call them out. But in the case of President Putin, it is incredibly important at the same time to have a dialogue because he is a major nuclear power, the same reason that as a president, he was prepared to take big political risks to meet Kim Jong-un. So he is a believer in dialogue as being extremely important, intense and difficult situations. But I think if you look at his actions, he's also prepared to be very tough, tougher actually than a number of his predecessors to make sure that people get the message about vital red lines when it comes to the international order. So I'm now going to hand over to Ambassador Bill Taylor and we're going to have a moderated discussion with the audience here. Foreign Secretary, thank you. Moderator's question a little bit, but what we're really going to do, I'm going to have one question and then open to other people here who will have questions for the foreign secretary, I suspect. And I will moderate by calling on you. So get your questions ready. The press has had their great opportunity, Foreign Secretary, you can play. So I'm going to look for others to ask questions. Let me just start where the last question left off, which is your first challenge, Russia. And you said there will be a serious price to pay for things like territorial incursions. And as you mentioned exactly right, Russia has invaded Georgia and Ukraine, both Crimea and Donbas. So they have clearly violated the standards that we've talked about that you have highlighted. We've talked a bit about the sanctions that the Europeans and the Americans have put on for Crimea, for Donbas, for Salisbury, for the civilian airliner that was for meddling in our elections, possibly meddling in your referendum. These sanctions have been tough. And so my question is, is that enough? Can we re-establish the global order as long as the Russians are still in Ukraine? Well, I think the first point to say is that the integrity of borders is absolutely essential to international order. And so that is very important. I think we also have to recognize that our quarrel is not with the Russian people, but with some of the actions by the Russian government. I believe that President Putin has not got a new strategy of global domination in the way that we were seeing from the Soviet Union, but he is testing us, and he's just wanting to see how robust and how united the West is when he tries out various things. And that is why it's very important that our response is robust and united. But if we are, then I think it's entirely possible to have positive cordial relations with the Russian Federation. And I think that's what our ambition should be. The Institute of Peace is in favor of that. That's what we're looking for as well. Let me ask people in the audience, if you've got questions, if you do, please raise your hand and identify yourselves and address your question. Sir, you do, and here's one coming from Ellie. She will bring you a mic. Thank you, foreign secretary. I'm Harlan Oman. I'm chairman of a British company and had the pleasure of serving in the Royal Navy 100 years ago. Right, Kim. My question has to do with unity in the alliance. Like it or not, the size of the British military is shrinking even if you do spend more money. We have a few problems with Turkey. Hungary and Poland are not going in the right direction. And so I really wonder what you would offer in terms of specific recommendations to strengthen the unity of the alliance. The recent summit in Brussels went so far, but almost all of those recommendations were on the margin and they were military. What would you propose to the president and the people you're gonna see in the White House as specific action steps that we can take not only to strengthen the special relationship but unity in the NATO alliance? Well, it's a very important question and my dad was in the Navy all his life. So I was welcome a question from someone who was probably a colleague of my dad's. If I can say that in the most respectful way. I think that what we have to do is first of all recognize that unity does depend on fairness. And if you have one ally, given the principal military threats that NATO was set up to counteract were in Europe, if you have the ally that happens not to be in Europe spending more than double the proportion of its GDP on defense than the majority of NATO allies, then that is going to lead to friction. And so I think it's absolutely essential that all NATO allies live up to the commitments they made in Cardiff to increase their spending on defense. And I think that that is will be an irritant in the relationship that will only undermine unity and as we address it as quickly as we can. But I think also we should remember back to that Cold War period. And this is the argument I'm making in my speech that the real solidity of NATO was that it was an alliance of values. It wasn't just a transactional arrangement. It was an alliance of people who shared similar values. And I think that for that reason we need to recognize that actually the nature of the threats to the international order that we've all worked so hard for over our lifetimes is changing and increasing. And so we need to reaffirm the value of this alliance as a value of people who share similar values. Foreign Secretary, at 10.59 I'm going to go one last question if Shelly's agreed, and she does. Yes, sir. Yeah, my name is Kube Doromo. I'm from South Sudan. I'm the chairman of South Sudan United Freedom Fighters. And I help most of the organizations, plus UN, to this, to Trump administration, to able to sanction South Sudan and the now is imposed by UN. My question is, in 1922, when UN gave the Britain the mandate to protect the Georgian state and the Palestinian state, they took that mandate and protect South Sudan from North Sudan. North Sudan was Islamic while South Sudan was living in African religion, which was good, and it was working. The same United States came back and asked Britain to unite South Sudan and the Northern Sudan. That is 1947, which is Duba Conference. And that conflict again started again as what it is going on right now. And it was not good. In 2005, US again came back and tried to take South Sudan to where it was before 1922, which is good. And it happened in 2011. But in 2013, the leaders of South Sudan committed atrocities that never happened in the world, which it did happen in Kosovo and in Rwanda, in Iber Coast. And the response of the UN was to address the issue and to take those leaders automatically away. But in the east of the South Sudan, the United States and the UK called the Ugandan president, Mr. Benny, to prevent the citizens of South Sudan from really taking the government out. Thank you. Well, I think the first thing that I want to say is that we recognize that finding a solution to the incredibly challenging problems in all of Sudan is a very important thing for not just for the people of Sudan but the stability of that part of Africa. Without getting to the details of that particular situation, I think the point that you have illustrated very well is that Britain and the United States have a historic role in that region that goes back a very long time. That gives us not just a special responsibility to help solve those problems, but also a special ability to be a constructive force in solving those problems. Now, both Britain and the United States are two of the biggest military forces in the world. We're... The UK is the fifth largest, United States is the largest. We're also two of the biggest aid spenders in the world. And I think engaging in the problems of Africa, the problems of Sudan, is one of the parts of the world where we can make a real difference by working together and that's what I want to do. Foreign Secretary, let me, on behalf of everyone here, thank you very much for your comments, for your response to the questions, for being here. We hope you will come back. This has been a great opportunity for us for this interaction. Please join me in thanking the foreign minister, foreign secretary. Ladies and gentlemen, please remain seated as our delegation departs.