REMARKS AT CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: 2014 POLICY CONFERENCE

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
U.S. Mission to the United Nations: Remarks at the Center for American Progress' Making Progress: 2014 Policy Conference
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations 
Washington, DC
November 19, 2014


AS DELIVERED

Senator Tom Daschle, Moderator: Let me begin the conversation, if I could, by talking about America’s role. There’s a growing debate across the political spectrum, within really both political parties, about what America’s role in the world should be in this day and age; what sort of leadership we should play in foreign affairs. Over the years, especially in the last two decades in particular, we’ve experienced everything from unilateralism to coalitions of the willing to a reliance on our core alliance structure of leading from behind. But there are little consensus about the role of America today and how we should play it, and how best to advance American interests. U.S. leaders face – many U.S. leaders have called for retrenchment, and some have even called for isolation on both the right and the left. So, Ambassador Power, I’d like to start by asking you the question: is it up to America to be the lead actor in the world today? How should we look at that role? Is there a correct model as we look at the circumstances we’re facing worldwide?

Ambassador Power: Thank you, Tom. And thank you everybody for being here, and to CAP for putting on this conference and doing such important work. I mean, you put your finger on a key question for our times. I think that what we see today in the fall of 2014 is American leadership being used on key issues, whether climate, Ebola, ISIL, but whereby we don’t take simple ownership of the issue and decide that we’re going to bear the entire burden alone. We invest our resources, we lead the world, and we bring other coalitions to our side.

So, in the effort against ISIL, in Iraq, in order to support the Iraqi government forces as they try to fend off this monstrous movement, our use of airstrikes. And then we went around the world and said, “Okay, who wants to join on airstrikes? Who wants to join in providing training and equipment to these forces as they reconstitute? Who is going to take care of the humanitarian burden of all the millions of people who’ve been displaced as a result of ISIL’s explosive move across that region?” And now we have a coalition of 60 countries.

Ebola, equally dramatically; President Obama goes before the United Nations in September and says, “Look, here’s what I’m going to do. But if I do this,” and it’s a lot, “it’s not going to suffice.” And if we tackle the problem only in Liberia where the U.S. is deploying more than 2,000 troops and hundreds of CDC and USAID personnel, and aid workers and partnering with Doctors without Borders – but if we just do Liberia, and other countries don’t take the lead in Sierra Leone and Guinea, then our efforts in Liberia are going to be pyrrhic, because people can just cross the border and so forth.

So, you lead by articulating to the American people in the first instance, and to the world why it’s in your interest, and in the collective interest, to act. And then you mobilize other countries to make sure that you’re not bearing these huge burdens alone. And it’s not just even about burden-sharing and resources, which are major issues, but also just the very nature of these kinds of transnational threats, as you all know, are ones where, even if we had all the resources in the world and could bear every burden, you just, you can’t. You know, the foreign fighters in Syria, unless you get other countries to tighten their controls on their borders and prevent people from traveling, the United States, even if it wanted to, couldn’t deal with the foreign terrorist fighter problem alone. And so I think the mobilization of the world around what President Obama said way back when he was a candidate, are common security, common humanity.

Senator Daschle: This conference, as you know, is about making progress, and that applies both domestically as well as in our international efforts in our agenda. We talk at a lot at conferences like this about core progressive values. How would you say core progressive values align with American interests internationally today?

Ambassador Power: Well, I think probably people would define core progressive values in different ways. For me, it would start with regard for human dignity; the dignity of work, the dignity of a fair wage, the dignity to be treated with respect by your neighbors or respect for your own preferences in the way you live your life. And I think President Obama has really urged us to inject concern for human dignity in our policymaking, whether that’s being hugely generous in the face of ethnic violence in South Sudan, or in the face of the horrible displacement out of Syria, or wanting to close Guantanamo, recognizing again that that is – remains even – a recruitment tool and something that terrorist movements use a way of mobilizing their base and so forth.

But I think dignity is one piece of it. And then I think not only looking to make sure that you have domestic legal authority, but also being very conscientious and very dedicated to international norms and international law, while of course always pursuing U.S. interests. So, I think that those: dignity and recognizing that we live in a broad – we live on a planet where our interests also depend on having other people play by the rules, so we are stronger when we lead ourselves by playing by the rules of the road.

Senator Daschle: One of the important roles for the United States historically, and I think especially today, is bringing other countries together in multilateral forums. And there could be no one more sensitized to the need to do that and the importance of doing that, than you at the UN. But whether at the UN or as we saw with the ASEAN and G-20 forums last week, there are multilateral settings that offer opportunities for progress, but can also get bogged down, in part because –

Ambassador Power: I’ve noticed.

Senator Daschle: – of conflicting agendas, in part because you get into just a lot of talkathons that come with the very nature of groups wanting to make points. So how can America balance the importance of working with partners around the world, and the efficiency of our ability to pursue core interests on our own?

Ambassador Power: Well, I get to live a daily talkathon up in New York, so I feel I have a privileged positioned on which to talk. You know, there are a lot of inefficiencies in the international system. Just as within governments, we need to constantly try to streamline and simplify and enhance the interface that citizens have with governments as they regulate, you know, so too in the international system. If you imagine aggregating government habits across 193 governments, imagine what you end up with, right? I mean, that is not ideal. It’s not – if you were starting from scratch in 2014, you’d build a different, a different airplane, probably.

Having said that, if the United Nations didn’t exist, you would definitely build it, because you want a venue to come together. And even those countries with whom we are estranged or not cooperating in visible ways, it’s a channel for communication so you don’t have misunderstanding. It’s a way of pooling resources. You know, it is very, very obvious on the one hand, but also striking to live it where you see that the things that matter most to us, you know, may be very low on the mattering map for other countries. And so too the things that matter the most for them may not be in the top five for us. And so finding – but yet we need them to cooperate with us, let’s say on foreign terrorist fighters, where they think maybe that’s a distant problem compared to, you know, economic development or even climate change, and they need us of course to invest in their economic development and in their dignity, particularly in developing countries.

So we've tried to – I’ve certainly tried to mix it up in New York. And my impatience is the stuff of legend now, insofar as, “How are we still talking about this? I mean, what are you doing?” So, I think you’ve got to inject that spirit. You can’t accept that these institutions need to just be talkathons. We’re trying to do much more brainstorming, you know, much more – trying to bring countries together sort of staring out at a common problem and defining it as such, and then being in a position of, what could we do about it, rather than this sort of positional form of diplomacy that we’ve done, and where there’s certainly a place for that.

The one thing I’d just add finally is it’s tempting to sort of see bilateral dealings as somehow separate from or juxtaposed with the multilateral framework. But the fact of the matter is the way multilateralism works at its best is you start small, and then you expand the circle of consensus and the circle of problem-solving. But ultimately, successful multilateralism will turn also on the extent to which we have maintained, you know, stable and healthy partnerships with different countries around the world. Aggregating those friendships is what allows us to come together. And aggregating the sense of shared destiny and shared interest is what allows us to get a lot of countries to the table around shared threats.

Senator Daschle: So, how does our approach to multilateralism compare or contrast to other great powers, like China or Russia, or even allies like Britain or Japan? Similar or a lot different?

Ambassador Power: That’s an interesting question. I think that – we have embassies in just about every country in the world. And every minute of every day, we have a foreign policy of some kind with that country. And I think we view the multilateral system as a place to advance, whether human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country, or economic prosperity or trade relationships, etc. So, we’re constantly looking to advance our very particular foreign policy objectives in particular countries.

So, for instance yesterday we had very important General Assembly votes on resolutions on the human rights horrors in Syria, those in the DPRK, and those in Iran. And these votes – you know, we treat each of those votes as if it’s a huge priority for the United States. We have our embassies fanning out around the world trying to make sure that countries in the Caribbean or countries in the Middle East are voting a certain way vis-à-vis DPRK, in order to send the strongest possible signal to the regime there that they’re going to be held accountable, particularly in light of the recent commission of inquiry, the horrible commission of inquiry report on the camps and the human rights conditions in DPRK.

That ambition, you know, that range, that ability to draw on those resources, I think, is distinct about the United States. And that belief that it is in our interest to go all out on the DPRK at the same time we go out on Iran at the same time. Most of the time with other countries you’ll see some subset of the larger global agenda prioritized and that kind of effort perhaps being brought to bear, although without the resources and the reach that we have. So, and even countries like China that are taking more and more assertive leadership roles within the UN system, including by increasing in a very helpful development, increasing their contributions to UN peacekeeping in a substantial way, sending doctors and other medical professionals to deal with Ebola. So, you’re seeing them begin to step up. But, still, that – what I just described in terms of campaigning around a discrete issue, whether on economic development, on climate, on human rights in any particular country – you wouldn’t see, again, that same kind of ground game or yet that prioritization of that set of issues, certainly with human rights issues, needless to say.

Senator Daschle: So, as I look at our options, is there a downside to bilateralism, like what we’ve just recently seen with our announcement on climate with China, versus taking the traditional multilateral approach?

Ambassador Power: You know, I think that when we do strike big deals and deepen partnerships in very visible ways, it’s a lot – the relations between countries are a lot like that between individuals. Like there’ll be someone over there saying, “What about me?” Like, “Why wasn't I a part of that?” And I think you see that a little bit here and there in the margins, but compared to the good it does – for instance, if you take the historic agreement, the CAP alone – that past and present CAP leader John Podesta, his leadership in helping negotiate that on the president’s behalf; hugely important agreement. And with China and the United States leading together and early, and constituting the two biggest economies and the two biggest emitters, that puts us in a position to lead the world. And the leverage associated with us doing that together, I think, vastly outweighs any momentary kind of sense of, “Oh, I wish that would’ve been a bigger multilateral framework.” And as I said earlier, that is the way you do multilateralism. You start and get key stakeholders to make agreements, and then you broaden out the circle. And that’s of course what our hope is to do on the climate.

Senator Daschle: So let me ask one more question on multilateral institutional infrastructure before I – I want to give to couple of other issues before we run out of time. A lot of the institutions created from multilateral cooperation were created after World War II. We had a big role to fill. Those institutions really haven’t changed much, whether it’s the UN Security Council, the IMF. To what extent do they reflect today and the world as we see it globally? And to what extent, if it’s not as reflective as they should be, is there a potential for reform as we look at making these institutions perhaps more reflective of the current lay of the land?

Ambassador Power: Well, let me separate a couple of different planes on which one can look at that question. I mean, I think you’ve seen over the life of the Obama administration a real emphasis on the G-20 as a hugely important global forum, not only to deal with economic issues, but as we just saw, the G-20 issued a very strong statement on Ebola. And we would view that group of countries as in the first instance the most likely group of countries to contribute health professionals, money, building materials, etc. in the context of Ebola. So, it’s a convenient proxy for those who should have resources that they’re prepared to invest in dealing with common threats and common challenges.

So, that, I think, shift and that emphasis has occurred over the life of the Obama administration. With the crisis in the Ukraine, of course, the G-7, now, has taken on new importance, particularly with regard again to that set of issues. That’s a very useful forum for that, and for a host of other things. So, again, that venue remains important, but the G-20 is of a different order than it would’ve been back even in 2008. And this was happening with the Bush administration toward the end, as well.

In the United Nations, Security Council reform has been something that many have aspired to, for many, many years, for the obvious reason which you state, which is surely 69 years after the founding of the UN, the dynamics, the power dynamics, the economic dynamics, and so forth in the world, the demographics, everything has changed and surely there should be some modernization. The challenge is that one of the reasons that we would, that one would wish to see an updated set of international institutions is to enhance legitimacy and effectiveness, and to enhance a sense of shared ownership over the entire United Nations, because there’s a sense of alienation by some of the powerful countries that have been doing more than their fair share, like Germany and Japan – you know, tremendous contributors to the UN over many years, but were not part of the regular decision-making body.

But having said that, and with that alienation, and with that aspiration to render it more effective, there is no more divisive issue in the UN membership. And so there just hasn’t been a proposal that has attracted a kind of plurality or a majority because everybody wants – at a moment when things are being revisited, everybody wants in. And so, just as I was describing earlier in the context of bilateral deals, so too this is something where people want UN Security Council reform, but they, again, have very different views as to how you would bring it about.

So, we remain open, you know, and as these debates play themselves out – they’re heating up now because it’s the 70th anniversary approaching. And the question it poses of course rightly being asked. But it’s not clear that there’s a pathway that could gather a critical mass. And, of course, we would remain very attached to our veto, which is a hugely important feature of our leadership within the UN system. So that’s not something we’d be prepared to give up. But on the membership, we certainly see the case.

Senator Daschle: Let me turn to a couple of very specific challenges that you’re very involved with. The first is Ebola. You just came back from Africa a couple of weeks ago.

Ambassador Power: I did. Thank you for giving me a hug earlier.

[Laughter]

Senator Daschle: Yeah, and I’d do it anytime. But I’m curious, as you explored the challenges we face, as you saw firsthand what we’re up against, and the progress or in some cases maybe the lack thereof, how would you characterize our biggest challenge today?

Ambassador Power: Well, we just still don’t have enough. There’s not enough that has been committed. Progress in – whether it’s funds, health workers, beds, as in beds in isolation units, ambulances, fuel. I mean, since again, President Obama went to the UN and stood with the Secretary General and made this appeal and we waged a full-court press around the world to get people to contribute, we have closed, we have narrowed, we say, a very large number of gaps.

But, again, particularly as you get out into the rural areas in the three countries, I mean you still have people who have never heard of Ebola. Our ambassador in Guinea was just out hiking in the countryside away from Conakry, the capital, and just went up to a group of women and said have you heard of Ebola, speaking to them in the local dialect and everything – we have a wonderful ambassador in Guinea. And so, just, social mobilization, basic, again things that money can buy: SIM cards for cellphones, cellphone coverage in parts of the country that doesn’t exist, and how that – and these are the kinds of things you can’t turn on a dime.

So, what is so gratifying is in my own experience in dealing with crises and foreign policy challenges, there’s something very unique about the anti-Ebola effort, in that you can really measure progress. You can – on my trip a couple of weeks ago, four days before I arrived, the rate of safe burial within 24 hours in Freetown, the capital of Sierra Leone, was only 30 percent. The British had come in, they revamped the command of control working with the Sierra Leone military and civilian authorities, and that safe burial rate, just in a four-day period, had gone up to 98 percent within 24 hours, which stands to play a really important role in infection control, because unsafe burial is a huge source of infection. Same in Monrovia, because of the U.S. effort.

The U.S. has deployed these mobile labs around Liberia. We visited one about an hour flight away from Monrovia, about an eight-hour drive in Bong Country, and there are these three Navy microbiologists who had just set up this lab two weeks before we arrived. One of them had decided to become a microbiologist 20 years ago because he read Hot Zone, the Preston book about Ebola. So he can’t believe his fortune that he’s sitting here looking at Ebola under a microscope to test local samples. Before this little three-person unit of microbiologists, contributed by the U.S. Navy, arrived, the testing in that area was taking as much as a week. The samples were being driven on motorcycle, and sometimes getting lost en route to Monrovia. There was only one lab in Monrovia, and everyone in the country had to wait in order to get their test results.

So, just by showing up, that one-week time has now been cut to between three and five hours. Now what does that mean? Tangibly, it means that before, people who were Ebola-positive and Ebola-negative but didn’t know it were cohabitating within Ebola treatment units for a week. That’s not good. That’s not isolation; that’s not what one would seek. Moreover, the beds were full. And now the testing results are coming back, and 70 percent don’t have Ebola; they may have malaria, they may have a cold. If you’re lucky, if there has been social mobilization, people will be coming forward. So, now those beds are being freed up, and you’re starting to see efficiencies.

But back to your original question, I am personally, I think we’ve done a very good job on the hardware, which is the Ebola treatment units, building the facilities where people can be isolated. The software, now, is what is needed: more healthcare workers in the here and now, but also if you look out four weeks or six weeks, that next tranche, who’s going to replace the people in-country today? And this is where us making clear as the American people just how much we value the work that American doctors and nurses are doing as they go over there. So, health workers and the social mobilization, getting the locals to do away with the stigma and the fear that pervades, so that the next time our ambassador goes hiking in the countryside, everyone you meet is telling you about Ebola, rather than again, it being perceived to be foisted upon the countryside by the center, which is a bit of a risk right now.

Senator Daschle: So let me ask you – it may be too early to be able to answer this with any clarity – but to what to what extent are there already lessons learned for the next Ebola, the next H1N1, the next SARS? What can we take from this experience that might help us prepare more proactively for the next one?

Ambassador Power: I think if you look at the funding request, the resource request that President Obama sent up a week or two ago to the Hill and that we are working very constructively with both parties now to refine, I think you see some of those lessons already put in place: making sure that every state has the capability to deal with infectious disease or viruses like this that may be foreign in the first instance, but where you have training protocols that are put in place very quickly. Research into vaccines, you know, investing more in the prevention side of things. In the countries in question, part also of our funding request is to make sure that we don’t invest billions of dollars here in dealing with Ebola, get to the back end of the crisis, and then the Ebola treatment units get dismantled because they’re just tents and bricks, and they’re not themselves sustainable structures, the white vehicles belonging to the international community all get put back on cargo ships. And then what’s left of the health infrastructure of these countries?

The reason that it spread so quickly, in addition to some of the issues related to where the outbreak first occurred, being in a border region and with travel and so forth, but is that the systems were too weak to deal with it – unlike Nigeria, which was able to draw on the expertise acquired in an anti-polio – a polio eradication campaign – a generation ago. That expertise was tapped to deal with the challenge in Nigeria. Nothing like that existed in these three countries. So in addition to the U.S. preparedness, which is very, very important in making sure it’s done at the relevant, with relevant health officials at the state level, really investing not only in these countries’ health infrastructure, by bringing the World Bank and others into that effort, but also looking across the continent. And this is what the President’s global health security agenda, which predated the Ebola crisis, is now, but now has new adherents in the international community because of what’s happened. Hopefully, that’ll be the venue in which some of these changes will take place.

Senator Daschle: We didn’t get to ISIS, we didn't get to Syria, we didn’t get to Iran. There is a whole list of things we didn’t get –

Ambassador Power: Sorry about that.

Senator Daschle: But your answers were terrific, and I just can’t thank you enough for taking time out of what I know is an incredibly busy schedule to be here.

Ambassador Power: My pleasure.

Senator Daschle: And I know I speak for every person in this room in thanking you for the incredible leadership you give us every day. Thank you.

Ambassador Power: Thank you. Thank you so much.

SEC SUSPENDS TRADING IN EBOLA RELATED COMPANIES

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
11/20/2014 10:30 AM EST

The Securities and Exchange Commission today suspended trading in four companies that claim to be developing products or services in response to the Ebola outbreak, citing a lack of publicly available information about the companies’ operations.

The SEC simultaneously issued an investor alert warning about the potential for fraud in microcap companies purportedly involved in Ebola prevention, testing, or treatment, noting that scam artists often exploit the latest crisis in the news cycle to lure investors into supposedly promising investment opportunities.

The SEC Enforcement Division and its Microcap Fraud Task Force work to proactively identify microcap companies that are publicly disseminating information that appears inadequate or potentially inaccurate.  The SEC has authority to issue trading suspensions against such companies.  The companies whose trading was suspended today are Patchogue, N.Y.-based Bravo Enterprises Ltd., Monrovia, Calif.-based Immunotech Laboratories Inc., Toronto-based Myriad Interactive Media Inc., and Anaheim, Calif.-based Wholehealth Products Inc.

“We move quickly to protect investors when we see thinly-traded stocks being promoted with questionable information that make them ripe for pump-and-dump schemes,” said Elisha Frank, Co-Chair of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Microcap Fraud Task Force.  “Fraudsters are constantly exploiting issues of public concern to tout a penny stock company supposedly in the business of addressing the latest crisis.”

Under the federal securities laws, the SEC can suspend trading in a stock for 10 days and generally prohibit a broker-dealer from soliciting investors to buy or sell the stock again until certain reporting requirements are met.  More information about the trading suspension process is available in an SEC investor bulletin on the topic.

According to the SEC’s investor alert, similar to how natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy have given rise to investment schemes for companies purportedly involved in cleanup efforts, con artists may perpetrate investment scams related to Ebola prevention or treatment efforts.  The alert suggests that investors be wary about promises or guarantees of high investment returns with little or no risk, avoid solicitations with pressure to “buy RIGHT NOW,” and beware of unsolicited investment offers through social media.

ARMY ENGINEERS BUILD TREATMENT CENTERS AND PARTNERSHIPS

DEFENSE SECRETARY HAGEL'S MEDIA AVAILABILITY AT FORT IRWIN, CA

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Media Availability with Secretary Hagel Conducted at Fort Irwin, California
Presenter: Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel
November 16, 2014

REAR ADMIRAL JOHN KIRBY: Okay, folks, I'm Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary.

The secretary is going to come on up here. He's got no opening statements. This obviously will be on the record. Only going to be able to take a few questions.
Bob, we're going to start with you, and then I'll call on a couple of -- some of the local reporters here as well.

And then I think -- where's John?

John, you had one, too.

Okay, is everybody ready?

Mr. Secretary?

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE CHUCK HAGEL: General Abrams is in the tank there. I hope that we're not in the way.

(UNKNOWN): He couldn't help himself.

SEC. HAGEL: He couldn't help himself. I'm not sure we shouldn't be off to the side, but he is a general.

So yes. All right, Bob?

Q: Mr. Secretary a question for you about the (inaudible) strategy that (inaudible) today. You said it's working and you said it's (inaudible). (inaudible) it could be accelerated (inaudible). General Dempsey had talked this weekend about (inaudible).

SEC. HAGEL: Yes, we -- at the recommendation of General Austin, have agreed with General Austin's recommendations to take some of the special operations forces that he has in Iraq and give them some early missions working with the Iraqi security forces in Anbar province just to kind of continue to mission accelerate the mission of preparing for training and equipping, and the things that we need to do to start setting that up.

Because it is a process, it has to be done right; we've got to get the right trainers in there, coalition partners. So yes, we are doing what we can with the resources we have to give some acceleration to that.

Q: Has this just begun in the last couple of days or a week?

SEC. HAGEL: Last couple of days that he has moved some of this advisers into Anbar province to work with the Iraqi security forces.

Q: (off mic) You talked a little bit about (inaudible). You know that (inaudible) on the (inaudible). (inaudible). Can you talk a little bit about how the environment here is critical to the U.S. military?

SEC. HAGEL: Well, this is really a critically important base for our training. Yes, partly because of the environment that it represents, and it does give our trainers a very realistic geography to work with, and we've invested a lot of effort here and resources, and it has really been a very smart investment, because it's paid off in the training and the capabilities that our men and women get through this training here. So it's a unique location. It's an important location.
Q: (off mic)

SEC. HAGEL: Well, first, I think everybody knew from the beginning, because this is a rotational overall mission, that we would be requiring National Guard assistance and participation. So I went ahead and authorized the beginning of that last week. Nothing is moving; it takes time to -- but you've got to notify our Guardsmen and their families and their employers.

But anticipating any further call-ups, not in our planned -- at this point.

Q: (off mic)

SEC. HAGEL: Well, it depends on how successful we all are in stopping the spread of Ebola. Working, as you know, with the USAID and CDC and the Liberian government, we're hopeful that it won't be a long mission at all.
But we're uncertain until we know that we have been able to stop it. There are positive signs, but we're planning for a six-month mission, but we'll see. It just depends on how successful we all are in stopping the spread of Ebola.

REAR ADM. KIRBY: We've got one more question.

Sir, we'll go to you.

Q: You mentioned in budget constraints that there were facilities that (inaudible). Are any of those in California? And if so, (inaudible)?

SEC. HAGEL: (Laughter.) I'm not going to get into which ones.
Q: (off mic)

SEC. HAGEL: We have a pretty clear inventory of where we have excess capacity. We've shared at least our thinking, some of our thinking, with the Congress on this, but that's the whole point behind a BRAC, a base closing commission that allows an independent look at what facilities are still being used, which facilities are important to the future of our country, our security, and which are not.

And it was setup, you'll recall, many years ago, to give not only an honest assessment of that, but also take it out of politics.

And so, what we're asking for, again, is for the Congress to authorize another base relocation closing commission to go in and take a hard look, an insightful, honest look, and evaluate where that excess capacity is. And I would hope the Congress will allow us to do that, and I would hope that they would support another round of BRAC.

REAR ADM. KIRBY: Thanks, everybody. Appreciate it.

SEC. HAGEL: Thank you.

WHITE HOUSE FACT SHEET ON THE G-20 BRISBANE SUMMIT

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 
November 16, 2014
FACT SHEET: The G-20 Brisbane Summit

The G-20 is the world’s premier forum for economic policy cooperation – where Leaders representing economies generating 85 percent of global GDP assemble around the table to promote strong, sustainable and balanced growth and to address urgent global economic challenges.

The Brisbane G-20 Summit – the eighth that President Obama has attended since taking office – focused on growth and jobs.  With the global economic recovery still fragile, G-20 Leaders sent a clear signal of their commitment to take decisive steps, recognizing that the global economy is being held back by a shortfall in demand.  G-20 Leaders announced a Brisbane Action Plan of individual country commitments and collective actions that could increase the G-20’s combined output by 2.1 percent or more over the next five years.

Leaders agreed on a number of specific steps to strengthen the resilience of the global economy and to address challenges such as climate change.  These include new initiatives on infrastructure investment, female labor force participation, combating corruption, and remittances.  Leaders also issued a separate statement about Ebola and global health security.

Among the most significant agreements were:

launching the Global Infrastructure Initiative to unlock private financing for infrastructure investment worldwide, including the creation of a Global Infrastructure Hub to support best practices and coordination;

a commitment by each country to close the gap between its male and female labor-force participation rates by 25% by 2025; this will bring an estimated 100 million additional women into the labor force by that year;

principles that would help prevent the abuse of anonymous shell companies to facilitate illicit financial flows stemming from corruption, tax evasion, and money laundering a commitment to addressing the challenge of climate change including communicating post-2020 domestic climate targets as soon as possible and preferably by the first quarter of 2015.  G-20 leaders also stressed the importance of climate finance, including additional contributions to the Green Climate Fund following the United States’ $3 billion commitment to the GCF;

an Energy Efficiency Action Plan that includes, among other initiatives, a program to increase fuel quality and reduce carbon emissions by heavy-duty vehicles;

advancing the implementation of the international financial reform agenda;
agreement to complete by the end of 2015 an implementation plan on combating tax avoidance by multinational companies; and agreement on principles on energy markets that could serve as the basis for ongoing discussions on reform of the international energy architecture.

Building a Stronger Global Economy through Jobs and Growth

The United States is a major source of strength in the global economy, with 56 straight months of private sector job growth creating 10.6 million jobs.  The Administration’s comprehensive response to the economic crisis — including through macroeconomic and structural policies — has laid the foundation for growth in the United States.

The pace of global economic growth and job creation, however, has disappointed since the recovery from recession began in 2009.  Economic activity in advanced countries has been particularly weak, while growth in emerging markets is uneven.  As the G-20 Leaders acknowledged, there is a shortfall in global demand.

To help strengthen medium-term potential growth, G-20 Leaders endorsed the Brisbane Action Plan to boost collective G-20 growth by 2 percent or more over the next five years.  The Action Plan includes a U.S. Growth Strategy based on Administration priorities such as infrastructure investment, raising household income, increasing access to quality skills development, increasing trade, comprehensive immigration reform, and assisting working families.  The U.S. reform commitments were critical in allowing the G-20 to meet its 2 percent goal.

Increasing Infrastructure Investment

A key constraint to growth across the G-20 is inadequate infrastructure.  At the same time, infrastructure investment creates construction jobs and can provide a strong impetus to growth. This year, the G-20 launched a Global Infrastructure Initiative, paired with a new Global Infrastructure Hub that will be based here in Australia, to help tap into the large pool of potential private financing for infrastructure investment.

We’ve also made significant advances in expanding the amount of money that the World Bank and other multilateral development banks can deploy to emerging economies through more efficient use of their existing balance sheets.
Female Labor Force Participation

The G-20 made a new commitment to bring more women into the workforce and improve the quality of their jobs.  All G-20 countries committed to reduce the gap between the share of men and women in the workforce by 25 percent by 2025.  That would bring an additional 100 million women into the formal workforce and increase global GDP.

Fighting corruption

The G-20 has taken significant steps over the last four years to fight the scourge of corruption in our own countries and overseas.  In Brisbane, Leaders adopted a two-year plan to strengthen enforcement, enhance transparency, and facilitate the recovery of assets stolen by corrupt officials.  This includes meaningful steps to ensure that corrupt actors cannot exploit our financial and legal systems.  The G-20 also reached a significant agreement to end the abuse of anonymous shell companies by endorsing implementation of “Beneficial Ownership” principles.  The G-20 will work to ensure that corrupt actors can no longer use these shell companies to evade taxes or launder the proceeds of their crimes, and the Administration has proposed legislation to end the use of anonymous shell companies in the United States.

Remittances and Financial inclusion

G-20 leaders today agreed on a set of concrete steps that will reduce the cost of sending money home for people working overseas.  These remittances are a life-line for millions of people in the developing world and a critical source of development financing for emerging and developing economies.  This action plan will lower the cost of remittances to an average of 5 percent by increasing competition and expanding access to money transfer services, making the financial system more inclusive for billions of people and again demonstrating the G-20’s capacity to make the global economy work better for everyone.
Enhancing Energy Efficiency and Addressing Climate Change

G-20 leaders increased their commitment to energy and climate change through energy deliverables and a strong endorsement of the need for action to address climate change. Leaders agreed to:

Endorse a new set of Principles on Energy Collaboration that outline key elements for future G-20 energy and climate change work.  These principles can set the agenda for future discussions of how we should adapt the global energy architecture to reflect recent transformations in the world’s energy markets – including the energy revolution in the United States.

An Energy Efficiency Action Plan that will guide efficiency work in six important sectors.  Central to this Action Plan is an agreement to develop country-specific plans in 2015 to improve efficiency of heavy-duty vehicles – trucks, buses, and other large vehicles which account for as much as half of all vehicle emissions even though they represent only 10 percent of all vehicles.  Three quarters of these vehicles globally are sold in G-20 countries.  The plan will lead to cleaner fuel, lower fuel consumption and carbon emissions, and reduced public health costs.  The United States is a global leader in heavy-duty vehicles standards for tailpipe emissions, fuel quality and efficiency, as well as green freight programs.

Reaffirm the G-20 commitment to rationalize and phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.  The United States, China, and Germany have committed to undergo fossil fuel subsidy peer reviews, which can help countries assess their subsidies and provide recommendations for reform.  The European Union has also offered to participate as a reviewer.

Send a clear signal that G-20 Leaders support strong and effective action to address climate change by reaffirming their resolve to adopt a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force at the UN climate negotiations in Paris in 2015.  In order to accomplish this, G-20 Leaders committed to communicate their post-2020 domestic climate targets as soon as possible and preferably by early 2015.  They also stressed the importance of contributions to the Green Climate Fund, and the United States announced a $3 billion commitment to the GCF.

Ebola and Global Health Security

The G-20 also demonstrated its ability to respond to new and fast-breaking challenges to the global economy, such as the threat posed by the Ebola epidemic.  In a statement released yesterday, G-20 leaders called for faster action to end the Ebola epidemic in West Africa.  Participating countries also committed to take steps to build the capacity to prevent, detect, and rapidly respond to future outbreaks – before they become epidemics.  And to make sure these aren’t just idle promises, the G-20 will review progress in building that capacity in at a major international meeting next May.  These steps are consistent with the Global Health Security Agenda, which the United States helped launch in February and the President hosted for an event at the White House in September.

For the three countries whose economies have been devastated by this epidemic, G-20 leaders also endorsed an IMF initiative to provide them with $300 million in low-cost or no-cost financing and debt relief.

Strengthening the Global Financial System and addressing tax evasion and avoidance

The G-20 came into being during the financial crisis, and repairing and strengthening the resilience of the global financial system has been one of the most important elements of our cooperation.  While there is critical work to be done, this year we are close to finalizing the majority of the work on new rules to strengthen the financial system, end too-big-too fail, and promote a level playing field around the world.

U.S. leadership has played a transformational role by engaging others in a “race to the top” to improve the quality of regulation and level the playing field across major and emerging financial centers.  The United States led the way in this area with our Dodd-Frank reforms.  Now the key is for all G-20 countries to implement these commitments.  After the damage wrought by the financial crisis, we owe it to our citizens to complete our work in creating a safer and more resilient financial system.

This year, the G-20 took significant steps forward to strengthening bank capital and liquidity by reducing leverage, addressing “too big to fail” by ensuring tax payers will not have to bear the costs of resolution for large financial institutions, committing to make the derivatives markets more transparent and safe, and addressing the systemic risks posed by shadow banking.

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S TOAST REMARKS IN LUNCHEON WITH CHINESE PRESIDENT XI

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 
November 12, 2014
Toast Remarks by President Obama in Luncheon with President Xi of China
Great Hall of the People
Beijing, China

PRESIDENT OBAMA: President Xi, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen -- thank you for your extraordinary hospitality and the honor of this state visit, which is a reflection of the deep ties between our countries and our peoples.

I’m told that one of your great Chinese authors once wrote, “Originally there was no path, but after many people travel a certain way, a path is forged.”

Thirty-five years ago, our two nations established diplomatic relations. Since then, many people -- Chinese and Americans -- have travelled between us. Business people, tourists, students and teachers, scientists and researchers. And as a result, a new path has been forged.

Among those who traveled that path was President Xi, who on an exchange program as a younger man visited our state of Iowa and stayed with a local family. Mr. President, as a result of the ties you forged then, families in Iowa still welcome young men and women from China into their homes and communities.

That path has also been traveled by my wife Michelle and our two daughters, who visited China earlier this year. As I was on my visit five years ago, they were deeply moved by the history and majesty of this nation and its people. And Michelle even tried her hand at tai chi.

Now, this path is being walked in new ways. We recently witnessed an inspiring sight -- a Chinese plane landing in Liberia with supplies to fight Ebola, and it was unloaded by Chinese and Americans and Liberians, working together, shoulder to shoulder. And today we showed that we can bring that same spirit to bear as leaders in the fight against climate change.

In closing, I’d like to recall a Chinese saying that reflects this spirit of possibility -- nothing is too difficult, as long as people have resolve. And so I propose a toast -- to our people and the resolve we share, I wish the best of health to President Xi, his family, and the people of China, may we continue to walk the path of friendship and cooperation for the benefit of ourselves and for the world. Ganbei.

(A toast is given.)

SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS AT NATIONAL CENTER FOR ASIA-PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION LUNCHEON

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks at the National Center for Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Luncheon
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Intercontinental Beijing
Beijing, China
November 8, 2014

SECRETARY KERRY: Scott, thank you. Thank you very much. I apologize for being a little bit late. And it’s an honor for me to be able to be here. I’m delighted to be here with everybody. I’m particularly happy to be here with my good friend and colleague, the Foreign Minister from the Philippines, Albert Del Rosario. Albert, always good to be with you, and thank you very much. Albert said to me he was deathly afraid he was going to be late and he was glad I was the guy who was. (Laughter.) Modern diplomacy.

Scott, I’m really grateful to you. Monica sort of described it in her introductory comments, but we’re really delighted with what you have done to make NC-APEC what it is at this moment at the 20th anniversary celebration. And I think nobody who knows Scott is going to be surprised by what he has been able to accomplish, congratulate you on your new and large role. But through programs like Direct Farm at Walmart, he’s made it his mission to balance the needs of customers with corporate social responsibility, and I think all of us are very grateful to him for the leadership that he has shown.

I also want to thank Monica. When you think about the progress that we have made in building a public-private partnership here in the Pacific, it’s fair to say that Monica has been there every single step of the way. And I’m delighted that she is able to be here with us this afternoon. I also want to acknowledge a few folks that are in the APEC Business Advisory Council. All of them contribute significantly. I had the pleasure to be starting a conversation last year in Bali. Particularly from an American point of view, I want to single out Bart Peterson of Eli Lily, Peggy Johnson of Microsoft, Ed Rapp of Caterpillar, and we’re delighted for all that they represent in terms of their corporate engagement and the ability of their companies.

When you consider the long list of challenges that we are discussing here at APEC, it’s interesting for me to note how APEC itself has been somewhat transformed not just into an economic forum, but frankly, it has also evolved so much and has become such a competent place of discussion of important issues, and it’s also security (inaudible). And I think it’s fair to say that in today’s world, a world with ISIL and Ebola, Ukraine, Syria, climate change, it’s impossible not to recognize the relatedness of a lot of the choices that we make economically with the choices that are also (inaudible) at the same time integrated into a security matrix.

Nowhere is the unprecedented set of challenges, but also opportunities more clear than here in Asia and throughout the Asia Pacific. And it is important for people to focus on the fact that even as there are the challenges that I listed, we are staring at a world with absolutely unprecedented opportunity. I think that’s part of the attraction in putting so many of the businesses here, not just to APEC, but to the region, and has brought so many more over the last years. We are literally building prosperity and stability in the long term, and that’s why, unabashedly, economic policy is at the center of President Obama’s rebalance to Asia.

This is my fourth trip right here just to Beijing, my multiple trips to the region over the course of the last year and a half that I have been Secretary. And it will be one of many trips of the President when he arrives here on Monday and spends not one day or two days, but I think about eight days going to the ASEAN meeting and to the G20 meeting, ultimately, in Brisbane. There is no doubt that how this region grows and how we engage the 2.7 billion customers who live here is going to shape the future of the global economy, and it will do much to define the 21st century.

The numbers themselves of the last years of development actually define this story. The fact is that more than half the world’s GDP is represented in this region. Fully half of America’s top 10 trading partners are APEC economies. And we send the majority of our exports here to the Asia Pacific. And outside of America over the next five years, this region is expected to grow as much as all other countries combined. Just think about that. So if we put it all together, it’s pretty obvious why we all have a huge stake in the choices that are made here.

But getting these choices right is not automatic. That means to have to develop even closer cooperation between the public and the private sectors. And what you sell, how you invest, how you operate – these are all major parts of the equation. Our ambassadors throughout the region, including our outstanding Ambassador to China, Max Baucus, are completely at the disposal of all businesses. And I have said since day one, when I became Secretary of State, that foreign policy is economic policy, and economic policy is foreign policy. We’re living in that much of a different world in many ways.

And I have directed all of our embassies, under the good stewardship of our Assistant Secretary of State Charlie Rivkin, who’s sitting over here, Assistant Secretary of State for Business Affairs, and our Assistant Secretary of State Danny Russel, who’s over here, for East Asia and Pacific, that I want all embassies and every official within our embassies to be economic officers. That’s how important it is for us today to be able to promote and help to marry businesses with opportunities.

President Obama has set the tone by saying again and again that the way to grow our economies is to grow our exports. And that’s exactly what’s happening. Since the President took office, U.S. exports have increased more than 50 percent, and the two-way trade between the United States and other APEC countries, economies has grown by nearly the same amount during that period of time. That’s five, six years now (inaudible) growth nearly 50 percent. Every single one of you here, almost all of you, have been involved here for decades, frankly. I know this. So you’ve seen with your own eyes how dramatic the transformation is. Many of you are the transformation. You understand it. And it’s been a remarkable transformation in the 25 years since APEC was founded.

Back when it was founded, real GDP was 15 trillion in the region. Now it’s doubled to 30 trillion. Back then, when it was founded, trade was around $3 trillion. Now it’s grown to nearly seven-fold more than 20 trillion and growing. Back then, the average tariffs were 17 percent. Now, they’re under 6 percent. And that is a fundamental of the kind of growth that has taken place. And today, the 1.1 trillion in U.S. foreign direct investment in other APEC economies is a tremendous vote of American confidence in the region. Investment coming the other way – from APEC economies into the United States – now tops some $660 billion and it has created tens of thousands of jobs throughout the region and in the United States. The mutual benefits are absolutely undeniable.

So we have made extraordinary progress. The question now is: What do we do with the next 25 years? How do we guarantee that what we can do together, the steps that we take together, are going to build an even more prosperous future for all of the APEC countries? Well, today, I’d argue that we have to organize ourselves fundamentally around four principles of growth: We need to grow openly and accountably. We need to grow green. We need to grow just. And we need to grow smart. Now let me tell you what I mean about each of those.

First, openly and accountably. As any business leader would agree, freer markets create more opportunity, more competition, more growth, and more innovation. And that means that we need to do everything we can to open up trade and investment in every single corner of the globe, particularly here in the Asia Pacific. And that’s why President Obama and I are laser-focused on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

The TPP represents a state-of-the-art, 21st century trade agreement that will connect more than 40 percent of the global GDP and one-third of global trade. But more than that, it doesn’t just connect it; it raises standards. It creates a race to the top, not a race to the bottom. And any of you who are wondering today about the security challenge of increased level with extremism, just look to those places where it is most taking hold, and you’ll find places that aren’t just racing to the bottom; they’ve been stuck at the bottom. And if you stay stuck at the bottom, your people are going to find something to latch on to that they will organize themselves around.

Governance is a critical component of being able to grow effectively and have this race to the top, where all people do better, and any one of you in business here in this part of the world understands the difference that moving to the top has made to the sense of quality of life and the opportunities that citizens have in the countries that are affected. And that’s true whether we’re talking about agriculture, manufacturing, or intellectual property, or the challenge of ensuring that state-owned enterprises compete fairly with privately owned companies. TPP will build prosperity and ensure prosperity and stability throughout the region, and it will do so based on shared principles and shared values. It is not just a technical trade agreement. It is a strategic opportunity for all of us, and we need to make sure we seize it. That’s why we need every single one of you here to make the case – with all of the leaders and all of the population that you come in contact with, particularly all the opinion leaders – make your case for TPP in every country and in every capital. This is a battle that we need to be prepared to make, and make no mistake, it is a battle that we absolutely must win, because if you don’t, the levels of unfairness and the shut doors will create inequities that will encourage corruption and begin to insidiously invade populations of countries that are affected.

Secondly, we need to grow green. That means stepping up our engagement on clean energy and oceans conservation. Cleaner energy means more sustainable sources of energy. It means reduced air pollution. Reduced air pollution means healthier populations. In America in the summertime, the greatest single cause of young kids being hospitalized is environmentally induced asthma. You want to reduce the cost of hospitalization, the cost of healthcare? Breathe cleaner air. Reduce the level of long-term illness that comes from carcinogens in the air that give people cancer.

There’s a long list of benefits – your healthier populations, your reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The latest UN panel report of just a week or so or two weeks ago is chilling, and I urge everybody here to read it. It’s not a political document. It’s a scientific document. And most of us learned at the elementary stages in school science has value. It’s not everything in life, but facts are facts. The latest report tells us that those who deny climate change are playing with fire. And all of the evidence that has been predicted for the last 20 or 30 years is not just coming back the way it was predicted; it’s coming back faster and it’s coming back with bigger consequences than were predicted.

For anybody in public life, the warning is clear. It means the precautionary principle has to be applied, and you need to take steps to deal with them. Scientists now predict that by the end of the century, the sea could rise by a full meter. Now a meter, 39 inches, may not seem like a lot to everybody here, but I got news for you: It is enough to displace hundreds of millions of people, and it is enough to throw a multi-billion dollar monkey wrench into the global economy.

That’s why we are promoting the use of electric cars throughout the APEC region, and that’s why more countries are reconsidering the wisdom of fossil fuel subsidies. And this week, I am proud to say that we are set – that we set the ambitious goal of doubling the share of renewables in the region’s energy by mid-2030. We’re also strengthening our partnership on oceans. Now oceans are affected by climate change. The amount of acidity in the ocean, which is affected fish populations, food, coral reefs, plankton, comes from greenhouse gases that dump into the ocean. And we are seeing significant increases in various parts of the planet. Scientists have even noticed that in the Antarctic, the ocean has regurgitated carbon mass out that it once upon a time could contain and now isn’t – another warning signal.

This fall, President Obama declared the world’s largest marine sanctuary in the Pacific, and that is critical. APEC Ocean Ministers have pledged to conserve at least 10 percent of coastal and marine areas by the end of this decade, and we’re improving the transparency of the reporting of subsidies that contribute to overfishing. I’ll tell you something: I’ve been chairman of the fisheries subcommittee for years in the United States Senate. I have major fisheries in New England. We no longer have the same cod fishing we used to have. Our fisherman are now in port most of the days of the year because of what’s happened to the stocks. And most of the fisheries of the world are overfished. There’s too much money chasing too few fish, and unless you fish in sustainable ways, unless you engage in sustainable agriculture on land, we are all going to be challenged by this onslaught coming at us.

I’ve got good news for you, though. The solution to climate change is really very simple and it’s staring us in the face, and it’s not something that’s somewhere down the road. It’s here now. The solution is energy policy. Make the right choices in your energy policy; you solve the problem of climate change. And guess what? It happens to be the biggest marketplace the world has ever seen. The market that drove America’s great wealth production of the 1990s – I don't know how many of you know know this – America got richer in the 1990s than we did in the 1920s when we had no income tax. Greater wealth was created in the 1990s for every single income-earner in America, every single quintile of American taxpayer went up in their income when we had a $1 trillion market with 1 billion users. It was the high-tech telecommunications computer revolution. Well, guess what? The energy market is a $6 trillion market with 4-5 billion users, and it’s going to grow to something like 9 billion in the next 30, 40 years. So there’s an enormous opportunity staring us in the face. We need to grab it.

The third thing we need to do is grow just, and that means avoiding bribery and corruption. Obviously, that has a terrible impact on the ability of businesses to do business. We’re all hurt by it, and we can’t level the playing field if there’s corruption. And I know that a number of countries around the world are increasingly focused on trying to eliminate corruption, and we have made that partnership very key in APEC.

And finally, we need to grow smart, and that means empowering women and promoting educational opportunities all across APEC economies. I’m very proud that the United States is contributing to the APEC Scholarships and Internships Initiative. We have commitments from Caterpillar, Eli Lilly, Microsoft, General Electric, EMD Merck Serono, as well as three universities: Colorado State University, the University of Colorado, and the University of Washington Evans School, and they’re making contributions that can help us bring more students back and forth.

Finally, let me just say that it is clear that APEC really has the ability to define the future here. There’s no business sector over here and government over there; it is really all one and the same now. We’re all connected. And it is absolutely vital that we create greater opportunities for this generation and the next. Twenty-five years of APEC, 20 years of the National Center have done an extraordinary job of really defining the possibilities for the future. That’s what’s happening here. And I’m excited by the notion that we’re going to recommit ourselves to making certain that we live up to our responsibilities but seize the opportunities at the same time, and that’s how APEC is actually going to help define the 21st century.

Thank you all very much. (Applause.)

SECRETARY KERRY'S PRESS AVAILABILITY IN PARIS, FRANCE

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Press Availability in Paris, France
Press Availability
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Chief of Mission Residence
Paris, France
November 5, 2014

SECRETARY KERRY: Well good evening, and thank you for being here. It’s a pleasure for me to be back in Paris on my way to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Beijing. And in the meantime, I was able to have a number of important and constructive meetings here today, particularly with Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius of France and also with Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh of Jordan.

I want to express my appreciation to Minister Fabius for his generous welcome and for his hosting us here today in Paris, and I’m particularly pleased with the extent and breadth of the discussion that we were able to have.

I’m also able to welcome – though she isn’t here right now because she was presenting her credentials in Monaco today – but I want to welcome our new ambassador to France, Jane Hartley and just mention I know Jane. And whether it’s been as a top staffer at the Department of Housing and Urban Development or at the White House, in the private sector, she comes here with a huge understanding of our country and the values that we stand for, and also with a huge commitment to public service which has been enduring over a long period of time. And we’re delighted to have her in Paris, finally, to continue and to deepen the partnership with the oldest alliance that the United States has.

Foreign Minister Fabius and I covered a lot of ground in our discussion this afternoon, and we went through – particularly focused on, among other things, the nuclear negotiations with Iran, our shared fight against ISIL, the complications of Syria, the challenges of Syria, the Mideast peace process itself; as well as other subjects such as turning the tide on Ebola, the situation in Lebanon, and of course, the larger issues of a Europe that is whole, free, and at peace; and particularly the challenge of Ukraine and the implementation of the Minsk agreement.

Nowhere is the mission of a Europe that is whole and free and at peace more clear at this particular moment than in the challenge of Ukraine. The United States and France remain deeply committed to Ukraine’s sovereignty, to its territorial integrity. And the parliamentary elections in Ukraine last month were a very bold and very clear statement about the choice for change that the people of Ukraine have made. They want an inclusive, accountable government, and they made it clear that they also want a future that was connected to Europe. They want a European future, as well as respect for their sovereignty and their right of choice.

As I discussed with President Poroshenko, who I talked to while I was flying here yesterday, we are concerned, obviously, about the lack of follow-through on some aspects of the Minsk agreement. And I particularly urged President Poroshenko to take the next step by naming a broadly inclusive governing coalition and articulating a concrete reform agenda in order to address the voters’ demands that they expressed in their election for a transparent, open government; a clean, modern judiciary; long-term energy security; and strengthening the investment climate, among other priorities.

We also talked about the need to continue to take the high road of adhering to the Minsk agreement, and not to fall into the possibility invited by measures taken by Russia to engage in a tit-for-tat process. I think President Poroshenko could not have been more clear about his determination to maintain that high moral ground, to continue to press for the implementation of Minsk, to continue to press for the ability of the people of Ukraine to determine their future, and he expressed his desire to honor the special law with respect to the separatist’s desires within Luhansk and Donetsk, but he wants to do so within the context of the process that had been agreed upon. It is essential to resolving the conflict in eastern Ukraine and the country’s other challenges that they take transparent political steps to bring people to the political process in a way that resolves the conflict, not exacerbates it.

By contrast, unlawful voting in eastern Ukraine over the weekend is a blatant violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and the Minsk agreement. And President Obama has been clear, as have I during my conversations with Foreign Minister Lavrov, that neither the United States nor the international community will recognize the results. The only legitimate local elections in Donetsk and Luhansk will be those that conform with Ukrainian law and with the Minsk agreement, and that is where the focus of Ukrainians, Russians, and the international community should be.

We also call on Russia and its proxies in eastern Ukraine to end the violence around Mariupol and the Donetsk airport and to enforce the ceasefire and to begin working in good faith on restoring Ukrainian control over the international air border. And the President and I have repeatedly said if the Minsk agreement is fully implemented, sanctions can be rolled back; and if it isn’t and violations continue, pressure will only increase. The choice is Russia’s.

So Foreign Minister Fabius and I also spent a good deal of time discussing the EU-coordinated P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran. The United States and France remain in lockstep with our international partners on the importance of making certain that Iran does not have a pathway to a nuclear weapon. This is the policy of the international community, of everybody, and of the United Nations as expressed through a number of United Nations Security Council resolutions.

With the November 24th deadline rapidly approaching, I will travel to Oman later this week to meet with Foreign Minister Zarif and Cathy Ashton. A unified P5+1 has put on the table creative ideas to be able to achieve our objective, and now we will see if Iran is able to match the public words that they are prepared to prove to the world that they have a peaceful program, to match those words with the tough and the courageous decisions that need to be made by all of us. The time is now to make those decisions.

And during my meetings today with Foreign Minister Fabius and Foreign Minister Judeh, I also discussed the best way to coordinate international efforts against the ISIL threat. The size and strength of ISIL demands a broad-based coalition. The nature of their actions demands a broad-based coalition. And we are working intensively with our partners along five reinforcing lines of effort to shrink ISIL’s territory, cut off its financing, stop the flow of foreign fighters, expose the hypocrisy of its absurd religious claims, and provide humanitarian aid to the victims of its aggression.

More than 60 countries have come forward with critical commitments and many others have expressed strong opposition to ISIL’s campaign of terror and of horror. The world is united against this threat, and President Obama’s strategy will succeed because doing it with allies and partners isn’t just smart, it is absolutely essential and it is the strong way to deal with this challenge. And I will continue to work to build support for the coalition at the APEC meeting in Beijing.

In my conversation with Foreign Minister Judeh, we also discussed the increasing tensions recently in areas across Jerusalem, and particularly surrounding the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount. We condemn the terrorist attack in Jerusalem this morning that killed at least one person when a car was driven wantonly, purposefully into pedestrians. And the confrontation at the al-Aqsa Mosque is also of particular concern where reports of damage are deeply disturbing. Holy sites should not become the sites of tension, and concrete steps need to be taken now by all sides to de-escalate this situation.

We also note the importance of the special role of Jordan in the Muslim holy places in Jerusalem, a role confirmed in the Jordan-Israel treaty of peace. And we obviously believe that peace between Israel and Jordan is central to stability in the region, and we are in touch with both sides on this matter and hope that all parties will draw back and reduce these tensions.

Finally, the United States is committed to intensify every aspect of our engagement in the challenge of Ebola, and we call on our international partners to join in doing the same. We are deeply appreciative of the contributions that so many have made. We’re deeply appreciative of the contributions France has made, and we appreciate the leadership that they are taking particularly with respect to Guinea.

I’ve been making phone calls each day to counterparts in order to try to encourage concrete steps from one country or another. Each country may choose to do something different. But the important point to make is that no one country is going to resolve this by itself. This needs to be a global initiative, a global effort. And we believe that already the steps that we are taking is having impact that can be measured. And literally, we are raising this issue in every single bilateral meeting that we are having.

So I am very proud that the people of the United States have contributed more than $360 million to the response effort; directly to the response, another billion-plus to the military deployment of our folks who are over there now putting themselves at risk in order to build the capacity to be able to help to deal with this. We are delivering support in some very unique ways that only the American military is able to provide.

But we know, as I said a moment ago, even that will not be able to do it on its own. Every country has a contribution to be able to make of people, of money, of humanitarian assistance, medical supplies, beds, airlift. There are countless ways to be able to help, and we hope that more yet will join in that initiative. Everything that we do literally depends on how we all coordinate together, and I want to thank our many partners in this effort for the tremendous contributions from as far away as China and in Asia, to those right in the epicenter in Africa who are helping to fight back.

With that, I’d be very happy to take any questions.

MS. HARF: Great. The first question is from Pam Dockins of Voice of America. And wait, the mike will be coming to you. We only have one mike.

SECRETARY KERRY: Excuse me? Oh, we only have one mike.

PARTICIPANT: (Off-mike.)

SECRETARY KERRY: Good.

QUESTION: Clearly, the Iran nuclear talks were front and center for you today. Can the negotiations go past the November 24th deadline, and what is the likelihood of that happening? Additionally, is there a new urgency to reach an agreement before the new Republican majority in the Senate takes over? And then finally, also, how do you see last night’s election results impacting U.S. foreign policy and America’s standing with the rest of the world?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you. On the issue of the Iran nuclear talks, we are gearing up and targeting November 24th. We’re not talking about or thinking about going beyond that date. That’s a critical date. And we believe it is imperative for a lot of different reasons to get this done. Most people don’t understand why, if you’re simply trying to show that a program is peaceful, it would take so long. People want to know that the transparency and accountability necessary to get this done is on the table, and we ought to be able to reach agreement. So our press is to try to get this done. And I think that it gets more complicated if you can’t. It’s not impossible if you’re not able to, but I think let’s see what happens when we bear down as we are.

An enormous amount of work has gone into this. For months upon months, we’ve had expert teams sitting down, working through details, looking at all of the technical information that is necessary to be able to make a judgment about what the impact of a particular decision is. Some of it’s very complicated, and we’ve tried to reduce it to as simple and understandable a format as possible. And it’s been very constructive. The Iranian team has worked hard and seriously. The conversations have been civil and expert.

And my hope is that now is the moment for really political decisions to be made that make a judgment that we can show the world that countries with differing views, differing systems, but with a mutual interest of trying to prove a peaceful program can in fact do that and get the job done. So we’re very hopeful about that, and I have every intent of making myself available and doing everything necessary to try to do that. And I’m confident that Foreign Minister Zarif will likewise make himself available and continue to push forward.

On the subject of the elections, let me just say that it was 10 years ago this afternoon that I conceded in a race for the presidency. And I have nothing but the greatest respect for the American political electoral process. There are winners and there are losers. Sometimes it’s your friends; sometimes it’s yourself. What you learn, if you’re in the process, is nothing but respect for the voters and for the system.

Now, I’m out of politics now. I’m in a different role, and I’m not going to comment on the – any of the political aspects of it, except to say that America will remain joined together with a strong voice with respect to our foreign policy. Our values are our values, shared by all Americans, and they are at the core of American foreign policy and of what we try hard to enforce and stand up for and advocate about around the world. That will not change. Sometimes there’s a different view or another about a particular subject, but in our process, traditionally the United States of America has been strongest when partisanship is left at the water’s edge and we stand up for America’s interests. I’m confident that is what will continue to happen over the course of these next months.

The one thing I would ask for with this election is I hope that, now that the election is over, the 60 outstanding nominees who have been the prisoner of the political process for these past – over a year now will be able to be passed very, very quickly. Thirty-nine of them are already on the Senate calendar. And some of them, I might say – I happen to have it here with me right now, no accident – well, one of them has been waiting 477 days, 473 days to be passed. Another, 466 days; another, 460 days; another, 460 – 460, 460, 418, 418, 399 – excuse me, 382. And yes, 399.

So I mean, I could run through a long list here. These are professionals. These are career people. They got kids. They need to know where they’re going to school. They need to be able to go out and do their jobs. My hope is that with this election now, in the next days when Congress comes back, I really hope that they will get affirmed very quickly in a bloc form or otherwise, because I think they deserve it, and I think our country is stronger and better served when we have the full team on the playing field.

MS. HARF: Our final question is from Lara Jakes of the Associated Press.

QUESTION: Thanks. I wanted to ask you about the Mideast peace process, but wondering if you would mind clarifying something you just said about the Iran negotiations. You said we ought to be able to reach an agreement; it gets more complicated if you can’t, but it’s not impossible. So the question was: Do you see these negotiations going past November 24th? Are you saying it’s not impossible for them to go past November 24th?

SECRETARY KERRY: What I’m saying is we have no intention at this point of talking about an extension, and we’re not contemplating an extension. If we were inches away, and most of the logical, achievable, expectable – expected issues are dealt with, but you have some details you just got to fill in, could I see a – under those circumstances, perhaps. But it would depend entirely on what’s outstanding. If big issues are hanging out there that are really fundamental and pretty simple, no, I don’t. I think that under those circumstances, something’s wrong. And so we’re going to have to see. And I think if it becomes more complicated to manage in terms of externals, if it is prolonged for reasons that are harder to explain – that’s the point I’m making.

So we have no expectation of a continuation. We’re not – I’m not contemplating it. I want to get this done. I think they do. I think the team does. And we are driving towards the finish with a view to trying to get it done.

QUESTION: But it gets more complicated with Republicans controlling the House and the Senate.

SECRETARY KERRY: No, it’s not a question – no, it has no – I don’t believe that changes either side. I honestly don’t. I believe that the same substantive issues would be there regardless of who is in control of the United States Senate. And remember, the United States Senate is still going to be subject to 60 votes to pass anything. So while it may be Republican or Democrat, it’s still subject to 60 votes. And as we have learned in the last few years, the minority has enormous power to stop things from happening, so this really is going to depend on other things. That is not what I am referring to. What is complicated is managing internal expectations in other places outside of us that may or may not have a profound impact on the longer term.

QUESTION: Okay. Can I go back to my original question about Mideast peace? I appreciate your indulgence. You met today with former Prime Minister Tony Blair; you expressed concerns about continued Israeli settlements after your meeting with Foreign Minister Fabius. And then you heard Foreign Minister Judeh call for a new round of Mideast peace talks.

At this point, how do players from the U.S., France, Britain, and Jordan convince Israel and the Palestinians back to the negotiating table? Do you see this happening anytime within the next three to six months? And how harshly do you expect the international community to respond to the new settlements? Also, if you have any readout on your meeting with Mr. Blair, we’d appreciate it.

SECRETARY KERRY: So we got three more questions there as an add-on, right?

QUESTION: You know – (laughter) --

QUESTION: You see this (inaudible).

QUESTION: You read that whole list of numbers, so this is my payback. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY KERRY: I’m actually not – let me just say this, that Foreign Minister Judeh very effectively said that the only way to resolve these issues of the Middle East, whether it’s the Haram al-Sharif, the Mount – the Temple Mount, the issues of East Jerusalem, the issues of settlements, the issues – the only way to resolve them is through a negotiated settlement in the end.

As President Obama said very directly at the United Nations in his speech a few weeks ago, there is nothing sustainable about the status quo, and we’re seeing that unfold. It’s not sustainable. So we need to get back to those negotiations. But I am not going to speculate and I’m not going to get into any of the internals of what those expectations are or aren’t. I think it’s important to leave space here politically for the leaders to be able to make their decisions in the next days. We are in touch. I’m talking constantly with all of the leaders involved in this issue, both immediately and tangentially in the neighborhood, and we’re going to continue to be pressing forward.

Obviously, we’ve all been reading about the potential of issues going to the United Nations at some point in time, and individual countries have already engaged in their own initiatives – Sweden, Great Britain, and others may. But for the moment, I think my role is better defined by saying less rather than more with respect to what the expectations may or may not be and what we may or may not do.

Thank you all.

MS. HARF: Great, thank you very much.

SECRETARY KERRY: Appreciate it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you all.

QUESTION: And their building activity?

SECRETARY KERRY: You know we’re opposed. We’ve said that very clearly.

QUESTION: Your meeting with Mr. Blair – is it on Mideast?

SECRETARY KERRY: Among other things.

MS. HARF: Thank you. Thank you, guys.

QUESTION: There’s no more misunderstanding with Mr. Netanyahu (inaudible)?

QUESTION: Only tonight?

SECRETARY KERRY: No, no, no. That’s not --

MS. HARF: Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS WITH FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTER FABIUS

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Remarks With French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius After Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Quai d'Orsay
Paris, France
November 5, 2014

FOREIGN MINISTER FABIUS: (In French.)

SECRETARY KERRY: Merci. Thank you, Laurent. As Foreign Minister Fabius has just said to you, we had a broad discussion on all of the topics that he mentioned to you. We agree that we are living in very, very complicated times with enormous challenges, but we also believe that we are up to those challenges. And whether it is Ebola or ISIL, Syria, Iraq, the challenge of the nuclear program in Iran, Afghanistan, France and the United States are cooperating more than ever before, hand in hand closely, driven by our values, as Laurent said, and mindful of the fact that the world is looking for leadership on these issues.

We did talk, as he said, about our approaches to and our concerns about the negotiations with respect to Iran’s program, and I agree with Laurent. They have a right to a peaceful program but not a track to a bomb. We believe it is pretty easy to prove to the world that a plan is peaceful. And so we talked today about our common positions, about our common interests. We are hand in hand, linked in this effort, and we will work extremely closely together in the next weeks to try to find a successful path.

In addition, we are very committed to continuing to press for the stability and ability to find peace in the Middle East. We talked about that today. We both have deep concerns about the continued settlements that are taking place and the need for all parties involved to avoid confrontation and try to find a way back to the negotiations, which are critical and the only way, in the end, to be able to bring about the stability and peace that people want.

So there are many challenges beyond even the ones we talked today – Libya, North Africa, counterterrorism – but I’m very grateful to Laurent Fabius for the leadership of France, for their engagement, for their initiative individually in certain countries – Mali, elsewhere, Central African Republic, where France has been willing to take the lead and help to make a difference. And we remain committed, particularly in these next weeks when so much is at stake, to continuing to work together extremely closely.

So I’m grateful for the opportunity to be here today and I thank Laurent for his good counsel and for his good food. (Laughter.) Thank you, sir.

FOREIGN MINISTER FABIUS: Thank you, sir. Merci.

WHITE HOUSE VIDEO: VOICES OF COURAGE: FIGHTING EBOLA AT ITS SOURCE

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO UN MAKES REMARKS IN ACCRA, GHANA ON EBOLA

FROM:  THE STATE DEPARTMENT 

Samantha Power

U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations 

Accra, Ghana

October 29, 2014

AS DELIVERED

Special Representative Banbury: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Tony Banbury and I am the Head of the United Nations Mission for Ebola Emergency Response. Myself and all of my colleagues are delighted to welcome Ambassador Samantha Power, United States Ambassador to the United Nations, to our headquarters here in Accra. I’d like to just make a couple of brief comments and then hand it over to her. First of all, the picture we are seeing now on Ebola in the three most infected countries is a very mixed one. We still have a very serious crisis on our hands; there are people dying every day; there are people who are becoming newly infected every day; and there are still some serious requirements to put in place the necessary capabilities to bring the crisis to an end. On the other hand, we are seeing a lot of progress. Work by national governments, NGOs, UN Agencies, bilateral partners like the United States and UNMEER as well, and we are starting to see the impact of all these efforts. There has been a very significant mobilization of international personnel, resources, capabilities, to work side-by-side with the governments and those efforts are starting to pay off.

What we need are three basic things to get this crisis under control. To add to the effort we need people, especially trained medical personnel, people who can operate clinics, Ebola treatment clinics, community care centers. We need material and we need money.

The United Nations, UNMEER , myself, we’re very grateful to the United States who has been a leader in providing all of those things. They are putting their people on the ground; civilian and military, USAID civilian teams, DART teams; they are providing a lot of supplies; and they are proving a lot of money. So we hope that others will also, like the United States, contribute in such a generous way.

UNMEER – we are doing everything possible working side by side with the United States and other partners, national governments, to achieve the results that have been set for – the objectives that have been set of 70% of new cases under treatment, and 70% of burials being done safely. If we can do that, we can turn this crisis around. That’s our objective and we are working very, very hard to achieve it, and I am confident that all of the international community working with the national governments will make it. So with that I’d like to hand it over please to Ambassador Power.

Ambassador Power Thank you, Tony; and thank you to all the people who work with you, both here in Accra and in the broader region, in Ebola-affected countries away from their families. They are doing God’s work. It is the most important work anybody can be doing on Earth today. The second thank you I would like to offer is to Ghana, to the people of Ghana, to the generosity of the leadership of Ghana and the communities here. Ebola is a virus that has generated a lot of fear and a fair amount of misinformation and misunderstanding; and it is extremely important that Ghana has recognized that this is a virus that does not see borders, that is an equal opportunity demon. If we cannot stop it at its source, it will spread. And UNMEER, which has set up its headquarters here in Ghana –again thanks to the Ghanaian people and the government here – is a critical weapon in the battle to stop Ebola at its source so it doesn’t come to Ghana, so it doesn’t spread further on the continent of Africa, and so it is contained and defeated.

The curve of infections in the three affected countries is something that has alarmed people near and far, including here in this country, and Tony and I and others in the international community have been speaking now for many months about the need to bend the curve of infections. There is a need for far more commitments and far more deliveries upon commitments in order to bend the curve. There is a need for more beds; there is a need for more bleach, more cash in order to pay community mobilizers or people who pick up bodies so as to do safe burial. The list goes on and on, and UNMEER, and each of the three affected countries, are the keepers of those lists, and we in the United States and in the broader international community need to be responsive to those demands and to the specifics of what is on those lists, and that is what we are trying to do.

I will say that out of my trip to the region and having visited all three affected countries and now having toured the UNMEER response headquarters, I think we need to be very clear that our goal is not simply to bend the curve; it is to end the curve. And this is something, because of the commitments that have been made, because of the mobilization that is being done, that we are confident will result – because it must result – in the outstanding gaps being filled. We can see the day when those gaps are filled and when the curve is not simply bent, but is ended. And when that day is achieved, people will thank the people of Ghana and the government of Ghana for your role in being part of ending the stigma of Ebola, ending the fear, and focusing on the most important thing, which is the response.

There are – one of the things one experiences here in this warehouse is a recognition that there are a lot of supplies out there in the world. This is just one example of a place where you’re surrounded by supplies. What we need to do is to get quicker in moving supplies in warehouses like this into the affected countries. And warehouses like this don’t just exist here in UNMEER headquarters; they exist all around world.

We have the capabilities in all of our countries to end the curve, and the question is how do we take supplies that exist in warehouses like this around the world and get them where they’re needed, where people are desperate for our help, and when doing so will protect not only the people in the affected countries, but also people in our own countries.

So that is the enterprise that we are part of. I am very, very encouraged by some of the steps that have been taken, particularly in the last couple of weeks, in terms of the governments’ leadership in the affected countries and in terms of the international community’s ability to get supplies into places of need. But the main message, again, for the world is: fill the gaps so we can bend and end the curve. Thanks.

Moderator: Thank you, Ambassador. Folks, the Ambassador has a plane to catch very shortly, so time is short. A reminder: one question per person. Also, wait for the microphone to come to you. We have time for, maybe, four questions. To begin with, Metro TV, please.

And please let us know who the question is for: the Ambassador or for Mr. Banbury.

Reporter: I want to find out what you’re doing to make sure that countries who have not contracted the disease do not contract it? Thank you.

Ambassador Power: Thank you for the question. I know it is a question on the minds of many here in Ghana but also in places like the United States where we have seen several cases come into the United States from the region, and so screening procedures are extremely important. I came this morning from the country of Liberia, from the airport in Monrovia, and I and my delegation had our temperatures taken three times between the time we arrived at the airport and the time that we boarded the plane. While we were in the affected countries, we internalized the habits, now, of people in those countries, which is to avoid physical contact as much as possible. Every place we entered in the three countries involved washing our hands with bleach, washing our shoes. These are precautions taken out of an abundance of caution, and out of a recognition that in order to be able to concentrate our efforts on the places that are most affected, we need to ensure that in so doing we don’t bring the virus to other countries and we contain it where it is, and then slay it where it is.

The three affected countries have been extremely aggressive in recent weeks and months in stepping up those screening procedures. And the country of Ghana, when we arrived, also was extremely vigilant in taking our temperature, asking us questions about whether we had had contact with Ebola-infected patients, and so forth. And they will take measures accordingly on the basis of whether someone has come to the country has had contact or not. I want to stress that the vast majority of people in the affected countries who are contributing to the Ebola response are not themselves in physical contact with people who have Ebola. So, for instance, most of the people who comprise the UN Mission here –maybe even all – all, I am told—are people who do not have that kind of contact and are not wearing PPEs and then taking them off when they come back to Ghana. That’s not what this is. This is a logistic operation and so, again, the likelihood of Ebola being brought into one of the neighboring countries by the international support network is extremely, extremely narrow. These individuals do everything in their power to eliminate that risk all together again by these precautions.

Moderator: Next question – Reuters in the front row.

Reporter: Hi, Michelle Nichols from Reuters. You both mentioned the need for more beds, and yet we’re seeing in Liberia that there are empty beds. What’s the explanation for that? Is this a sign of progress or are there concerns that people are staying away from treatment centers?

Special Representative Banbury: The need for beds – we’re estimating under worst case scenario planning that we need a total of, for instance, 53 Ebola Treatment Units. And in terms of the ones that are now built, or in process, we have a gap of about 20. For community care centers, which are absolutely critical to all this, we are planning about 329 and we have a gap of about 300. So there is a very serious need for beds.

We have to make sure, though, that the beds are placed at the right locations, and that depends on good information on exactly where the disease is. And it’s very hard to get accurate epidemiological information of what exactly are the new cases, where are they, what are the causes of transmission. And to properly fight this disease, that information is critical so that we can allocate scarce resources, whether they’re beds or burial teams or community mobilizers, against those critical needs.

Reporter: Are you trying to suggest, then, there’s more than enough beds (inaudible)?

Special Representative Banbury: No, no, I’m definitely not saying there are more than enough ETUs, because we don’t know where we’re going to be in four weeks’ time. And we’re not just worried about what the situation is today; we’re planning for the worst. We’re hoping for much better; were planning for the worst. And by planning for it we will avoid it. By bringing in all this capability, it means we’ll bend the curve earlier and, as Ambassador Power said, we will end the curve earlier. All this extra capability means saved lives. And for the United Nations, for UNMEER – I’m sure for all our partners – it’s all about saving lives. Empty beds is a great sign, but right now we know that there are people dying in all three countries outside of Ebola Treatment Units who should not be dying. Just about two weeks ago, I was – after I traveled to all three countries – I was able to brief the Security Council and Ambassador Power was there and I said we’re in a race against Ebola and Ebola is winning the race. Well, we’re starting to catch up – the international community, all of us – by putting everything we have into this – we are accelerating, we’re starting to catch up. But, we’re not there yet; and every day we’re not there means people are dying unnecessarily. So we have to build more beds, get more foreign medical teams in place, build more community care centers, have more safe burial teams, more community mobilization. We need to do all of it, and the faster we do it the more lives we’ll save.

Moderator: Folks, we have time for two more questions. That man in the third row. Wait for the microphone.

Reporter: I am (inaudible) TV3. I want to find out what is the major prevailing challenge between facing and reducing the threat of Ebola?

Ambassador Power: It’s hard to choose one prevailing challenge as Tony just indicated, and I’d ask him also to respond.

The challenge you think you had yesterday is something that may be a different form of that challenge tomorrow. And so, just to give you one example in light of the previous discussion about beds: at the start of this crisis, when the presence of epidemiologists out in the countryside – particularly the very remote areas that are very hard to get to, or there are very bad roads, or no paved roads – the knowledge of what was happening in some of those communities was not so great, but the knowledge in certain communities was very great and we were able – working with the CDC and the WHO and with the affected country governments – to come up with some projections about where the virus was going and how many beds you would need, as Tony has described.

As the international presence has ramped up, and as some road repair has occurred, and as people have been given mobile phones with SIM cards and are able to call in sort of what they are experiencing, we are learning about pockets of need that we may not have been aware of before. And as a result, in addition to the question of the number of beds, a core question now is the geographic distribution of beds. And so you know you need a ton of beds because you know you need to isolate 70% of the patients in order to bend and then end the curve. But, the more we know, the more we will adapt where those beds go, accordingly.

In addition, to give you two bright spots, in both Freetown and Monrovia in the last, really, week, we have seen extraordinary improvements in the rate of safe burial within 24 hours. In Sierra Leone, in Freetown, the estimate is that the safe burial rate has gone from somewhere between 30 and 40 percent being safe to around 98 percent. If fewer infections are occurring by virtue of unsafe burial, that over time is going to change the number of beds that are needed in a particular community or in a particular part of the country.

And so these kinds of adaptations, because Sierra Leone and Liberia did such a great job, the people of those countries – comprising these burial teams, you know, donning the PPE, taking the risk, going out into the communities, managing that risk – they’re not getting infected now that they’ve been trained in the protocols. They performed a critical intervention that then has implications for how UNMEER and the governments in question think about allocating resources. So that is just in terms of how the challenge has evolved.

But I guess I would still say the number one – I’d say there are two core challenges that remain. The first is the gaps that are still profound, whether it’s something as basic as soap or whether it’s the underfunded UN appeals, whether it’s the number of helicopters that can get people into the remote areas, there are huge gaps. And countries that have not stepped up at this point have to step up. They can be part of a winning enterprise. They can be part of ending Ebola, or not. And so that is an opportunity, you might say, in the face of this tragedy.

The second prevailing challenge, and arguably the most important, particularly in the long term, is fear. Fear that causes people to stigmatize people who’ve survived the epidemic, who have a huge amount to offer in actually being a part of treatment and care. Fear and confusion about how the epidemic has spread and will spread, that causes countries to take measures that ultimately will deter the infusion of health workers, potentially, and others who can be part of the solution. And so, as President Obama said yesterday in his remarks, we need to conquer our fear so that we can conquer this epidemic.

Moderator: Guys, we have time for one more question, please. I think, Chris Stein. Chris Stein, AFP.

Reporter: For Ambassador Power: Given the enormity of the outbreak in West Africa, how do you see the U.S. reaction – given the enormity of the outbreak in West Africa, how do you see the reaction at home to the relatively few cases that have occurred in the U.S.?

Ambassador Power: I’m going to give Tony the last word because I think he’d have a very important response to the prior question, but, I would say first of all that the part of the U.S. response that is getting attention now is the fear that recent infections have generated in the broader public. And as people in Africa know, when Ebola comes to your country or your region it is frightening and it’s going to take people time to get educated about how the virus is spread. And so we are in a phase of self-education, understanding how this works.

The fact that certainly the nurses who were infected in Dallas have now both been released from their treatment and have survived and indeed are thriving – they’re great messengers for the nobility of the health workers who are part of the overall solution to this crisis. So when people talk about the response in the United States – I believe in your question you are talking about, again, some of the concerns that have been generated – but I think the most important feature of the American response to this epidemic is that we are not running away from the epidemic. We as a nation, under President Obama’s leadership and thanks to the selflessness of our aid workers, our military, and health workers who have no official affiliation with the U.S. government – we are running toward it, deploying our men and women in uniform, infusing the region with all kinds of supplies and resources that are urgently needed, and embracing both the challenge and the responsibility of helping this region come out of, you know, a terrible time. And we do so because we have a humanitarian solidarity and great empathy for people who are going through something this trying and this horrific, particularly the countries that are affected – particularly Liberia and Sierra Leone, that have made such strides and have come so far. We want to stand with the people in those countries and help them get through this. But we also recognize, in coming toward the epidemic, running into the burning building as it were, that it is in our national security interest to do this. And so the United States is with the people of Africa, it’s with the people of Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia, and it is in this for the long haul until we bend and end the curve.

Tony, last word?

Special Representative Banbury: Thank you, Ambassador Power. Just a remark on the earlier question about the most significant challenge. For UNMEER, from an operational perspective, the most difficult thing is that we have to put in place every part of the response; we have to put it in place everywhere; and we need to do it super fast. If there is a gap anywhere in the operational response, it leaves a place for this virus to continue to spread, infect people, kill people, destroy families and communities. And that’s a big responsibility. But we are working very, very hard together with partners, such as the United States, all the UN Family, NGOs, and national governments, to make sure we put that response capability in place everywhere so that there are no gaps in the response and so we can bring this crisis to a close, and it’s thanks to partnerships like – with the United States, who is running into the burning building, as well as the presidents of the three most affected countries, other partners who are contributing in very serious ways, as well as President Mahama and his leadership, to show that working together as an international community, focusing on the very serious challenges, that we can bring this crisis to a close. And we will, we’ll get it done. The only question is how long does it take and how many people are going to die. We’re going to try to make it as fast as possible and save as many lives as possible.

I’d just like to close by, again, thanking Ambassador Power and her delegation for visiting us and for all the fantastic support from the United States Government and the people of the United States for our efforts. Together we’ll make it happen. Thank you.