Senior Administration Officials

Via Teleconference

October 6, 2017

MODERATOR: Thank you. Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for joining us today for today’s background call on Sudan sanctions. To discuss our decision in more detail, we have [Senior Administration Official One]. He from here forward will be referred to as Senior Administration Official One. We also have [Senior Administration Official Two]. He will be referred to as Senior Administration Official Two. And we have [Senior Administration Official Three]. He will be referred to as Senior Administration Official Three.

As a reminder, today’s call is on background, and it will be embargoed until 1:30 p.m. I also want to flash that at 1:30 p.m. we will have an on-the-record statement that you’ll be able to use as well.

So with that, I’ll turn it over for brief remarks to [Senior Administration Official One], and we’ll take it – then we’ll take questions from you. Thank you. [Senior Administration Official One]?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Good afternoon. The United States has decided to formally revoke a number of economically focused sanctions on Sudan in recognition of the Government of Sudan’s sustained positive actions in five key areas. I’ll outline these areas for you: first, to maintain a cessation of hostilities in the areas of its internal conflict, including Darfur and what we refer to as the two areas, the states of South Kordofan and Blue Nile; second, to improve humanitarian access across Sudan; third, to end destabilizing activity in South Sudan; fourth, to build and deepen U.S.-Sudan cooperation in countering terrorism; and fifth, improving regional security with a particular focus on countering Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army.

So to implement this decision as set forth in previous executive orders, Secretary Tillerson will publish a Federal Register notice. And as we heard before, we’ll provide a report to the President on the Government of Sudan’s sustained positive actions over the last nine months. That report’s going to be available on our website, and it details progress in the noted five areas. There’ll be a link in the forthcoming spokesperson’s statement.

The revocation will be effective as of October 12th. And to give you some more context, this action basically comes after a 16-month high-level focused and hardnosed diplomatic effort with Sudan through what we’ve called the five-track engagement plan, which began in June of 2016. In that time, Sudan has taken some significant steps to address these policy priorities.

The decision today is an important milestone marking progress in our bilateral relations, but it’s also important to keep it in perspective. This marks one step forward on a long and hard road where much more progress is needed.

Going forward, we’re going to engage the Government of Sudan to ensure that there is no regression on its positive actions to date, and secondly, to work for continued progress both on the issues in the five track areas, and to advance additional administration priorities. Basically, we want to build on the positive momentum to develop a follow-on framework for progress.

Now, I want to be clear, the framework is still being developed, but there are some areas that we will certainly seek progress on, including, as I noted, achieving a sustainable peace. This goes beyond simply a cessation of hostilities, but also to come to a negotiated and sustainable peace. It’s also important we continue to improve humanitarian access. This is an ongoing process where we remain committed to doing as much as we can, both working with the government and our international partners.

Looking forward, it’s also important that we work to improve Sudan’s record on human rights and religious freedom. That will be a key part of our discussions in the future. And also ensuring our top international security priority, which I’m sure will come as no surprise to anyone, that Sudan fully complies with all the Security Council resolution requirements regarding North Korea.

So we want to be clear that we want to ensure that the progress to date is maintained and sustained. And we’ve been clear with the Government of Sudan that we want improved relations, we want to continue to improve relations, but if – to further normalize any bilateral ties, there can be no regression on the progress they’ve made, and that they need to be a partner with us in continuing progress both on the five track issues and some of the additional issues that we will be seeking to engage more formally on.

We’ve got a lot of tools at our disposal, including targeted sanctions programs, and which we will use to apply pressure to the Government of Sudan if it steps back or regresses on the progress it’s made or takes other negative actions in some of these areas.

Further, it’s important to emphasize that Sudan will remain on the state sponsors of terrorism list. The action today does not affect that. And this also means there are related restrictions on foreign assistance, defense export and sales, and controls over exports of dual-use items, among others, that will contain to remain in place. Further, we have Darfur-related targeted sanctions under Executive Order 13400 that are in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1591 that will also remain in place.

So I think, again, the report will cover in detail progress under the five areas. We can try to answer questions if you have some in the specific tracks. I think with that I will stop and see what questions you may have.

MODERATOR: Great, thank you very much. We’ll now go to your questions. Please, limit your questions to one because we have a lot of people on the call and want to get through as many as we can. So thank you. We’ll take the first question, please.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, to queue up for questions you may press * followed by 1. Once again, for questions please press * followed by 1 at this time.

And we’ll take our first question from Nick Wadhams with Bloomberg News. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi. Could you tell us what evidence there is for Sudan to remain as a state sponsor of terror, why the decision was made to retain that designation, and cite specific evidence? And could you also tell us why three months ago the decision was made to postpone this move, but now what evidence is there particularly in the delivery of humanitarian aid that made you make this decision? What changed in the last three months that made you comfortable doing this?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Nick, what I can say – and my colleagues from the National Security Council may want to speak – is that the decision we made today was based on an agreed framework in the five tracks and focused on that. It did not deal with the separate process that would have to be in place to talk about the state sponsors list. At no time was that on the table in this process. And again, I’m not going to get into any of the underlying issues there and wanted to see if any of my colleagues from the National Security Council had any comment on that particular part of your question.

MODERATOR: Okay. We’ll go to the next question.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: No, no, I want to also address the other parts of what he said, what he asked, which was basically in the last three months, there was – we spoke at that time very clearly about why the delay was put in place, but I think if you saw, we had a change of administration and I think it’s a very fair thing to have the administration have time to look at this further. We’ve seen continuous progress on humanitarian access and I wanted to give my colleague from USAID the chance to address that, if he wanted to.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: Thanks, [Senior Administration Official One]. In regards to the directness of that question, after that – the extension of the review period, we did continue to receive reports from our partners that increased access to areas, including some of those areas in Jebel Marra as well as South Kordofan and Blue Nile, continued to be available to our partners. So in essence there was no fallback or backslide during that review period, as well as continued and even increased access in some of those places. And this was a general feeling of all of the humanitarian community at that time.

MODERATOR: Okay, great.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: I’d like to jump in here from the NSC. We also used that extension in the review period to allow Sudan further time to demonstrate its continued cooperation on counterterrorism, and during that period it did so, and that was another indicator that Sudan was willing to follow through with this agreement and that track.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Now on to the next question.

OPERATOR: Thank you. That will come from Carol Morello, Washington Post. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi. Thank you for doing this. Did you get any promises from the Government of Sudan that they would cut off diplomatic ties with North Korea? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Let me turn to my colleagues from the NSC.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: We did not ask Sudan to cut off ties with North Korea. What we have asked is that they comply with the UN resolutions to cease any arms deals with North Korea. So we have asked that Sudan comply with the cessation of any arms imports from North Korea, and they do understand that we will be closely monitoring that, and that will affect our bilateral relations going forward.

MODERATOR: Okay, move on to the next question, please.

OPERATOR: Thank you. That’s from Laura Koran with CNN. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi, thanks so much for doing the call. You said you didn’t ask Sudan to cut off ties with North Korea, but could you address whether they told you they would be cutting off ties with North Korea? And if so, even though that goes beyond the five tracks, did that play any role in this decision? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: The Government of Sudan has given us their commitment that they would not pursue arms deals with North Korea, and that is what we asked of them. So we will not necessarily take the government at their word; we will be closely monitoring the situation, and they understand that we have zero tolerance for continued arms deals with North Korea.

MODERATOR: All right, thank you. On to the next question, please.

OPERATOR: Thank you. That will come from Matt Spetalnick with Reuters. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes. Again – I wanted to follow up on that question again. Did – was that commitment necessary, the commitment not to pursue arms deals with North Korea, necessary as a condition to go ahead with the lifting of the sanctions? And also on the state sponsor of terrorism issue, will that be reviewed going forward whether to keep them on that list or not?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: So as the first speaker I think has made clear, the North Korea issue was not part of the original five tracks that we negotiated with them. The previous administration undertook a negotiation with North Korea. We were very explicit on the terms, and under this administration we want to honor that agreement, demonstrating that the U.S. does keep its commitments if other governments keep theirs. And so North Korea is not part of the five tracks and not part of this lifting of sanctions.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: [Senior Administration Official Two], if I might, I think you may just have misspoken. You meant that negotiation with Sudan, not North Korea.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Thanks. Thank you, [Senior Administration Official One].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Just wanted to make sure. I would also note that on the state sponsors list, I mean, it’s clearly a priority for the Government of Sudan to get off that designation. And I don’t want to speculate much, but I am certain that will be something that they will raise going forward.

MODERATOR: On to the next question, please.

OPERATOR: Thank you. That comes from Michele Kelemen with National Public Radio. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks. You said that the extra few months gave you some more time to see what more they would do on counterterrorism, but can you give any concrete examples of what they’ve done?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I think – go ahead, [Senior Administration Official Two].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: So since January I can say that the Government of Sudan has continued to cooperate with the United States to counter terrorist groups in Sudan and North Africa. They’ve worked with us to detect and deter terrorist attempts to transit Sudanese territory, and the government’s actions against terrorists have been crucial in the fight against global terrorism. I can’t give you specific examples, of course, but I can say that that cooperation has continued unabated.

MODERATOR: Okay, on to the next question, please.

OPERATOR: Thank you. That will come from Ian Talley with The Wall Street Journal. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, thanks. The North Korea angle has been beaten over, shall we say. I’m wondering – was there any division internally within the administration about whether to proceed with this? And did the North Korea arms commitment, while the negotiation was on the five terms, did that not push it over the scales?

And secondly, were there areas of improvement in the five areas – were there greater areas of improvement than others, say on the counterterrorism cooperation, that you see?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: So we thoroughly discussed and vetted the North Korea decision in the interagency and presented it to the President. And so there is no issue of (inaudible).

With regard to the five-track decision, similarly, that was carefully deliberated in an interagency process. We’ve come to consensus on the five-track program. So – and it was authorized by the President. So all the tracks in the five tracks were equally important and were equally weighed and vetted at the interagency process.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: And I can just add on to that, [Senior Administration Official Two], that when the report appears there will be a good bit of detail on progress on some of – in some of the tracks that will be laid out in it. Obviously, the – it’s hard to say what’s equivalent in progress in vastly different sort of areas of subject, but there has been clear forward movement in all of them.

MODERATOR: Next question, please.

OPERATOR: That will come from Kylie Atwood with CBS News. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi there, thank you. Sorry, I just want to go back to the North Korea thing for one clarifying question. You guys said that the Government of Sudan has given their commitment that they wouldn’t pursue arms deals with North Korea. So are you saying they have not told the U.S. that they are cutting off all diplomatic ties with North Korea? Because that’s been reported this week, so I just wanted to make sure, if they’ve told you guys that as well, or not. Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: What I can say to just start with is that Sudan does not have diplomatic – formal diplomatic relations right now with North Korea. There is no embassy or exchange of embassies or anything, and we don’t see that changing anytime soon.

MODERATOR: On to the next question, please.

OPERATOR: Thank you. That will come from Nike Ching, with Voice of America. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes. Thank you so much for this call. Could you please address urgent concerns from American lawmakers that Sudan has not paid compensation to American victims from the 1998 embassy bombings? Shouldn’t there have been a provision for victims of terrorism as part of the sanction relief package?

And then secondly, I just wanted to make sure I understand. The Darfur-related sanctions will also remain in place; is that correct? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: The Darfur Sanctions under Executive Order 13400 will remain in place.

On this question of compensation, to be clear, the decision we’re taking today only relates to the sanctions set out in the executive orders related to the five-track framework.

But that said, this is a very important issue. Going forward, we are going to urge Sudan to take steps to address these claims, these outstanding court judgements made by the victims of terrorism and their family – and their families.

Sudan wants to move toward more normalized bilateral relations. And our increased engagement with them and this clear desire, I think, gives us additional leverage on this issue. So again, we are going to address this going forward with Sudan. And we have – by the way, it has been a subject we’ve addressed, but it’s been in the courts for a long time. And again, this is something very important for us, because the people who were killed in these embassies were part of our greater family at the State Department.

MODERATOR: Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Thank you. As a reminder, to queue up for questions you may press *1. Once again, *1 for questions.

Our next question comes from Alicia Rose with NHK. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi. Thank you. Actually, my question has already been addressed.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Thank you. That’s from James Martone with Sky News Arabia. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi. What happens if for – you come up with proof that there are deals with – going on with North Korea, or that there have not been improvements in this – on the combatting terrorism front? How quickly would these economic sanctions snap back into place?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Look, we’re not going to be able to sort of answer a question like that now, until we see what happens and the extent of any change in circumstances, whether – regarding negative action.

So what I can say is that this – I think [Senior Administration Official Two] has been absolutely clear. This – anything related to North Korea – is very top of the – of our priorities on national security and will be given the utmost, utmost scrutiny going forward. But we’re also looking at progress on other things.

For example, one of the really important outcomes of this negotiating process is that Sudan has stopped its military offensives that used to happen on a regular basis in Darfur and have also stopped dropping bombs on – in Darfur, stopped aerial bombardment, which has saved – was – used to be a very important – was and is a very important issue, and the cessation of these activities has saved lots and lots of lives. If they start to drop bombs again, I think that’ll be very obvious to us and we will – we will react accordingly because, again, that’s a very, very key security issue and one of the things that we’ve achieved in this that has had a direct impact improving the security situation of thousands of people on the ground.

MODERATOR: Okay. Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Thank you. That will come from Lukman Ahmed with BBC News. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Oh, yes, thank you. With regard to Darfur – actually, you are going to keep the Darfur-related sanctions – what kind of conditions that you are demanding to be met in order to lift it in the future? And have you ever come across Mr. – the situation of Mr. al-Bashir with the ICC, whether that’s been discussed or not? And for the diplomatic relationship, are you going to go to the level of ambassadors exchange between the two countries? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: That was a three-for-one. What I can say is that we have not – and I can’t – I’m not in a position to answer what it would take to change the situation with the Darfur sanctions. Regarding the question of the ICC, our views on this haven’t changed. Essentially, we continue to call for all those responsible for crimes in Darfur to be held accountable and to support the – justice for all the victims of the crimes in Darfur. And basically, that was why Darfur was – and the cessation of hostilities there was a key priority and I think one of the key achievements of the five-track plan.

MODERATOR: Thank you. We’ll go take our last question now.

OPERATOR: Thank you. That will come from Dan Ryntjes with Feature Story News. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi, thanks for doing this very useful call. My question is this: In terms of what is by – from October the 12th, what sanctions are being relaxed and what effect will that have, real world, on economic relations and the like? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I can – I can outline the specific sanctions a bit more and tell you what they are, but I think to get into the real impact, that’s a question for our colleagues at Treasury. But the specific sanctions being revoked are Sections 1 and 2 of Executive Order 13067, which dates from November 5, 1997, and also all the elements of Executive Order 13412, which dates from October 13, 2006.

In a very small nutshell, these executive orders put out a range of sanctions that included a trade embargo and blocking of Government of Sudan-related assets. So again, the revocation’s going to be effective October 12th.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much. That concludes our call today. I’d like to remind everyone this call is on background, remains embargoed until 1:30 p.m., and our speakers should be referred to as Senior Administration Officials One, Two, and Three. Thank you very much and have a good day.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Heather Nauert

Department Spokesperson

Washington, DC

October 5, 2017

The United States condemns the attack on the Fatehpur Sharif Shrine in Balochistan, Pakistan, which killed at least 18 innocent civilians gathering to pay their respects during the sacred month of Muharram.

We offer our deepest condolences to the victims and their families, and wish a speedy recovery to those injured. We continue to work with the Government of Pakistan and our partners across the region to combat terrorism. We stand with the people of Pakistan and the broader South Asia region in their fight against terrorism.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

October 4, 2017

The State Department’s Bureau of Counterterrorism and Countering Violent Extremism, in partnership with the Department of Justice’s Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development Assistance and Training and the National Counterterrorism Center, conducted a regional workshop for counterterrorism practitioners from Southeast Asia in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on October 3-4.

The workshop emphasized regional cooperation to support our partners as they coordinate and continue to address the terrorist threat in Southeast Asia. Participants included investigators, prosecutors, police commissioners, border security officials, nongovernmental organizations, and policy makers who shared expertise on border security, law enforcement, counterterrorism finance measures, and methods to prevent terrorism and counter radicalization to violence and terrorist recruitment. Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand participated in the Southeast Asia regional workshop, and were joined by global partners Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. The participants agreed on concrete steps to tighten regional cooperation and build capabilities to defeat ISIS and the flow of foreign terrorist fighters returning from Iraq and Syria.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Heather Nauert

Department Spokesperson

Washington, DC

October 4, 2017

The United States is deeply concerned about violence and the loss of human life in protests that have taken place in the Northwest and Southwest regions of Cameroon since October 1. The Cameroonian government’s use of force to restrict free expression and peaceful assembly, and violence by protestors, are unacceptable. We urge the Government of Cameroon to respect human rights and freedom of expression, including access to the internet. We call on all sides to exercise restraint from further violence, and engage in dialogue for a peaceful, durable resolution.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Rex W. Tillerson

Secretary of State

Washington Marriott Marquis

Washington, DC

October 4, 2017

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Good afternoon. And thank you so much, Harry, for that very kind introduction.

The work and commitment of the Bill and Melinda – of Bill and Melinda Gates and the Gates Foundation that they have undertaken across a range of humanitarian initiatives have had an extraordinary impact on eradicating diseases and improving health outcomes for people the world over. And I offer my thanks once again, as I have thanked them in the past, to Bill and Melinda both for this life-long passion and commitment – much of which I have seen up close and personal. And I certainly am thankful for what they have done to help so many.

I also want to recognize USAID Administrator Mark Green. Under Mark’s leadership USAID will continue to be a leader in global health and development issues, and I hope that individuals and organizations in this room who share Mark Green’s passion for helping people will continue to partner with USAID.

As those of you who have dedicated yourselves professionally to global health and other fields of international development know, the challenges we have all committed to solve require a clear vision, a plan of action, dedicated individuals, and a constancy of purpose to complete the mission. While victory is not tomorrow, probably not next month or next year, or maybe not even the year after that, we all arise every day with the belief that “one day” – “one day” is coming.

Long-term solutions to daunting global challenges demand patience and perseverance. In our society, of course we often want results immediately, and when we witness the human cost, having that sense of urgency is okay. It is hard for human beings to exercise patience in the first place. But it is important, I think, to measure our success and celebrate progress even if it is incremental. An incremental approach may not be as satisfying or generate as big a headline or publicity. But if we’re truly mission-driven, then we need to keep putting one foot in front of the other and, without wavering from our goal, every day get up and take another step. I know that the patience and dedication in this room will pay off.

The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, better known as PEPFAR, of course, is one of the sterling examples of what I’m talking about.

When PEPFAR began, the prevalence of AIDS in Africa seemed an insurmountable problem. At the time, only 50,000 people in Sub-Saharan Africa were receiving HIV treatment. In many countries, an HIV diagnosis was a death sentence. In the hardest part of – hardest hit regions of Africa, infant mortality had doubled, child mortality had tripled, and life expectancy had dropped by 20 years. More than 14 million children had lost one or both of their parents to AIDS.

Now, 14 years after PEPFAR’s creation, we have not only saved millions of lives, but we’re getting ever closer to ending this pandemic by supporting HIV treatment and prevention services using data and analytics to improve performance, find efficiencies, and increase the impact.

President George W. Bush and other originators of the PEPFAR program took the long view to solving this challenge. The problem, they knew, wasn’t going to be resolved overnight.

But again, look how far we’ve come today:

With focused investments and data-driven approach, the United States continues to reach more people.

In the past three and a half years alone, under Ambassador Deborah Birx’s leadership, the number of those receiving life-saving treatments has increased by 60 percent. Today, more than 12 million people around the world receive treatment made possible by PEPFAR.

The number of babies born HIV-free to pregnant women living with the disease has been steadily increasing too – almost twice as many in 2013. That’s more than two million babies who now begin life free of HIV.

Through PEPFAR and more than – more than 6 million orphans and vulnerable children grappling with the physical, emotional, and economic impact of HIV and AIDS are receiving critical care to survive and succeed, including receiving educational support and counseling care.

And as a result of PEPFAR’s DREAMS public-private partnerships, over 1 million adolescent girls and young women have been reached with comprehensive HIV prevention services to ensure they grow up and thrive without HIV.

PEPFAR has empowered people around the world to take their lives and their countries back.

Since its inception in 2003, PEPFAR – together with UNAIDS, the Global Fund, and many countries and partners represented here today – has transformed the global response to HIV/AIDS.

The Trump administration is committed to building on the progress we have already made by accelerating our approach that focuses on the hardest-hit populations.

Recently we unveiled PEPFAR’s new Strategy for Accelerating HIV/AIDS Epidemic Control. This is one of our Grand Challenges. We believe that is it possible to control this pandemic, and in partnership with countries who share our vision, we are creating a road map to that control.

Through this strategy, PEPFAR will invest its resources to decrease the number of new HIV infections through data-driven programming and a focus on the highest-burden populations and locations.

Our data is better; our data is more nuanced than ever before, allowing us to measure progress and concentrate our efforts based on sex, age, and geography. We are committed to taking full advantage of this data by using it to improve our programming and hold ourselves and our partners accountable for the results.

Our strategy includes investing in more than 50 countries, with several concrete goals in mind.

First, we will maintain life-saving treatment for those we currently support, while making essential services like testing and treatment more accessible for all populations. In these countries, PEPFAR will continue to expand both HIV prevention and treatment services through increased performance, efficiency gains, and shared responsibilities with all of our partners.

Second, the strategy will provide even more HIV services for orphans and vulnerable children – those who are immediately, permanently affected when a parent or caretaker is lost to this disease. It will also ensure that the most vulnerable and key populations have access to essential services to prevent and to treat HIV.

Third, the strategy will accelerate implementation in a subset of 13 high-burden countries that have the potential to achieve epidemic control by the year 2020, working in collaboration with host governments; the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; UNAIDS; and other partners. Through this international effort, we expect not only to control the epidemic, but also to reduce the future costs required to sustain the HIV/AIDS response.

PEPFAR will continue to illustrate that our effective whole-of-government approach, coupled with high accountability measures and mutual respect for our partners, can and will change the future for the better. To those engaged in these challenges, please know you have the support of the U.S. Government as we work together with partner governments, the private sector, and faith-based and civil society organizations to control this pandemic once and for all.

But HIV/AIDS is not the only pandemic we are committed to stopping. The President’s Malaria Initiative is credited with saving millions of lives. Ambassador Green just announced the expansion of the initiative to four additional countries in West Africa, which will extend preventative and treatment interventions to 90 million additional persons.

The Global Health Security Agenda is one of the most useful frameworks for halting the spread of infectious disease. Such outbreaks, even in the most remote parts of the world, do not respect boundaries between countries or sometimes even between species. With more than 70 percent of emerging diseases originating in animals and jumping to humans, integration of animal health into the broader health security effort is imperative. Containing the spread of deadly disease in the countries of origin is a vital U.S. national security interest. However, many countries remain ill-prepared to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease outbreaks within their borders, which poses a threat to all of us.

The Global Health Security Agenda remains one of the most vital initiatives for building global capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease threats.

Under GHSA, the United States continues to assist 31 countries and the Caribbean Community to strengthen global health security, including through $1 billion in investments to strengthen global health security in 17 specific at-risk countries. These investments have yielded outstanding results. For example, with U.S. support, more than 3,700 disease detectives have investigated more than 650 outbreaks. When the Democratic Republic of Congo identified a cluster of suspected Ebola cases in May of this year, a group of U.S.-trained disease detectives deployed immediately to trace the disease and provide technical support. Their fast and coordinated action contained the potentially-devastating outbreak to only eight cases of Ebola, only four deaths, and no spread outside of the DRC.

GHSA has also encouraged countries to conduct a Joint External Evaluation, a rigorous, peer-review evaluation led by the World Health Organization to assess a country’s health security capacities and map out a path to achieving compliance with International Health Regulations. To date, 56 countries have completed their JEE with 25 additional countries in the pipeline.

Our global partners have also stepped up to the plate. Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, and others have committed substantial resources to build health security throughout the world, and dozens of developing countries have increased domestic financing to build capacity to combat infectious diseases.

While we’ve made tremendous progress since GHSA was launched in 2014, considerable work remains. That is why the United States advocates extending the Global Health Security Agenda until the year 2024.

We must keep up the momentum to ensure that donors continue to commit resources and follow through on prior commitments, while also encouraging developing countries to make health security financing a permanent item in their budgets. Health security is a necessary foundation for countries to make strides in other areas. As President Trump told African leaders at the UN, “We cannot have prosperity if we’re not healthy.”

We must continue to empower global health security leadership, including by supporting the important efforts of the Republic of Korea, Finland, the Netherlands, Indonesia, Italy, and others, while also developing and encouraging new leaders.

We also need to ensure the commitment and interest of non-governmental stakeholders, including the private sector, by making the business case for investments in health security.

The global health security landscape has changed, but the United States commitment to working in multi-sectoral partnerships to counter infectious diseases through the Global Health Security Agenda will remain constant.

Our approach to development must continually evolve to meet the changing global landscape. Around the time baby-boomers like Bill Gates and I were entering elementary school, governments accounted for over 70 percent of financial flows into the developing world. Today, that number has fallen to below 10 percent. The involvement of non-governmental entities in international development is commonplace today, but the emergence – their emergence in this field was at one time a groundbreaking innovation in its own right. We must continue to adopt a spirit of innovation common to Grand Challenges in order to build on what we’ve already accomplished. As Isaac Newton once said, I have seen further – “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulder of giants.” Newton knew he was deeply indebted to those who had produced the knowledge that served as the foundation for his own work. That same attitude should exist among us: innovation begets further innovation that improves old processes and moves us closer to achieving our goals. I know there’s been a host of innovative products developed by Grand Challenges, whether to help end Ebola, or Zika, or Dengue Fever, or other diseases. I commend all of those who have dedicated themselves to finding these new solutions. And for those of you who are still hard at the task, feeling discouraged, I encourage you to press forward. Don’t give up. Thomas Edison made 1,000 unsuccessful attempts at inventing the light bulb. When a reporter asked, “How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?” Edison replied, “I didn’t fail 1,000 times. The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps.”

Last but not least, I want to emphasize that generosity is at the core of who we are as Americans. The United States is the global leader in providing lifesaving assistance in times of humanitarian crisis. And we will remain to take on that task.

The U.S. approach to Grand Challenges reflects our overall approach to global development. We must view foreign aid as a means to an end, not an end unto itself. A country’s prosperity and security is best sustained from within, not through foreign aid. There can be no greater measure of success than witnessing a country able to stand on its own two feet. Our goal for U.S. development assistance is that it will serve as a bridge to the day that recipients can rise economically and achieve sustainable prosperity for themselves.

Today, many one-time recipients of foreign aid under the Marshall Plan are leading U.S. trading partners. It shows that foreign aid can create the conditions for a burgeoning middle class that makes for an inviting market for American goods and services. Even more importantly, it can put a country’s own people on a path to sustainable growth and prosperity.

Finally, accountability is a necessary complement to generosity. Those of us in government must ensure that the taxpayer dollars we spend are used efficiently and effectively. Accountability is essential in the non-profit sector as well: Individuals who have contributed to philanthropic organizations are trusting you with their money. And the same need for accountability goes for the private sector as well. We must continue to be good stewards of our finite resources and work with reliable and transparent public, private, and non-profit partners.

The United States and its partners have and will continue to make smart and targeted investments that put countries on the way to success. The road to progress will be uneven, and the emergence of global development challenges will continue to present themselves. But I know that when we put our shoulder to the wheel day in and day out, as all of you in this room do – every day you get up with your mind on the mission – we remain open to innovative ideas, we embrace accountability in what we’re doing, we can and will be successful. And most importantly, we’re going to do a lot of good for a lot of people.

Thank all of you very much. (Applause.)

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.