 Okay, we're gonna get started. I'm Dan Rundy. I hold the Shrier Chair here at CSIS. I want to welcome everyone to CSIS's inaugural Global Development Forum. Before we begin, when we have public events, we start with a public safety announcement. I'm the safety officer for today, so if anything happens please follow my instructions. The exits are right behind us, and obviously there exits as well here, and the emergency exit are the stairs that you came up and if in the unlikely event of an emergency you'd go down those stairs and we'd go outside and meet across the street in the park. There are also maps of the emergency routes in your program, so please follow me in the unlikely event of an emergency. So with that, we'll start the program. I want to thank our partner Chevron for making this program possible. For four years ago we launched the project on U.S. leadership and development. Together we have focused on opportunities and the remaining challenges in the developing world. Thank you very much, Chevron. Two years ago we released a bipartisan report called Our Shared Opportunity, A Vision for Global Prosperity, that laid out a series of recommendations that we think will shape the future of development. This conference builds on that work. I also want to thank my friend and colleague Joanna Nesseth. Joanna stood up this program when she was here at CSIS and she's been a critical partner in her role at Chevron. Thank you, Joanna. I also want to thank Christina Perkins and Caitlin Allmire who helped organize this conference and Caitlin's back there and I know Christina's elsewhere as well. I want to thank them. They have put a tremendous amount of work in making this conference. Thank you both. The conversations and discussions you'll hear today will lay out the changing nature of international development and the need to work across sectors. With that, we'd like to play a short video to start off the conversation. The developing world is changing fast. Ships and politics and demographics continue to change the landscape of international development. The pace of this change is accelerating. These rapid shifts represent new challenges and opportunities for development and international security. Developing countries democratized and experienced substantial economic growth over the past two decades. In 1988, Freedom House reported 65% of countries free or partly free. Today, it's 74%, but corruption remains a serious problem and effective governance is still a challenge for many developing countries. 90% of the world's youth live in these less developed countries. They are hungry for jobs and opportunity. Urban centers are nexus of innovation for you and the number of urban dwellers is expected to double by 2050. Since 2000, extreme poverty has been slashed by half, but more than 1 billion people are still living on less than $1.25 a day. New sources of emancipation, new opportunities for investment, and new solutions. In 1960, the vast majority of financial flows from the US to the developing world were public. Now about 90% of flows from the US are private. Across Sub-Saharan Africa, total domestic sources of revenues grew from about $100 billion in 2000 to nearly $530 billion in 2012, dwarfing official development systems or ODA, which grew from $20 billion to $54 billion in the same period. At the same time, trade flows have diversified. South-South trade now accounts for about $5 trillion, approximately a quarter of the world's total trade. Implementing reports in the 2013 WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement alone could increase global trade by as much as $1 trillion and potentially create 21 million new jobs. Today, fostering international security must include diplomacy and smart development strategies. In the next 50 years, the US must recognize and craft solutions for these large-scale shifts that will challenge it. There is still a role for foreign assistance, but increasingly, aid is used to promote private investment, innovative financing mechanisms, and trade that can lead to sustainable growth. In Sub-Saharan Africa, 9 out of 10 jobs are created by the private sector. The US must take advantage of a broader range of tools to remain a viable partner of choice for these developing economies. Building strong public-private partnerships will provide solutions for multifaceted challenges facing the world today. The US private sector also has the ability to leverage global supply chains, to create jobs, and to support local communities. At the same time, the United States government must continue to support effective and resilient systems for health, education, and food security. The world has made significant progress, but there are still many challenges to face in the next half century. And only by recognizing the importance of development and developing nations for the US foreign policy to serve as a force for international prosperity and security. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming. My name is John Hamery, the president here at CSIS. It's a real privilege to have you all of you here. I would just like to, this will be very brief, but I do want to share with you why did we organize this? And we did it for a reason. I, when CSIS was created 52 years ago, and it was really a defense think tank. But our development programs now are larger than our defense programs at CSIS. It's a matter of, this is our largest program, and yet we're not seen that way in Washington. I think it is a defense program, actually. When I go back to the Cold War, America didn't win the Cold War because we fielded a larger military than the Soviet Union. We had to have a military that was large enough to counter any intimidation that was coming from the Soviet Union. But the Cold War was about ideas. It was about visions of the future. It was about visions of the role of people in society. And America held, ought the promise, working with our European allies, that the future is about democracy. It's about representative government. It's about rule of law. It's about transparency and accountability. I mean, that was the real battle during the Cold War. It wasn't bombers. It wasn't tanks. It wasn't armies. It was about those ideas. I think that's the nature of the world that we're in right now. I think we're facing, I don't remember a more challenging time. I was talking with Ambassador Shannon while we were assembling. We can't remember a time when we faced more security challenges. I think this is the most important security agenda we have. This agenda we're trying to highlight today. It's far more powerful. I hate to say it. I'm a defense guy. It's far more powerful than putting another aircraft carrier to sea. Because we're shaping an environment that's going to redirect all of this energy in the world in the right way. So that's the purpose of the day. And it was in a conversation now five years ago with Steve Green and his colleagues at Chevron when I learned what Chevron was doing for its good commercial purpose in Angola. They decided that to be successful at Angola, the best thing they could do would be to help build up the economy of Angola. And it's now they've having put $2 billion a year into the supply chain in Angola. And what do they get out of it? Healthier communities. There are people waiting to work for Chevron in Angola. Their absentee rate is virtually non-existent. Vandalism has disappeared. I mean it's when corporations choose to partner in creative and constructive ways, it's good for business. Well, it's also good for development. It is the development agenda. It's all about bringing prosperity to people's lives, to build healthy communities and healthy homes, healthy societies. That's what this is about. And it's inextricable and positive partnership between the profit-seeking and the not profit-seeking private sector working with the government to find an agenda of prosperity. So I want to say thank you to all of you today. It's going to be a very interesting day, a very good day. And I'm looking forward to hearing everyone. I too want to say thank you to Chevron. And let me now turn to Steve. Steve is, he's an oil and gas guy who spent all his time upstream and now he's ending up working with the government. I don't know what you did wrong, Steve. But this is certainly, you know, this isn't the promotion path you would have thought, but he is now in charge of all global policy for Chevron. I would like to ask you to say a word. And then I also, before I let me just say thank you, Congressman, we're delighted to have you here. When someone of your stature is willing to come and do this, it lifts up everything. We're really grateful to have you with us. Steve, let me turn to you. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Hammering. I would add my welcome and good morning, ladies and gentlemen, to the CSIS Global Development Forum. I'm often asked, John, what second prize was. And no one's ever answered that question for me. But it is a unique part of our corporation's work. And we work in many challenging parts of the world. And the needs are many and development has moved from just philanthropy or check writing to our approach is to try to build something that is impactful and is sustainable over a sweep of time. But first of all, let me thank CSIS, Dr. Hammering and Dan, for their work in implementing this forum and the entire five-year program together. Chevron is very, very proud of being part of an effort that seeks to harness the strengths of public, private and NGO sectors to drive positive change in the world. I'm proud to represent Chevron today. And I'm very pleased to see so many of you took time out of your busy schedules to attend this forum, which I consider to be an important and evolving conversation. In 2013, as the video said, CSIS released its shared opportunity report. And I think it signaled to the rest of the world that the U.S., involving the public, the private, and the NGO communities, saw a better path around the development discussion worldwide. And we were aligned around a set of goals that intended to reduce poverty, build healthy, vibrant communities through partnership, economic growth and business investment. Everyone involved in that report, and many of you in the room, envisions a world that is more stable, peaceful, and prosperous. American multinational corporations, and particularly energy companies, can help and have helped public and policymakers realize those aspirations. When American corporations do business abroad, we demonstrate and lead by example in areas like contract sanctity, rule of law, competition, transparency, fairness, and in many cases, enhanced environmental and safety standards. The nature of our business is a world-scale energy development cost billions of dollars. And we spend billions of dollars on goods and services to deliver the world the affordable energy it needs to power progress. But we also invest in the communities where we operate. One of our core values is getting results the right way. But it is not only the right thing to do, as John mentioned, it is good business. And we have learned through decades of experience working abroad that healthy communities are a much better business environment than communities that are constantly in turmoil. Affordable, reliable energy is a cornerstone of development and progress. It helps improve the lives of communities and countries around the globe. But as we stand here today, nearly a billion and a half people have no access to what we would consider a modern energy system like electricity. Another billion have access to what could best only best at best be described as unreliable electricity networks. American energy companies have and will continue to play a leading role in developing affordable energy for decades to come. But resource development is only part of the equation. Real success means developing the full potential of the economies in the countries where we do business. And in that effort, the U.S. government is one of our most loyal and valued partners. Reflecting on the years since the release of the shared opportunity, we've made progress together. There are many partnerships in this room that Chevron's involved in and many that we are not involved in. But all of those are geared toward building prosperity and improving livelihoods around the world. The conversation needs to continue because there's still much work to do. And that conversation needs to lead to actions that produce progress. That's why forums like today are important. It's an opportunity for the exchange of experiences and ideas to how to move the development agenda forward. There's tremendous experience in this room. The panel we have here this morning has great experience and great insights to offer to this conversation. There's always a need for American leadership in business, in government, and in the NGO sector. So I'm looking forward to the conversations throughout the day. Again, I will thank you for your attendance. And I hope that you take full advantage of the impressive speakers and panelists that have been assembled for you today. Again, thank you very much for allowing Chevron to be a part of this. We're thrilled to be here. I'll turn it back now to Dan. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dr. Hamry, and thank you, Steve Green, for your remarks. I'm very pleased to introduce Congressman Andrew Crenshaw of Florida. Congressman Crenshaw was first elected to Congress in 2000 to represent the northeast corner of Florida. I hope we all have a chance to visit the northeast corner of Florida. I'm sure you'll hear that from Congressman Crenshaw, and I'm sure it's a very beautiful part of the state. In his time in the House, he's established himself as a leading congressional voice on U.S. foreign assistance policy. He is a long-time member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. For those of you who aren't in Washington, that means he's part of the committee that's responsible for appropriating the U.S. foreign assistance budget and is co-chair of the Congressional Caucus for Effective Foreign Assistance. Please join me in welcoming Congressman Crenshaw to CSIS. Congressman. Well, thank you, Dan, and thank you all for being here today. And thanks for inviting me to share part of the morning with you. You know, I'm here because I want to be here. I think you're here probably because you want to be here. You want to talk about development. You want to talk about foreign assistance. And I happen to believe as a member of Congress that the investment, the small investment we make in foreign assistance is a good investment. And when you talk about being where you want to be, as a member of Congress, I can tell you that a lot of members of Congress want to be on the Appropriations Committee. They want to be on that committee because that's the committee that spends the money. That's the committee that decides how much money you're going to spend and where you're going to spend it. Now, I sit on one of the subcommittees, actually three of them, one's called Defense. And that's where more than half of all the money that we spend goes. And that's important. It's an important responsibility. I chair a subcommittee called Financial Services and General Government. And so I'm in charge of overseeing and funding about 20 different agencies, starting with the Supreme Court of the United States and the IRS, which brings groans usually when I mention that. And then I sit on state and foreign operations. As Dan said, that's the subcommittee that spends money on foreign assistance. And when you talk about being somewhere you want to be, most members of Congress would like to be on the Appropriations Committee, but they're not necessarily anxious to be on the subcommittee that spends billions of dollars all across the world when that doesn't always play well back home. You probably know that a poll last year indicated that more than half the American people think that we spend about 25% of all the money that the government spends about 25% goes for foreign assistance and development. And you'll hear people say from time to time, good grief, if we just didn't send all that money to all those countries around the world, we could balance our own budget. We got a lot of problems right here at home. And so a lot of people aren't too anxious to be on that. In fact, that's a subcommittee bill that rarely makes it to the House floor. Senator Daschle knows because it's hard to pass legislation that says we're going to spend money in countries that some people can't even pronounce their names or find them on a map, but we're going to spend that money. But I think that's a good investment. And I'm proud of the work that we've done. And as a member of that subcommittee, I travel all around the world. And from time to time, when people come before our subcommittee, I like to ask them the question. Mr. Bono was before our subcommittee. Mr. Bono or Bono, I said, Mr. Bono, can I call you Bono? And he said, yeah, you can call me Bono. I said, let me ask you a question. Help me understand how I'm going to go home to talk to my 600,000 constituents in Northeast Florida and explain to them why we're going to spend $15 billion in Africa on AIDS when we got a lot of problems in our own communities. And he said, you know, that's a good question because he thought about that. He's very passionate, as you may know. And I think I think his answer, I don't recall exactly, but but it was it was along the lines of it's almost like a moral responsibility. It's the right thing to do. It's out of a sense of compassion that we're the richest country on the face of the earth and we have an obligation to help people that are less fortunate than we are. And I think that's part of probably why a lot of you are in the room today, because because you know and understand that it's important. It's important to be compassionate and whether it comes out of religious conviction or whether it just comes out of it's the right thing to do. Well, a little later on that year, Bill Gates came before I said, I asked him the same kind of a similar question. I said, Mr. Gates, you spend a lot of your own money helping underdeveloped countries around the world trying to deal with disease and hunger. And I know that you go out and you talk to your friends and you ask them to invest like you are. And I said, what do you tell them? What's your sales pitch? How do you convince people they ought to be given money like you are? And his answer was maybe a little more practical. Because he said, you know, he said, I try to tell people that if we invest in development and assistance in emerging countries around the world that when they get better, the world gets better. When the world gets better, we get better. And he said, it's like if there's a peaceful and stable country being developed, then we might spend less money on our military. The journal would tell you that. We just talked about that. There's a defense component to foreign assistance and development. And of course he's a businessman. He said, you know, if we help develop these emerging countries and they're less dependent, they can become more independent, they grow an economy, they have a productive workforce. He said, that's good for the world economy. It creates new markets for our goods and also creates new places to produce the goods that we produce. And so you can see that there's not only this moral component, but a defense component, an economic component. We talked about diplomacy, how important that is. And so you all come from different backgrounds, but you care about the same thing. And maybe from a different perspective, a different background. We're all working together to make the world a better place. And I've seen a lot of the suffering around the world and you have too. I'm sure that may be what motivates you to do with the things that you're doing, because you want to change things for the better. And I've seen that, but I've also seen a lot of the successes, the achievements that we've made, the investment that we make as the United States of America into these emerging countries. And the film laid out the facts. You know, I have a daughter that's 35 years old. And 35 years old, 35 years ago, when she was born, literally half the world, half the world lived in extreme poverty, 50 percent, a buck and a quarter a day, half the world 35 years ago. As it pointed out today, it's maybe 15 percent of the world lives in extreme poverty. And that's, that's, that's progress. 35 years ago, when my daughter was born, every day, every day, 40,000 people died in this world because of poor living conditions. 40,000 people. 35 years later, when she now has children, 17,000 people die every day because of poor living conditions. Now that's, that's an improvement, obviously. But think about it. That's, that's, that's good news in the sense that there are 8 million people that didn't die last year that would have died 35 years ago. But still, we've got such a long way to go. You look around the world and HIV, AIDS, 7.7 million people today are being treated because of PETFAR. You look at malaria. It was mentioned, I chair the malaria, what we call a caucus in the house. And my job is to help educate my colleagues about what we're doing in the world of malaria. And the general will tell you that not only is malaria curable and preventable, but it's also the number one infectious disease that our military has to deal with. And they can tell you that over the last 100 years, more people in the military have died from malaria than have been killed in the battlefield. But we're making progress there and they can, they can show you that in the last 10 years, and it's particularly tragic for young people, five years in age and younger. In the last 10 years, the death rate for five year olds by malaria has been reduced by 50% worldwide. And it's 60% reduction in Africa. And a lot of times, all that is, is, is supplying people with a bed net, a mosquito net. And this year, they will distribute the one billionth, that's B isn't billion, one billion mosquito nets will have been distributed in the last decade to help save four million lives from malaria. And so we're making progress. We're doing good things. We're achieving. But I think this conference says that film pointed out so well, the world is changing and it's changing rapidly. And we have to change with it. The small investment that the United States makes in development and foreign assistance, the work that you supply from the private sector and the NGO, you've got to be changing too. You got to recognize that, that we have to evaluate and we have to reevaluate the work that's being done. We've got to innovate. We've got to be creative. We've got to recognize that all of this is interdependent. For too long, we'd say, let's deal with hunger here and let's deal with poverty here and maybe over here we'll deal with education. But it's all working together. And if we can, if we can develop a safe citizenry, and yet there's no place for them to go to work or go to school or train, what, what, what have we done? And if we can build schools and ports and buildings and yet we've got disease citizens that can't get up and go to work, how is that helping? Somehow we've got to coordinate. We've got to be more flexible. And let me give you a couple of thoughts that I'm sure you will be talking about today. I think number one, there's a pretty good model in what they call the Millennium Challenge Corporation. About 10 years ago, under President Bush, that was created this year, we'll spend about a billion dollars that that Millennium Corporation will be able to spend. And they enter into contracts with different countries and you bring about a sense of country ownership. You don't just write another check and another check and another check, but you sit down with a country that's developing and say what do you need? How can we help? And by the way, here's a way that you can help yourself. There are 20 criteria that we have that have to do with rule of law and women's rights and education and anti corruption. And it's a contract and they enter into that. And that brings about accountability. It brings about transparency. It brings about the ability to not only, as they say, give a man a fish, but to help the man become a fisherman. And they take ownership and they grow. And that's a model that we ought to think about. When I talk about coordination, one of the things that the president's malaria initiative has done over the last 10 years is try to bring together the Department of Defense where they're working on a vaccine, where the CDC is working on a vaccine, where you've got the P score when you're trying to distribute mosquito nets, bringing about coordination. Petfar does great. They train people, but it's age related and we ought to think about how we can broaden that because we've got to deal with not just age, not just malaria, but tuberculosis and all the things that you know about. And the private sector is very much involved in there. I was just in Colombia where Coca-Cola, in each of the countries they sell coax, they got to have a clean water supply. And so that kind of works pretty well with USAID to say not only we got some fresh water to put in the coke, but here's some for the folks to drink. My wife was in Bolivia not long ago, up in the mountains of the Andes, outside of Ketchabamba in a little place called Arama Sea, where if you didn't die by the time you were two, you had the good fortune of living to maybe be 35 or 36. If you didn't die from dysentery, then you could wait and die when a chuga bug fell out of the thatch roof and bit your chest and you died from heart disease. And I ask my friends, how long do you usually stay when you go up there? And they say, well, we stay until the fresh water runs out. And then we come back. And still, we get sick from time to time. So we can do a better job of coordination. We've talked a lot about public private partnerships. More and more, there's going to be private dollars put in, because we're not going to have a whole lot more federal dollars. This year, we'll spend about $25 million. And remember, I said people think it's 25% of the spending. Think about it. Do the math. It's not even 1%. It's 6 tenths of 1%. That's how much money that we spend as a federal government developing and assisting countries around the world. And that's not going to grow a whole lot. So it demands that we're more creative. And they were more accountable. They were more transparent. USAID. Raj Shah, you remember spent five years here and did a great job of bringing about the sense of accountability, not just spending money, not just measuring how much we put in, but measuring what kind of results we get and there are better ways to do that. And finally, it might be a good idea to broaden our horizon. We talked some about trade. And there's a trade component to foreign assistance. And one of the things that people don't talk about much is the violence that goes on in the world today, particularly among the poor. When I said that 15% of the people are now living in extreme poverty, and that's been reduced from 50% to 15%. But if you go back and look 35 years ago, about 2 billion people were living on $2 a day. They're doing better. They're not extremely poor, but they're poor. And not much has changed for them because of the violence that goes on that you don't read about and I don't read about. Maybe every now and then we read about human trafficking or sex slaves. But we don't see the violence that takes place with women, with the barrows, with the slums, where people are living and they'll never get out of that. And we're not really focusing on that. But if we could do a better job of dealing with that, if you build a school and there are places where I've talked to young women, they're not going to go to school because they can't afford to leave their little hut to go walk through the crowd to get to the school because they're probably going to get raped on the way and they're just not going to take that chance. And so what good is a school if you can't get up and go to school? But maybe that's something that we could throw in that mix that we don't always talk about. How do you deal with that? And is it broad into the world of terrorism that our military deals with all across the world? So there are things we can do. There are things that we can do better. And that's why you're here. And I wish you well. I just want to say in closing that number one, I think the small investment that we make as a nation arguably is one of the best investments we make in terms of what we get for the money we spend. But I would say we continue to need to evaluate and re-evaluate and innovate. And when we bring everything together with its education and its relieving poverty and disease, when we do all those things and train people and educate them, what do we do? We unleash this tremendous human spirit. And then kids can go to school. Moms and dads can go to work. Communities can flourish. Businesses can grow. And we, the United States of America, can be part of building relationships of these developing nations around the world. So I look forward to continue that work. I thank you for the work that you do. And thank you for having me here today. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you, Congressman. I think you can see why we wanted to have Congressman Crenshaw with us. Thank you very much. And we really look forward to working with you going forward. We have a great lineup and we're just doing a little set change here. But we're going to have a panel discussion that's going to talk about how we seat development in the context of the broader national interest. And I think we've got some very qualified speakers to do that. And so I'm going to ask the panelists to come up, if they would, and just there's, and then we'll get the conversation going. Come on up, panelists. That means you. Great. We're going to get started. The one of the interesting factoids is that Senator Daschle and Ambassador Lenhart worked together in a past life. So this is a mini reunion of sorts, I think. You were his sergeant at arms when he was in the Senate. Indeed. He hired me. Well, this is great. As I said, this conversation is about how do we sit development in the context of the national interest? And you've got perspectives of perhaps not necessarily into intuitive voices about development, though I think most people in town would say that the three D's conversation of development, diplomacy and defense has become very robust in the last 12 years. And in fact, that development has gotten an increasing amount of prominence in the various national security strategies over the last 12 years. So I think it makes a lot of sense to have this conversation the way we're going to have it. I've asked each of the panelists to make some opening remarks from their perspective, from their past lives, if you will, of being in public service about development. And so I think we're going to start or their current lives as well. So we're very fortunate to have with us starting with Ambassador Lenhard, who was former ambassador to Tanzania. You also had a career in the US Army as well as you're now the acting administrator at USAID. So we're very, very fortunate to have you. So I'm going to start with you, Ambassador Lenhard. Well, thank you. I'm often asked the question after 30 years in the Army and ambassador to Tanzania and a few other jobs I've held. Why development? Why did I come to USAID? Well, the answer for me is quite simple because I've deployed various places around the world. And so I've had an opportunity to see how development truly does a lot for our national security as well as our economic security and countries around the world. And needless to say that our efforts in helping those countries have been significant in terms of developing friends for our country, which then endures to our own security and our own prosperity. And so as we think about it and we pick up any newspaper at any point in time, and you see time and time again where poverty, extreme poverty, extreme hunger, extreme climate and extremist views have pushed people to the brink of survival and have challenged our own security moreover the world's security. And so development is that one opportunity that serves as a vanguard, if you will, as the tip of the spear in terms of the capacity, the capabilities that we, our country brings to an equation in terms of how we might influence the action and places around the world. Quite simply, development is a lot cheaper than employing soldiers and less destructive in some ways. And I'm not saying that a negative way, General Kelly, as much as to say that when soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen are brought in, it's for a specific purpose. And that's generally to prosecute legitimate wars. And so we want to prevent that as much as possible by having development out front. And as you think about the success of development over the many years, and the USAID right now is about 53 years of age in terms of bringing, being brought into existence by President Kennedy, we've seen a number of significant opportunities for our country, thinking about Korea. Korea is now the sixth largest trading partner in the world. Think about the development work that we undertook to bring Korea back, South Korea, to get to the stage where it is. Brazil, the seventh largest economy. And think about the work that we did to feed Brazil's people about 20 years ago. I can go on and on and on, Marshall Plan and Europe and all those things. So development is that one tool that offers the opportunity to do great goodness, exercise our moral leadership as a nation and at the same time in order to our own economic stability and prosperity. And so that's what I've seen. And so you mentioned the three D's. I guess at this point I'm working on D number three. So I've got defense, diplomacy, and now development. And I will tell you that it's a great agency. I could talk more about it later on if that is the question. But we do great work and Rod Shaw, my predecessor, did a lot to bring about great opportunities for us to exercise development in new, innovative, creative ways using some very rich tools under the leadership of President Urbana, both from the standpoint of presidential policy directive, as well as of national security, which very prominently figures and identifies both diplomacy as well as development. And then finally, soon to be released is the quarterly or quadrennial diplomacy and development review document that will release sometime in the near future. So all of that said, I'm here to tell you that development works, but it has to be done strategically. It has to be done in terms of ensuring that we are hitting the right marks at the right time, affecting the right people with the right responses in terms of how effective our programs are and how we measure those programs and identify ways that we can continually improve upon that which we're doing and assess the value of the work so that we are ensuring that we protect and we are optimizing, as the mathematicians would say, the precious resources that are entrusted to us. With that, I'll stop. Thank you very much, Ambassador. Thank you. Dr. Hamry? I had a chance to offer my thoughts at the very beginning. Let's hear from the rest of our colleagues. Very good. General Kelly, thanks for being with us. I really appreciate you coming up from Miami to be with us and the reason I wanted you to be here, you're the Commander-in-Chief of Southcom. You've had a distinguished career in the US Marine Corps. But I've been struck in my meetings with you, both in Canada and as well as in Miami, how you think about the issues of development as very much at the front and center of your work in a number of different contexts. I'm so appreciative of you being with us today. Thanks, Dan and John. I get, you know, for the invitation and all. I don't know why you're inviting me. I'm gonna come up here with a gentleman like this and I'm kind of the dumb grunt in the crowd here. And I guess what you're looking for is kind of the mechanic's view of the world. But before I start, I will say this, it's actually a nice segue. Anytime I'm involved in events like this, which is fairly frequently, someone on the panel or someone in the group will almost always, almost apologetically, as the Ambassador did. They'll talk about war and the destruction of war and all of that kind of thing. And then kind of lean forward and almost apologetically, say, I don't mean to offend you, I know kind of that's what you're all about. And the reality is that's not what we're all about. I would tell you that when we invaded Iraq in 2003, we talked as much about after we moved through that part of Iraq that we were gonna attack through, we talked more about in the pre-planning about how we were gonna restore rule of law, fresh water, food, things like that to an economy, really, that had been crippled over the years by the Food for Older Food Program. I would say 65, 70% of the discussion was, how do we start to rebuild the economy in society? So that's one data point. And then when the war was essentially, we thought over in 2003 and the Marines were sent to a part of Iraq called Al-Anbar province, the Sunni triangle, we were informed by the leadership in Baghdad, Ambassador Bremmer and people like that, that this was a part of Iraq that could not be won, that no matter how hard you tried, 30 years from now, this part of Iraq would still be a hotbed of Sunni extremism. Just don't get too many people killed down there. And when we went to work, probably 80% of what we were asking Baghdad for was not beans, it was not bullets and bombs and things like that, but were people who knew how to rebuild an economic economy, people who knew how to rebuild or reestablish the rule of law, court system, police advisors, so that we could turn the police that were in the province from men and women, mostly men, who were part of the regime, repression into a protect and serve police. And in fact, we were criticized by people in suits and Baghdad, the very people you would expect to be supporting what we were trying to do, we were criticized because we weren't killing enough insurgents. And as we stated then and we stated all the way through until we won that war, we won that war in that part of Iraq, regardless of what's happened, we stirred our ground and did not try to shoot our way out of that, but certainly developed our way out of that and left a better place when we left. That's kind of by way of background. What do I do now? Spent a great deal of time thinking development, rule of law, human rights in the part of the world that I work most closely with and that is Central America. All of Central America's problems to a very, very large degree are a direct result of our drug consumption in the United States and we should be ashamed of that. But the amount of cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines that are produced in my part of the world, trafficked up through Mexico into the United States is horrible. It results in 40,000 US deaths a year, year after year after year, costs the United States taxpayer $200 billion a year, year after year after year, and frankly we don't seem to care. But what comes out of that are unbelievable profits, somewhere in the neighborhood of $65 to $70 billion a year. So what does that do to police departments, militaries to a degree of public officials in my part of the world? They bribe them, they intimidate them, or they kill them. That's turned around in my part of the world. I spend 90% of my time in my job talking economic development, not only with AID and with State Department, but I believe the real solution because as good as the federal government is in one of two things. We're not, I don't think, as good as our private partners in organizations like Steve Hedge, Chevron, and other private investment entities. We're not as good as they are at coming in and improving things. Money goes, I think, where it's relatively secure and relatively safe. What we're trying from the military point of view in Central America, and we're having great success, is helping them improve their security situations in their part of the world. There are programs, U.S. government programs there, but in my estimation, they don't touch enough. They're not comprehensive enough. They're stove-piped. Typically, what I see when the private businesses come in, they do exactly that. They need fresh water to make Coke, and then they do, there's other positive spinoffs to that. So two things that I'll finish with. I think the U.S. government programs are absolutely essential, but they should be dovetailed in some way with organizations like the Inter-American Development Bank, Millennium Challenge Corporation, things like that, and I think the end result is a much better effect, certainly for the taxpayers' dollar. So I'll end there. But Dan, thanks. Thank you, General. Ambassador Shannon, thanks for being with us. You're Ambassador of Brazil. You also were Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs. You're a career foreign service officer, and now you're the Counselor of the Secretary of State. Thank you for being with us. I know you and General Kelly have been on panels before, and so thanks for doing this, and we really appreciate you being here. I suspect Counselor of the Secretary of State means that the things that are put in your inbox are all the difficult and unpleasant topics of a certain description. So we really appreciate you being here. So from where you sit at the State Department, could you talk a little bit about how the State Department thinks about development and how you see it now? Well, thank you, Dan, very much. It's a tremendous pleasure to be here and a great honor to sit on this panel of such distinguished individuals and people who have dedicated so much of their life to public service. Very briefly, as you noted, I'm a Foreign Service Officer. I've been doing this for 31 years, and I started in 1984 in Guatemala during what is now called the Central American Wars. And as I look back across these three decades of work, I've been struck by the change, the dramatic change that's taken place in how we think about development. And some of it's been touched on already, but when I started development was largely a state-to-state affair. It was about donor states supplying resources and technical assistance to recipient states, and it was all about building state capacity and addressing very specific problems usually related to poverty, health, and education. This has changed. While the state-to-state component is still important, it's a much smaller component, as was noted in the video presentation just before. ODA is much smaller than the wealth that is moving through the world, either from diasporas and private associations or businesses and NGOs and larger civil society. And development today is really much more of a society-to-society connection. And I think in many ways this reflects the globalization, the internationalization of the world in which we live. But as the process or the structure of development agencies change, or the development process changes, our development agencies have changed dramatically also. When I started, AID was a provider of development assistance and not just money, but its officers were development professionals who worked directly on development issues. And there's still some of that that exists today, but a lot of it is really about connecting with a larger component of development providers and being a funder and a grant giver and enforcing accountability in development assistance. And this has actually increased the network of development providers in a really dramatic way. And in a very short period of time, it's kind of democratized development in a really interesting way. And it's created new forms of metrics and accountability that are very challenging for us, but ultimately very important. In the process of doing this as our societies connect and begin to channel more development assistance and shape the development world, the substance of development is also changing. I noted that in the beginning it was really about state capacity and addressing individual well-being or needs. That still is part of what we do. But a lot of what we do is not so much about individual well-being as it is about individual empowerment. It's about how you allow people not just to have a voice in their national destiny, but have the resources and opportunity to have a voice in their individual destinies. And that means education. It means citizen security. It means building a world in which a middle class can connect to emerging state institutions. And that means increased focus on democracy, increased focus on government and increased focus on fighting corruption. And in this sense, the development world, as it's done these changes, has become increasingly politicized. Maybe not from our point of view, but I think from how the rest of the world understands our development. And we're in an environment in which we're facing competitors, whether it be the Chinese, whether it be some of our golf partners or others who see an opportunity to use their development money in a fashion that's different than ours, not necessarily tied to policy purposes, not necessarily tied to metrics, but tied to very specific political achievements. And this creates both a challenge for us but a huge opportunity because what we have developed over time is really a democratic model of development where we link democracy and a citizen involvement to the purpose and principle of development in a way that our competitors don't. And I think that, especially in the Western Hemisphere where I've done most of my work on development, this really creates an opportunity for development to establish consensus and consolidate itself as it advances. And I think it's one of the reasons why we've been able to accomplish so much in a fairly short period of time and why I think these accomplishments are going to be enduring. So we're really at an exciting moment, as was noted earlier by Dr. Hamre, we're facing a series of security challenges around the globe, which we haven't faced probably in a long, long time, if at all, or if ever. And in this regard, I think that what we do on the development side is gonna have a huge impact on the kinds of security challenges we face. And as General Kelly noted, the extent to which we in the US government can connect all of our resources in a coherent plan and approach on development, recognizing the vast network of individuals and agencies and NGOs and civil society groups that we're working with, we have an opportunity to fashion a world that's gonna be a much better place. Senator Daschle, thanks for being with us today. You were one of the co-chairs on our commission that produced the report, our shared opportunity, and thanks for your partnership here with CSS. You're a friend of CSIS, and obviously it's great. We're pleased to reconnect you with your friend and colleague, Ambassador Lenhardt, as well. One of the reason we wanted you back on the panel, one was to provide some continuity and you've been with us on this journey here at CSIS on development. But I think I wanna come back to the question that Congressman Crenshaw raised, which is how do we make the case for development for folks who may not be top of mind? And for many people in the United States, it's not a top of mind issue. And I know that that's something that you've been presented with in your career, both in the Senate and afterwards. Well, Dan, thank you very much for inviting me. And it's a real pleasure to share the desk with such a distinguished panel. And let me just personally thank Lenhardt for his extraordinary public service over these many years. As our other day's colleagues, I wanna thank Chevron too for their foresight and their willingness to be partners in this journey. I, you mentioned Congressman Crenshaw. I don't know about any of you, but I thought it was one of the finest speeches I've heard on development of the system. It's been nice to hear. Thank you. I wish I could make the announcement this morning that before the program began, he and I exchanged speeches that you just heard my speech and I forgot what he was gonna say. But I do think there was so much wisdom in what he said and how he shared it. I think we're going through one of the most challenging transformational moments in all of history. A transformational moment driven in large measure by technology. That has affected every aspect of the way we live, the way we work, the way we communicate, the way we govern. And that technological revolution continues to impact us in both domestic and global contexts that have become increasingly complicated and I would argue even more challenging. And so as I look at the global context in particular, I, for lack of a better way to describe it, I see it as a story of fours. F-O-U-R, fours. I see as we look at the global stage today is having really four levels, not one. The military level where we have, for at least the last 70 years, been the dominant superpower. We've gone through several migrations, several eras from the Cold War to the current time. We still maintain a significant military advantage as we consider the rest of the world. The second is economic, where we once were the dominant power. But we now see, and several people have referenced, China, Brazil, so many other countries that have become truly economic powers in their own right. And I recognize as such and have created a far more competitive field than we've ever seen. The third is political. And all one has to use is the words Middle East to say how complicated, how challenging, how unpredictable, uncertain it is for us and the rest of the world. As we consider the political level and all of the necessary considerations that must be given as we weigh the challenges as it affects our country and our future. And the fourth is a relatively new concept as we look at the levels and I would call it the transnational level. It's the ISIS, the al-Qaeda's, the Taliban's, the drug lords, all creating extraordinary threat, biological, chemical, cyber, perhaps even nuclear. And we have to be very concerned about that transnational level as well. And so as we look at the global stage and those four contexts, the real question is how do we address it? There have been references today to the three D's. I've always argued that there should be four, four D's. Clearly defense and that is a commitment our country has well understood on a bipartisan basis for a long time. Our security will always be determined in part by the commitment, the quality, the overall strategy engaging our military forces around the world. The second is diplomacy. And I sometimes think that they get short-shripped in getting the credit they deserve for the work that they do. I love and subscribe to the bumper sticker, support our troops. I only wish sometimes I would say support our troops and our foreign service officers because I don't think we give them the kind of attention the country deserves. The third is democracy. I don't think we put the emphasis, especially in recent years, on democratic principles. Several of our colleagues today have referenced the importance of the rule of law, the importance of participation. I would argue also as part of the democratic message, the importance of tolerance. We see too little of it today. And whether or not we succeed overall in our presence and global engagement, in part it's gonna be determined by the degree to which we can continue to argue and use the message around building better democracies and making governments more effective. And the final one, of course, is developmental assistance. Developmental assistance is absolutely critical for all the good reasons that have been already stated this morning. It's interesting, we as a country commit far more to the first D than we do the other three Ds put together. And the real question is, as we look at those four Ds going forward, what is the right balance? And that leads me to my fourth set of, my fourth group of Ds, the importance of developmental assistance and the reasons why. The first and foremost as we look at developmental assistance today has already been referenced, but I think it's important to emphasize how critical stability and security is to any government today. The degree to which they deliver basic services, whether it's education or healthcare or infrastructure, the array of services that affect the quality of life of the people in their country determine in large measure the stability of that government and the overall security of that country. And that leads us to developmental assistance. There is no better way to ensure stability and security than to ensure that we have the kind of capacity to provide the assistance and finding ways of which to do it more effectively is part of our challenge. The second is related to that. One of the reasons that transnational entities have had so much success, it seems to me, is that they are in the business of winning hearts and minds and how do they do it by filling the void left by incompetent governments, by corrupt governments. They provide those services that somebody has to provide in a stable society and in so doing develop extraordinary following and support that they don't deserve. The third is economic integration. The importance that we have with regard to a recognition of how critical it is that these people who are recipients of developmental assistance continue to grow and Brazil is a perfect example. I didn't realize this until recently, but 18 of the 20 countries that are now considered our biggest trading partners were recipients of developmental assistance at some point in recent history. 18 of 20. So there is an economic integration argument that leads to another reason why developmental assistance is so critical. I would also add as a final of my four, my final arguments for developmental assistance, simply goodwill. And I'd only used three examples in recent times and the congressman said it so well as examples of what goodwill can be created. PEPR, Millennium and Ebola. If you look at those three programs and the extraordinary impact, I just, we just had a meeting a couple of weeks ago and several people from African countries came up to me and said, you wouldn't believe how your country is viewed in my country in large measure because of Ebola. You wouldn't believe how your country is perceived in my country as a result of your work in PEPR. It does make a huge difference. So those are the four best arguments I can think of. But I also think as the congressman said so powerfully, the goodwill created in part is a result of the very simple fact that it's the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do. And we look at the chasm between the richest countries and the poorest countries today. If not us who, it's part of our responsibility as good citizens of the world to do the right thing. And when I look at that statistic, that we've gone from 71% of the public, of the financial flow from public accounts to now just 10% from public accounts just in the last 40 years. I worry a lot about whether or not we're doing enough to ensure that we are doing the right thing. So as an investment, six-tenths of 1% sounds pretty good to me. I think we've got to make sure that that six-tenths of 1% is used as best we can. We've got to be resilient. We've got to be innovative. We've got to be collaborative. And we certainly have to be engaged. With that, I think we can do a great deal. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. I mean, Senator, one of the things that you mentioned was the topic of Africa. And I want to turn to Ambassador Lenhardt. You were serving in Tanzania before this. And so several things come to mind from your past post. You had to oversee security folks. You had to oversee, you certainly were directing development work. There was a series of opportunities around PEPFAR or Feed the Future. Could you talk a little bit about how, from an embassy perspective, how you saw that and now what it's like now being on the other side, if you will, in terms of what it's like thinking about development from being in the field, if you would. Also, could I ask you to comment as well on how Tanzania, for example, just as a case study, how does Tanzania see the United States because of its engagement on things like PEPFAR or Feed the Future, and what that means for the sorts of security or diplomacy benefits we get from it? Sure, Dan. The one thing that we focused on Tanzania is ensuring that we had what's known as a country team, a real solid country team, where all the agencies, and then in my case, there were about nine federal agencies represented there in Tanzania, DOD, Department of Defense, I should say, State Department, Energy was there as well, Agriculture, and then we had a number of other smaller agencies. All focused on one thing, trying to do goodness, trying to bring value to the Tanzanian people from the American people. And so what we did to ensure we could encapsulate that and come up with an understanding of the approach, recognizing that we're all envoys, we were all envoys of the American people. And so everything that we did, every ribbon that I cut various programs around the country or inaugurated various programs, it was brought to you by the American people. And so the outreach was from the American people to the Tanzanian people. Whether or not it was PEPFAR or the President's Malaria Initiative or as many other programs, and we had just about every program known to both the State Department as well as... The whole alphabet soup. Whole alphabet soup, indeed. But I will tell you, in terms of the programs, they were powerful programs, they were well appreciated by the Tanzanian people. So much so that 93% of Tanzanians viewed the United States and the people of America favorably. 93%. Amazing. And so these are surveys that are done periodically and they're surveys, by the way. They're surveys. And you saw the manifestation of that when President Obama came to Tanzania in July of 2013. There were throngs of people who came out and welcomed him and great celebration. But in terms of how we responded at the embassy, it was the professional developers, it was the soldiers from the Defense Attache Office, it was as many others who were there working to improve lives and save lives. And we were doing that in great numbers. And so I saw what development meant to Tanzania and I saw the response coming back in terms of the Tanzanians' appreciation of that and they were getting better. That is not to say that Tanzania doesn't have its problems, but it probably is better than all the other countries in terms of the response, in terms of their outreach and in terms of their sustainability of those important programs. And so one of the things I used to remind President Kekwete from time to time, not to make him nervous, Kekwete's a Belosi, which is the Swahili word for ambassador, thank you very much, and the American people. And I turned to him and said, well, Mr. President, how are you gonna sustain these important programs? Because at some point in time, we're gonna work ourselves out of a job and we're gonna go elsewhere. And the understanding is that you're gonna be able to sustain these programs. Well, the first time I said that, you know, he kind of blanched and said, well, are you leaving? I said, no, we're not leaving, but I want you to understand that this is something that you have to take on. You've got to pick this cultural up and you've got to run with it. And to his credit and to his administration, they all came forward and understood and participated in a very major way. So that they did, in the case of the Millennium Challenge Compact, at a time when, you know, the compact itself over five years was $750 million. Well, five years ago when it was developed, the thinking was in terms of the planning, this is what it will take. Well, inflation being what it is, the country found itself about $150 million short. And so they came forward with that money because rather than cut the programs because they understood the value of the programs and the difference it was making in people's lives, they came forward with the money. So they were invested. And that's, by the way, is another thing. In our development, the best approach that I saw was when we asked the country, what are your priorities? What are the things that you would like to accomplish? What are the things that you would like to see? And when we can figure that out in terms of our own negotiate, moreover, our interests, our national interests, based on and their perceived needs and desires, when that comes together, it's very, it's beautiful. It's absolutely critical that we have that understanding. And what we then did was ensure that we established measurables, outcomes. How are we going to measure ourselves against the outcomes that we'd like to see? And at one point, the outcomes weren't there. And quite frankly, we changed the program. And in one case, we shut the program down. So my point in all of that is to say, getting back to what I said earlier, it's absolutely critical to us that we measure the things that we say we're going to do. And so our programs have to be result-oriented and evidence-based. And measure ourselves against that, those two criteria, because not to do so will waste resources. And we'll go off building some road to nowhere or some other individual gets involved in something and corruption and all those other things. And so we minimize that when we do smart development. Smart development that includes the partner. Smart development that includes as many other things, as many other partners, by the way. And I'll say that, make that point because General Kelly made the point earlier. The notion that we can do through official development assistance, all manner of things is a faulty one. But what we can do is catalyze in some way, we can spark the development, we can cause other partners to come to the table, namely the private sector. The private sector can do the heavy lifting and make major change, whereas development, what we can do is inspire. We can incentivize, we can catalyze, but we cannot do it all ourselves. And so the private sector is absolutely critical to doing the heavy lifting. And when it comes together, it's something that as an ambassador, and you asked me this in terms of my reference as an ambassador, it's beautiful. And it supports and it supported my diplomatic mission. So much so that Tanzania has done great things and will continue to do great things long into the future. And its people are better, we've saved lives, and I can go on and on about the various types of programs that we've had, Feed the Future, President Malaria Initiative, Millennium Challenge Compact, all focused on by the way, the Millennium Development Goals. And right now that was coming to an end and we're now focused and thinking about the next 15 years, sustained development goals. And so those are the things that we now are focused on in terms of what is the next set of goals and how do we continue to improve and lift up the many people around the world. Making friends for America. Thank you, thank you. Dan, do you have any? Dr. Amry, can I just, I skipped over, but I'd like to, but there were two very important observations, one made by Senator Daschle, one now made by General Lennart, that I don't want the crowd to miss. I think it was really important. And it was, Senator Daschle said that, he talked about all of the complex problems. You know, it's terrorism, transnational terrorism, drug trade, General Kelly mentioned drug trade. All of the complex problems in the world are horizontal, but all the governments are vertical. And this is a problem to solve, really complex problems. And, but I think that General Lennart had, I don't know what, you've got so many titles, I don't know what to call you out. Al, Al. But he hit on, I think was the important insight on what is this national strategy. You know, the governments are vertical, but the private sector is horizontal. If the private sector could be an enormous tool, for both profit making and non-profit seeking, could be an enormous tool for the government to deal with these horizontal problems. I think that's what General Kelly was talking about, when he's out there working the development agenda, because he sees how it can go further than just the verticality of a government trying to solve these horizontal problems. Very important insight that we should capture today. I wanna call on Ambassador Shannon and General Kelly. I wanna hear from both of you about Central America. I think it's gonna be, it's obviously one of the most pressing development, security, and diplomatic challenges that we face. I know it's in your inbox, Ambassador Shannon. I certainly know it's in your inbox, General Kelly. Could I ask both of you to comment on when you're, you talk to leaders in the Northern Triangle of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Could you talk about what are the sorts of, what are they hoping that they're gonna, that in partnership that they need from the United States, from the Inter-American Development Bank, and General Kelly, you referenced the Inter-American Development Bank, and both President Obama has come forward with some very constructive ideas about how to respond to this, and I know the Inter-American Development Bank has also been very forward-leading, and the U.S. is the largest shareholder of the Inter-American Development Bank. So I know, could I ask both of you just to comment on the Central America, the challenger, because it's very much a development challenge. It is, and as General Kelly noted, it's a development challenge that sits on poverty, but also sits on threats to security posed by drug trafficking, drug trafficking in the United States. And what's striking about what we're doing with the Northern Triangle country, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras around the Alliance for Prosperity is working with them on a plan that they devised in cooperation with the Inter-American Development Bank and trying to determine how we can provide technical assistance and funding for a portion of it, recognizing that as with Plan Colombia, this is a development and security plan that they have to take on themselves and that they are gonna have to largely fund themselves. But while we provide very targeted financing and very targeted technical assistance, what is gonna be, I think at the end of the day, most important is our political support and our convening power, our ability to bring in other multilateral development banks, other countries that are interested in the development of Central America. Canada, Japan, others. Korea, Chile, Colombia. And also find a way to connect the three countries diplomatically, but also connect their private sectors. Because historically these are three countries while they touch each other, have had a fractious relationships. And in this instance, it's gonna make the challenge even more difficult than Plan Colombia because in Plan Colombia, we worked on a single country with a single set of institutions. Here we have to work across three countries with three different sets of institutions. To John Hammer's comment there for a second, one of the advantages I think that certainly I have, and I think all the combatant commanders have the five overseas combatant commanders, we are very horizontal, extremely horizontal. And the way we look at problems. And so one of the things, Ambassador Shannon and I have talked about in others, that when we were looking at, and I was relatively new into the job at the time, but when we were looking at the Northern tier countries, the fact that if you solve the problem in Guatemala, you weren't gonna do, it would be a waste of time because Honduras was still there. So we started working with the three countries on some of these initiatives. And I would offer to you that working very, very closely with the three presidents, and the example I would give you is when they came up here last year and met with our president and vice president, Biden and the State Department. After that meeting, before that meeting, I spoke to all three presidents and said, this is kind of what you should expect. And this is the way to interact, and this is what they'll wanna hear. And then immediately after that meeting, I met them over here in Washington and they told me what had taken place. And one of the questions I had, and I think it's an important point, one of the questions I had was, okay, we had this tremendous meeting with the vice president, the president of the United States, and they committed to this. And the big message was, look, we need to do this together. The U.S. can help to agree, but you all have to do a lot of things in your countries to fix things. But the question the three presidents had was, okay, how does it work from here? How do they, are they gonna ask us what we think should happen in our countries, what the United States is gonna do in our countries? I said, that's the way it should work, but that's probably not the way it will work because we're the United States and we know better than anyone. And we'll tell you what is good for you. But a good way to start this process might be that you all sit down and develop kind of a regional plan for what you talked about with the president and vice president. A regional plan, and you might look to Columbia, it's a different place at a different time, but you might look to a planned Columbia and take a look, see. And from that, working with the IEDB, the countries came up in the State Department. The countries came up with this plan called the Alliance for Prosperity. It's kind of a regional plan for the three countries and then there's individual parts of that. And that's what they've been working on. So I think that regional approach, the horizontal approach as John Henry said, is a key factor kind of in all of this. And then just frankly, the relationships I have and the State Department has with the various countries, I mean, they call all the time here we're thinking of this, we're thinking of that. Do you think we're on the right track here? I think the final thing, capitalizing on Hawaii, the country I think in my part of the world, certainly that I think has a very special relation with the United States and that is Columbia. And I asked the Colombian president, who I know well and the Minister of Defense, who I know even better, if they wouldn't be willing to have, and we held it at Miami, to have kind of a seminar and talk to these countries about where their country was, Columbia was before Plan Columbia and how close to the abyss and being a failed state and the human rights abuses and all of those kind of things. And then walk them through it, not to preach to them and not to think a point but just say this is where we were and if we could do it, kind of you could do it. We did that, we had every, we had seen representatives from the governments and the militaries from Mexico, which is not in my zone, from Mexico to Panama, everyone showed up and Minister of Defense Pinzone gave this absolutely brilliant seminar on what it takes. And the vast majority of the discussion centered not on military or security, although that was part of it. The vast majority of the discussion centered on things like human rights, economic development, changing the tax code so that the taxes fell on all of their society, getting the elites involved. So that's kind of what the Columbians are doing, shoulder to shoulder with the United States Department or the United States government interagency. But phenomenal effort and we've done two of these seminars now. And I believe the Central Americans have learned a great deal on what they're doing. If you watch what President Hernandez in particular is doing, he's internally as well as spending a lot of time on Capitol Hill, taking his message to where I believe the real, of much of the real power resides in the real opinion and that is on Capitol Hill, Senate and House both. So he's got the lesson. And I think, I personally think there's great hope. General Kelly, is it true that you spend about 90% of your time on economic issues in your- Economic, social, human rights, in the human rights realm, which I oftentimes, I always say, everything we do, every meeting I have, it doesn't matter with who, in my part of the world, the discussion begins and ends with human rights. I tell people, a lot of people talk about human rights in the world, the United States military does human rights and we've done it throughout our history. So human rights, economic development. What I know about economic development, it's just about nothing. But I know I can bring people in and talk about economic development, particularly people like Steve and his people, to go out and get, with all due respect, not necessarily the federal bureaucrats that manage economic things, but people that no kidding do economic things. And I would recommend a book, fellow by the name of John Brinkley, that I worked with. He was five years in Iraq and Afghanistan doing economic development for DOD. The book he wrote is from war front to store front. And Brinkley is, well, I've recommended to a number of, every time I speak to junior general officers in the military, I'll tell them to read that book because most of what we do at the general officer level when we're involved in certain jobs is economic development, not war fighting, not drama and bombs. It's really development, rule of law, police, things like that. But war front to store front, I tell the generals it's the most powerful, important book I've ever read as a general officer. And I tell them to have to read that book because when they're out and about doing what they do, whether it's in Africa, wherever, it begins and ends with development, social, rule of law, it begins and ends, and then you can plan on dropping some bombs if you really feel so you need to. I wanna, the conversations reference Columbia and Ambassador Lenhart referenced a number of success stories in development when he made his opening remarks, he talked about South Korea. He also referenced Brazil. I'd add the countries of Taiwan and Costa Rica as two success stories, but I'd also, I wanna come back to the example of Columbia because I think that's how we first met. General Kelly was around the conversation about we need a planned Columbia for Central America. We've written and worked on that here at CSIS and we've been proud to work with you on that. But I think that was a long, long conversation and there was a lot of selling that went on. I'm looking at Senator Daschle. I'm looking at my boss, Dr. Hamry, in terms of, okay, that is, if you said in the last 20 years was one of the major development successes in the last 20 years, you have to put Columbia in the top two or three. It was a failing state. It is now a country people wanna invest in. We have the highest approval rating, I think, in the region in Columbia. I love going to Columbia. They're so pro-American. I feel very welcome there. But it's a country we have a free trade agreement with. They're a net supporter to the liberal order. They send troops and they help on challenges like Central America. But that just didn't happen by magic. That was a bipartisan effort starting in the Clinton administration. That's I think been the longest sustained effort that we've had. We're not even, we're on the 10-yard line or the five-yard line. I don't know, General Kelly, if you'd agree with that, it seems as if we're on the five-to-10-yard line and getting peace in our time in Columbia. I don't know how you feel about that, I've asked for shame. But I wanna bring Senator Daschle and Dr. Hamery into this conversation. But then I wanna hear from the others about Columbia in terms of what did it take Senator Daschle to make the pitch for, at the time when it was a failed state and it was overrun by a lot of bad people and people, the company government was coming up to the US Congress and saying, we need a whole lot more money for Columbia. I can imagine that was a very hard sale. How did your colleagues react to that and how was the sale made, if you will, in terms of that sort of supportive diplomacy, defense and development for Columbia? Well, first I would say that the Columbia leadership at the time deserves a great deal of credit. They were phenomenal in terms of their articulation of the challenge, their expressions of the relevancy of that challenge to the United States and to the people of our country. Columbia was a source of enormous drug traffic and that, obviously, is the first cause for appreciation of the relevance. But the instability and the extraordinary success that Bark was having at the time was also a grave concern. As we look to the region, how it might spill over to other countries and so there was a security recognition, a drug recognition, a relevance recognition as a result and I think out of that came a realization that this is only gonna get worse and the more we could direct our attention and our priorities and some strategy around Planned Columbia, the more we can avoid this becoming a cancer in the entire region and so Senator Lott was my colleague as leader at the time and did a great job on the Republican side. We worked in a very bipartisan fashion and over the years I look back on that as one of our greatest sources of satisfaction. We've come a long way and as you say, we're almost on the goal line. We still have a ways to go. The park negotiations continue in Cuba, I might add and it's a very different day. Columbia is now one of the strongest economies in all of South America and a model for all of Central America especially. Dr. Hammer, can I just ask you to comment on that? You were at the Defense Department at the time when this was transpiring. Could you just talk a little bit from your perspective on it? The hero of Planned Columbia was Tom Pickering. Tom, probably one of our most gifted masters we've ever had and at the time he was a counselor. He had Ambassador Shannon. Undersecretary for political affairs. It was Tom that had the depth of experience, the intellect and then the capacity to reach across. I mean there's a, I can't tell you the battles we had between State Department and Defense Department. It was always a little jump, it wasn't, nothing was important. But Tom had both the grandeur of perspective and he wasn't intimidated by the Defense Department. He would come over and work with us. He created the impulse to use people like General Kelly. He wasn't, you know, I hate to say it, but a lot of people in the State Department are intimidated by the, you know, fight combat and command. As well as should be. As well as should be. You know, because they don't have the structure to go across national boundaries the way that you do. And you do have that capacity to integrate in a wider region and Tom came to realize this was a part of the problem. I mean it required a broader reach. So it was Tom that, I give great credit for Tom bringing all of us together, getting past all of the little bureaucratic poop. That's a technical term, you know. And then getting a concrete plan that we all saw the value. And he deserves, he deserves the marks. Let me ask, I wanna ask, I wanna take advantage of this panel to talk about, and Senator Dashwood talked about these threats and these transnational threats. I think about Boko Haram. I think about gangs in Central America. I think about ISIS. Extremism, Ambassador Liner talked about extremism. Can I ask you just to reflect a little bit about how we ought to think about development or other non-kinetic, what's the non-military, how do we think about non-military sources of American power to respond to these various manifestations of extremism and various forms of evil? So Ambassador Liner, can I start with you? Yeah, sure. I think the first thing we need to think about is how do we provide for an alternative message to the extremists who are completely negative in their view and distorted in their view and activities and demonstrate that through development we can have an alternative argument, which basically says, here's a positive approach. And this is how you build, how you provide for a more positive undertaking and creation of a better world within your country for your people. And here are the ways that you can get to that point. And so it's the counter-messaging that will, in my view, and I saw this again in Tanzania, and I saw it in other places where you can provide for an opportunity to do more, to do better, as opposed to what the extremists are saying in so many ways, and you can demonstrate where that has tremendous payoff. I just came back from Columbia last night, and so I saw firsthand what's happening there and the very positive messages that are being conveyed and had an opportunity to talk with former FARC rebels, as well as many of the victims of the 51 years of conflict in that great country. And the way the Columbians in the Columbia plan is to create this positive notion of things and how you build on that and how, being iterative, how do you continually move the agenda forward? And at some point, peace is very close, and I think that your analysis and metaphor, whether or not it's on the five-yard line or the 10-yard line, the fact that the matter is, they're there, they're very close, and I think they'll bring it across. And so it's counter-messaging, it's demonstrating through real acts what the alternative is to what the extremists and crazies are saying. I'm gonna just go down the panel here. Dr. Hammering, could you just reflect on that? Well, I think we're involved in a great competition of competing ideas. It's not unlike during the Cold War, and the Boko Harams and the Isis's of the world are, it's about, what's the relationship of individuals, society, and government? And they're holding out an image of an authoritarian control over people's lives, centrally directed around a value structure. I'm not making a comment about the religious nature, but it's the authoritarian image of how people should relate to society and the government. We're offering a very different, a classic liberal interpretation, which is that the wisdom and judgment of the masses when free to make individual choices will choose sensible government that helps improve people's lives. I mean, this is a competition that we're in. It's not different than the Cold War, really, if you think of it, take the context back, but we're not doing a very good job of articulating this. And if we're going to succeed in the long run against, I'm confident we can, but we have to go back to figure what gave us focus and vision during the Cold War? It was this image, and it was a bipartisan image. We just don't have bipartisan sensibilities these days. That is, I think, the great problem. I hope we have a debate over this in this next election. So what comes out of it are two candidates, both of whom share the conviction that all of us come together to understand this problem together and understand that it is a nationally imperative that we restore that commitment we had for 50 years. We didn't know when the Cold War was going to end. We don't know when this one is going to end, but it's fundamentally the same battle. It's a battle of ideas. And I think we have to be far better at championing those ideas, because I'm convinced that's what the rest of the world will want. They don't, who the hell wants to live under Boko Haram? I mean, this shouldn't be hard, but we're not doing a good enough job yet. So that's what I think we need more. Thank you. General Kelly, you've worked in a number of different contexts, both in the Middle East, but now in Central America, where there are a lot of bad actors. And what do societies need that we can be providing to help counter this, counter extremism? Yeah, I mean, it's what this conversation's about. I mean, if you take the relatively small, very small Islamic aspect or extremists or whatever activity and take that off the table for a second and I don't spend much time worrying about it. It's the cartels and the crime and things like that. And the vast majority of these people want to live and wherever they were born and raised and they want to stay there with their families and they move as an example to a large degree in large numbers. Last year, 68,000 children came up. It'll cost us $100 million a year to take care of them for the foreseeable future. That's probably another 40, I would say something like 40,000 will come up this year. We've all of a sudden seen a big spike in the numbers moving. And then the crime aspect of drugs and things like that. But the point is, they come here because they have no options in their own countries and their families send them on what is a pretty fairly dangerous but a very efficient way to get up here. And so I would just say that whatever we can do to help them reestablish. I go back to this issue. I think we owe them this because their problems are fueled by our drug use. And the profits that come out of that drug use are doing horrific things to these societies. So I think we owe them, first of all. The second issue is economic access to economic advantage, schools, elimination to the greatest degree possible, the cartels. And that's, there's no ideological aspect to this issue. It's all about money and profit and murder and violence. And so there's a certain element within the cartels and this whole enterprise. They simply, they're like the upper echelons of the Islamic extremist organizations. They just need to be either jailed or killed. The rest of the people, the foot soldiers and the organizations that move the drugs and do other things criminally. If they had another option, they wouldn't be doing what they were doing. We learned this in Anbar province. And when we developed Anbar province economically, the vast majority of the people who are fighting us had jobs, the young men had jobs and they went to those jobs. The Sunni shakes came our way. And all it was left was Zarkawi and the al-Qaeda types and we tracked them down and killed them. So very small numbers kept the thing going once economic development took hold. And in fact, the Sunni shakes and the tribes once we made common cause were as effective at going after the al-Qaeda infrastructure as we were. Ambassador Shannon. Well, I think it's been said, it's counter messaging along with an alternative project because the message isn't enough. We have to provide them with something that backs up that message. But I would also say as the general alluded to, security is a big component of this. I mean, the fundamental role of the state is to provide security to the citizens and maintain public order. And looking back on plan Columbia, there was a big debate in the beginning about what comes first, security and development. And I think it was resolved that it's hard to, for development to take root without security. In fact, what allows plan Columbia to be successful is the determination that the FARC is a terrorist organization and a drug trafficking organization. And then the decision by the US government to expand authorities that allowed the helicopters and other equipment we had in Columbia for transport of Columbia troops to be used in a fight against the FARC. Not only against, on spraying operations. And so it's having a security component that allows the development to flower, which is going to be important. Senator Daschle, I'm gonna give you the last word. Well, the advantage of doing cleanup as you can summarize, and I think it's all been said so eloquently that there's little else to be said, except I would go back to my assertion that the response really is a composite one involving the four D's. There's a security element defense. These are groups that use brute force in the most horrific way in many cases. And we can't ignore that brutality. And there is a security element, not just in the military, but in other ways, of which to address the challenges we face from a security point of view, the first D. The second is diplomacy. We've got to work in a collaborative fashion with nonprofits, with governments, with all of those in the region who are engaged and maximize the diplomatic outreach that is so critical for us to be successful. The third is democracy. We don't, I don't think oftentimes we don't give that the kind of attention and priority it deserves. Teaching the rule of law, teaching the importance of tolerance, recognizing the critical nature of participating and engaging in the efforts of establishing good government is critical. And then the fourth is the one we've talked about all morning, and that is developmental assistance. My colleagues have said it so well. Clearly, the best way to the hearts and minds of the people in the country is to provide good governance. And good governance is dependent in large measure on providing the basic services, whether it's education or health or infrastructure. That's what we can do with developmental assistance. And that's why as a component in looking at how we confront transnational forces more effectively, it becomes even more important.