Good morning and welcome. I'm Lise Grande and the head of the United States Institute of Peace, which was established by Congress in 1984 as a public, nonpartisan national institution dedicated to preventing, mitigating, and resolving violent conflict abroad. On behalf of the Institute, we are honored to welcome His Excellency, Abdul Momin, the foreign minister of Bangladesh to USIP. His Excellency was appointed to his position as foreign minister in 2019, after being elected to parliament the year before. Minister Momin served as Bangladesh's permanent representative to the United Nations in New York from 29 to 2015 and is a renowned economist, having served as the chair of the Department of Economics and Business at Framingham State University in Massachusetts. As we celebrate the 50th year of the partnership between Bangladesh and the United States, we want to honor the important role Bangladesh has played in advancing the cause of international peace. Bangladesh has made major contributions to nearly every UN peacekeeping effort during the last decades, and is today the world's largest contributor to UN peacekeeping forces with over 6,000 personnel deployed around the world. The partnership between the United States and Bangladesh is based on a shared vision, a prosperous democracy, rule of law, basic human rights for everyone, and security cooperation. The partnership is broad and deep. Last spring, Her Excellency Prime Minister Shekha Hasina participated in the Leaders' Summit on Climate Change, organized by President Biden. This past month, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland led a delegation to DACA to participate in the 8th round of a bilateral dialogue that focuses on trade, labor, human rights, governance, and security cooperation. Bangladesh's transformation into South Asia's second-largest economy is a testament to the country's ambition, drive and achievement, and to the inspiring resourcefulness of the Bangladeshi people. Bangladesh hosts 1 million Rohingya refugees who have fled Myanmar, and it is strategically located between India and China. Continuing efforts to improve labor rights, uphold and respect human rights, and protect and allow for freedom of expression will help Bangladesh to reinforce and expand its leadership role in the region. We are delighted to welcome Ambassador Teresita Schaefer as the moderator of today's conversation. During her 30-year career, Ambassador Schaefer has been one of the State Department's leading experts on South Asia, having served in U.S. embassies in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, and as U.S. Ambassador to Sri Lanka from 1992 to 1995. As part of our moderated discussion, we're pleased to welcome questions from our in-person and online audiences. For our in-person audience, please fill out the question cards that have been provided. And for those of you who are joining us online, we invite you to pose your questions via the chat function on our website. Please join the discussion online using the hashtag at USIP Bangladesh. Excellency, Mr. Minister, thank you for joining us for this important conversation. Madam Ambassador, we're pleased to hand over the floor to you. Thank you so much, Lise, and it is a special pleasure for me to moderate this program. I lived in Bangladesh for three years. Actually, it was when my late husband was ambassador. And at that time, we came to know another member of the minister's family, his brother Muhit, who subsequently became finance minister for many years and served with great distinction. We were also present at the early phases of Bangladesh's amazing economic success story. We are now at the 50th anniversary of Bangladesh-U.S. diplomatic relations. It has not always been a smooth ride. In fact, the start was rather bumpy. But it has been basically a good ride more recently than that. So, I would like to start by asking the Honorable Minister to give us a broad assessment of U.S.-Bangladesh relations after 50 years. Some of you may know that I teach a course on diplomacy at Georgetown University. And one of the things I tell my students in the very first class is it's all about national interests. So, if you would tell us please what you consider to be Bangladesh's core national interests and where we stand between the United States and Bangladesh. Thank you, Ambassador Sheffer. Maybe first I would like to thank the organizers for giving me a chance to speak before you, particularly Andy. And I also would like to thank my mission, Embassy, in coordination with the U.S.-I.P. that have organized this event. This is a very interesting year for us. We are observing, as you said Ambassador, we are observing the 50th anniversary of our diplomatic relationship this year. And yesterday in fact we celebrated it. And I had the privilege to meet the Secretary Lincoln. And also we had, we met many of our old friends and also new friends yesterday. So, we are very proud of this relationship. I also like to highlight that this year, last year, we were observing the 50th anniversary of independence of Bangladesh. And at the same time, we observed the 100th anniversary of father of the nation, Bangumundu Sheikh Majib-e-Rahman, a spirit who vision about independent Bangladesh. And through his hard work and sacrifice, we are lucky we got a sovereign independent Bangladesh. There have been many leaders in Indians of continent, particularly in Bengal. But no one could ever deliver a state, the concept of state, an independent sovereign Bangladesh. We are thankful to him. Currently we are very lucky that his daughter is the leader of the country. And she has been performing in an excellent way. Now go back to your question. Maybe I reiterate, I quote from, you know, how is our relationship? I quote from President Biden's letter, which is sent to Prime Minister Shekhasina. And in that letter, he mentioned, not read out everything, but in the beginning he said, on April 4th, we celebrate a 50-year milestone in the relationship between United States and Bangladesh. The drive, resourcefulness and innovation of Bangladesh is rebuilding after 1971 war and now forging a path of economic growth and development serve as a model for the rest of the world. A model, serve as a model for the rest of the world. We are proud of our partnership on development, economic growth and counter-terrorism. We work together to address the climate crisis, help bring us survivors of genocide and support United Nations peacekeeping worldwide. Our Prime Minister Shekhasina, in response, also said the same and I quote, in the last 50 years Bangladesh and United States have built a durable partnership over many areas by way of mutual support and collaboration. The strength and depth of Bangladesh-U.S. relationship is reflected in the areas of trade and investment, counter-terrorism and ending violent extremism, gender equality, agriculture, labor, defense and security, COVID-19 measures and of growing interaction of our peoples. Moreover, our close cooperation in global peacekeeping operations and climate change issues has been contributing significantly to the international peace and security, I unquote. Now these two, from these two letters you can see the depth of our relationship between U.S. and Bangladesh. And I would add one more thing, yesterday I had a, I was very privileged to, you know, I had a meeting with Secretary Blinken and also U.S.A. ID administrator Samantha Powers. And the code, the same sentiment, but President Biden also code. And he said, for the next 50 years, President Biden, I quote, Bangladesh and Americans alike share the idols of democracy, equality and respect for human rights.  I'm confident our partnership will continue to flourish for the next 50 years and beyond, President Biden. So these two letters tells the story of our partnership between U.S. and Bangladesh. And as you said over the years, we did, once we are known as a bottomless basket with no hope of survival. When Bangladesh was independent, I was working in the Ministry of Trade and Commerce. And I can tell you the pain and the difficulties that we put. We came from India with a lot of exuberance, you see. The whole world was under our feet when unfortunately we didn't have much resources.   And it was not easy. It was very difficult. But nowadays we feel proud that after 50 years Bangladesh economy is a vibrant economy. And it is the land of opportunity. So things have changed. It's changed because of one reason is the dynamic people of Bangladesh, hard-working, resilient and dynamic people of Bangladesh. The other one, we had a great leadership over the last 12 years because of leadership under Prime Minister Shekha Sina. I must say, relative to other countries, we did a miracle. Our GDP growth rate over the last few years, 12 decades, is around average 6.6% on average. And three years ago, before the COVID, it was 8.15%. And we'll be happy to know even the COVID, this last year, even under COVID, we achieved 6.94% GDP growth, one of the highest in the world. And this is possible because of leadership, cop-in-pen, targeted approaches and the spirit among the Bengali nationhood. That they want to achieve the goal of their father of nation. Bangladesh not only created independent sovereign in Bangladesh. He didn't have enough time to build a country. But he imbued in us, you see, a spirit that we live by with it. The spirit is, he wanted Bangladesh a prosperous country. We call it Sunaar Bangladesh, a prosperous stable economy where basic necessities could be ensured to every citizen of the country. And with that, you know, ambition, that spirit Prime Minister Shekha Sina has designed a number of road maps. One is by 2030, we like to be, you know, property free country. By, I mean, technically, property free country. If you have less than 5% extreme property, then you can call it property free country. And we propose to have around 3% extreme property by 2030. Currently, we have reduced our property, you know, I must say, this is another significant achievement. When Bangladesh was created, our below property level was around 80%. And now it is around 20.5%. And we propose to reduce the extreme property by 3%. The other, you know, the miracle is over the last years. Also, the living standard of people has gone up. And longevity has improved. Currently, we have almost 99% school enrollment. And we were very lucky that Prime Minister Shekha Sina could achieve 100% you know, services of electricity to every household. This is a miracle because this is a tool for productivity. So we did pretty well. A country which was, which has no reserve, foreign exchange reserve. Now we are pleased to have around 48 billion dollar reserve. So the country is doing well. We have achieved significant time in achievement in all the social indicators. More so vis-à-vis our neighbors. We did pretty well. So we are way too, we are in a trajectory of development. And the country is developed. You see, our, you know, living style has improved. The aspiration of people has gone up. And more so in this digital interdependent country. The people's aspiration has gone up. They want to have better infrastructure. They want to have a better living standard. And here, an opportunity is coming up. Here we have a role to play. The U.S. has a role to play. U.S. over the last 50 years, they are our single country largest trading partner. Our trade between two countries is around $9 billion a year. One highest in the single country trading. And our American investment in Bangladesh is the highest. Cumulative investment in the highest in Bangladesh. Around over 20% of total foreign investment from USA. But although it is mostly concentrated in only few sectors like energy and power. It is time that we need to diversify this investment portfolio. Because we have developed other areas. One is innovation area, IT. This is an area where U.S. can invest and be your winner. Because we have a large number of, you know, around 700,000 registered freelance IT experts. And American company can take advantage of you. You will be happy to know one Bangladeshi origin. Here he lives in USA. But he developed initially PayPal. And then he is a partner of creating YouTube. Which is so popular. So they have the, you know, innovativeness, the creativity. And therefore I think this is an area where U.S. and Bangladesh can work, you know, in partnership. And it would be a win-win for both the countries. And I would ask that, you know, this is an area they can think of investing. Government is creating around 28 high-tech parks. And we welcome American investment in all those high-tech parks. The necessary ingredients is there. You will be happy to know the Bangladesh has two great resources. One is manpower, young manpower. Hard-working, diligent. They may not have university degrees. But they are quick learner. They can catch up things very quickly. You can see it here in U.S. also. The other one, we have plenty of waters. And if we can manage our water, we can do medicine. So these are the areas we need, you know, expertise from U.S. our friendly countries. Now, the other area where U.S. can at this time think of investing in Bangladesh. It is in the pharmaceuticals. I lived in this country over 33 years. And I know how expensive, you know, even with the insurance, it was pretty high to buy the regular drugs. I had blood pressure, so I had to buy the blood pressure medicine each month. And I know how expensive it is. But in Bangladesh, they have the state-of-the-art pharmaceuticals. And you can produce the products at relatively comfortable price. So it is time for U.S. Maybe they can have partnership in the pharmaceuticals. They can produce their product back in Bangladesh, sell it to U.S. consumers at affordable price. I'm saying so because, yeah, this is a great worry for every household. So this is an area where Bangladesh and U.S. can work. We have also an infrastructure area. We need U.S. investment. We also need, we have a vast oceanfront. And that is, we would like U.S. to come forward and invest in the blue economy. Because we don't have much expertise in that. And the other beauty, if they come to our Bay of Bengal, you see, Bay of Bengal is an epicenter. I follow my colleague, Ambassador Tarik Karim, the Bay of Bengal is epicenter. So if U.S. invests there, then it can ensure our goal. We want the Indo-Specific should be free, open, inclusive, and open for navigation of all countries without any incomparances. And U.S. invests there in the Indo-Specific. They can also help us to ensure our goal of ensuring free, open, inclusive Bay of Bengal. So we would welcome, so countries doing well in terms of economy, in terms of, in a growth, we are doing well. And as regards, our relationship with U.S., you see, the relationship between U.S. and Bangladesh is based on principles and values. We share the same value. We share the values of democracy. And I must tell you, the Bangladesh was created when people's voice was denied. If you remember in 1970 election when my party, our Mili, got the majority. In the East Pakistan, this party got out of 169 seats. It got 167. In all Pakistan, out of 300, the whole party got the majority. But unfortunately, the minority party which only secured 81 votes, they claim that they should govern the government because a Bengali must not run, govern the country. So when this was being arranged by the military junta, Bangladeshi people rank and file spontaneously started the movement of independence. That's how. So our country was built on the perception of democracy and ensuring human rights. So U.S. also believes in democracy. Also human rights. You have 250 years of experience of practicing democracy. Yet at times we see there is hiccups even in the U.S. and democracy. We had only 50 years. Out of 50 years, we were ruled by military and military-backed technocratic governments for almost 18 years. So we got only few years of democratic practices. So we are not perfect. And democracy is continuously evolving process. And we're working hard. Last year, you know, these 12 years, Shekhasina has achieved one miracle. She has stabilized democracy. Every year, as part of the routine, there has been elections. Participation election is used on an average 72-plus people voted in the elections, which is uncommon here. And enthusiasm is there. Even the women, they are coming forward. There are more women voters. We have our institutions. There were some, you know, weaknesses in the institution over the years. We have rectified them. For example, earlier in the past government, they created many ghost voters, 12 million ghost voters. Now, Shekhasina government has created, you know, photo ID with a biometric photo ID. Now you cannot cheat. You cannot have ghost voters. Not only that, we have introduced transparent ballot boxes. So you can see how many votes are there, you see. And we are also trying to use electronic mechanism. Our opposition don't like electronic mechanism. But we are trying to introduce it, you know, stage by stage.  All parties join in the election. Even the one big opposition party whose main job is to criticize, they don't, as a party, they don't contest in the election. They stay away from public. They are afraid of public. But they contest as an independent candidate. In my own district, I'm elected from the Amilik party, the member of parliament. And the mayor of the city has been elected from the other party, the BNP. So we are very accommodated. And we are working together. So USA and Bangladesh shares values, values of democracy, human rights, justice and free play. Our country, I must say, we are thankful to Shekhasina. For a long period of time, even during when you were there, your husband was there in Bangladesh, there was not, you know, what should I say, the judicial system was a little twisted. Because there was some people at the above law. The military government made a rule. Some people, some killers were not allowed to be pursued in any court. They got indemnity from the government. Thanks to Shekhasina, she has changed that rule. Now no one is above law, and law is applied to everyone in blind faith. Mr. Minister, I wonder if I could follow up on a couple of things you said. Okay. I was delighted, I must say, to hear you start off with this great description of the Bangladeshi economy, which is one of the most unsung success stories as far as your international audience is concerned. But if you were going to look ahead 50 years, you've taught economics, what would you want to change? You mentioned diversification, but is there anything else? We want diversification. We want more private public partnership. We want more investment. As I said, your excellency, that we have two great resources. One is human resource. We need to create jobs or this gainful job for our human resource. And to do that, we need a lot of investment. And here we want to invite everyone. Investment not in one few sectors. I want a very varied portfolio of investment. Not only from one country, from all across. So this is one goal we have. I have termed it as an economic diplomacy. In my economic diplomacy, I have five components. The first component is, in order to provide jobs, gainful jobs to our people, I want to have more investment and a diversified portfolio from across the world. Second, I have to help improve our trade. Currently, our trade is basically considered one item, readymade garment. I need to diversify it. And also, I have to have more countries buying our products. So I need that thing also. Third, I need gainful employment of our people, both home and abroad. And the fourth I want, transfer of technology. Even today, whenever there is monsoon or flood, thousands of people get uprooted from their homes. For river erosion, global warming, this additional salinity and all those. But in the USA, you have a great technology. As a result, you don't have that much river erosion. So I need that technology. There I need also consistently financing so that I can develop ways and means so that we don't face this music. And of course, the last one also, I need to provide better quality service to our people, both home and abroad. And there, like in the business, for example, ease of doing business, still we are little off the mark. Our ranking is pretty bad. This is an area we need some technical support so that we can help improve our ease of business. Our even neighbors, like Thailand, their ease of business is much superior to that ours. And we need help, help from others. In USA, if there is 100%, if there is, let's say, $100 million intention to invest, you know, you materialize $100 million investment. In Bangladesh, unfortunately, I did a study a few years ago, around 20 years ago. If we have intention to invest for $100 million, the result is around $5 million is the reality. So we need to improve our situation. Here, as I said, you see, we are still in a working process. We need help and support for our friendly countries. So next 50 years, I look forward. That's an ambitious agenda, and Bangladesh is no stranger to ambition. Yes. So that's great. We do have ambitions. Could I shift gears a bit and talk a bit about the geopolitical position of Bangladesh? You're sitting right next to India, which is very large, which was midwife to your independence, and which is the big neighbor. We know something about being the big neighbor. I know. But India has troubled relations with China and a live border problem. The United States, which you've just been talking about, also has troubled relations with China. China is an increasingly important partner for you. How do these three angles intersect for you? Thank you for this question. You see, we believe in the principles that our father of the nation gave us, friendship to all, malice to us none. And he also said that you should help your neighbors. Your neighbors is most important. We are lucky that we have two big neighbors. One is India, the other is China. India is our, we have a rock-solid relationship with India. Many Indians also bloodshed for our independence. We can never forget that. And they're the one who provided shelter. In 1971, when half of the population was displaced from their homes, and around 10 million took shelter in neighboring India. It is not only the Indian government. Even the commoner, common people supported us, helped us. We can never forget that. We have a very solid relationship with India, with Prime Minister Shaka Sinha and Prime Minister Modi. Modi, you know, terms, the current relations, a sunali oddai means golden chapter. Very solid relations. We have resolved all our critical issues with India through dialogue and discussion. Not a single bullet ever been fired. We resolved our, you know, this border demarcation problem. We resolved our maritime problem with India. Of course, with Myanmar too. And also we resolved our water-sharing problems with Myanmar. Large water-sharing problems. We have very friendly relationship. But we need to develop our country. But India don't have that much resources yet. They afford to give it. The other neighbor is China. China initially were opposed to us during our war independence. That dad opposed to us. They are the one who put their first veto against Bangladesh membership to the UN. You see, we can never forget that. But we need to help develop our economy. And they have basket of money. They come with the basket of money with affordable and aggressive proposals. I know you're happy that we have... We are very prudent in receiving any credit. But we do take help from them. And they are helping building some of our MAGA projects. But there is a perception among... So we maintain a non-partisan relation. India and China, they have their own problem. That let them live with it. But we don't, you know, get intervened. You know, we don't intervene on those issues. We need to develop. We maintain a good relations with India. Basically, they are development partners. One of our development partners. But we don't influence their other, you know, relationships. Same with... USA may have difficulty with China. Okay? That's okay. Nothing against it. But we only relate China for our development efforts. So we're working okay. And they also know, because our position is principal position. It's a principal position that in the, you know, in the area of democracy, the area of human rights, we don't compromise. But in the area of development, we take... Even India takes money from China. They don't have good relationship yet. They borrow from China. You know, this is a very strange world. So as you said in the beginning, the foreign policy is for national interest. So we look... We also try to follow U.S. policy. The foreign policy is national interest. So moving a little bit further from home, Russia, the war in Ukraine, which I do call a war, I noticed that Bangladesh has abstained in all of the U.N. votes. I wonder if you could tell us what the thinking is that led you to make that decision. You have seen that we abstained and also we voted yes. The first resolution on Ukraine, our perception was that first resolution was more of a blame game. If you look at the wording of the first resolution, basically there is a blaming of the Russian Federation. And not exactly looking for a peace. Bangladesh is a peace-loving country. Even as we have always tried very hard to achieve peace. Our father of the nation said, Bangladesh will imitate across the nation the message of peace. And he said peace is imperative for development. Peace and stability is imperative for... we follow that. So we want peace. We are number one in U.N. peacekeeping missions. That's not all. Our commitment to peace is so much so that we passed a resolution in the U.N. All 193 countries passed this resolution. The resolution is culture of peace. We believe that there has been violence, there has been terrorism, there has been war, and a huge number of people are being uprooted from their homes becoming refugees. This is because only reason. Because there is a spread of venom of hatred against one group against the other. So we have been promoting one concept, and that is culture of peace. The very essence of the culture of peace is we want to create a mindset of tolerance, a mindset of respect towards others, irrespective of religion, ethnicity, color, or race. And if we can create such a mindset, we believe we can have sustainable peace across all nations.  In the first resolution it was a blame game. So we... and Russia is an old friend even in our independence, during our independence, Russia is the only country who put veto three times for Bangladesh. We can never forget that. So we voted, we stayed at the time, we stayed away from voting years or more. We maintained abstention on principle. Second one, we are a country who believes in humanitarian efforts. Always we... whatever there is a humanitarian problem, we move there. In the... even our prime minister, even it's, you know, five years ago, in the humanitarian consideration, she allowed 1.1 million Rohingya to temporary shelter in Bangladesh. So when the question of humanitarian response that we need free access to the people, the Red Cross and others in the Ukraine, we said it should be done. People should be allowed to leave their place if they want to, without any encumbrances. And therefore we supported that resolution. We supported it on principle, because we believe in humanitarian efforts. Moving to transnational issues, Bangladesh is one of the most seriously affected countries on climate change. What is the government's approach to dealing with this? Thank you for your question. Yes, you are right. We are a global country in terms of climate change. Each year, as I said, 6,500 people are uprooted from their homes, from their traditional jobs, because of global warming, because of river erosion, because of additional salinity. And over the last few years, when we started counting, around 6.5 million people have been uprooted from their homes, and they crowd the cities and towns, create slums. And as per varieties of estimates, that in future, around 20 to 25% of land, coastal land of Bangladesh, will be under water. That means around 30 to 40 million people will be uprooted from their homes. Where will they go? I don't know. Bangladesh is the most densely populated country. We have around 2,900 people in per square mile. While we have around 40% per square mile. And to give you an example, I always say in Iowa State, you know, it is pretty around close to Bangladesh, or to say Wisconsin, it's close to Bangladesh in terms of geography. In Iowa, you have 3.5 million. In Wisconsin, you have around 6 million people. But we have 165 million class. So you can see the enormity of problems. So the question is, we want to save this planet. We have only one plan. So Bangladesh is the leader. Currently we are the president of Climate Vulnerable Forum, a forum of 55 nations, almost half of the world population. What do we want? We want to save this planet. In order to save this planet for our future generation, we need to follow Paris Agreement. What it means? We want all the abusing countries, the government emissions countries, they should take aggressive, they should have aggressive indices in such a way so that double temperature remain not above 1.5 degrees centigrade. So this is one, our leadership has been trying very hard. Prime Minister Shekhar Sinha is very eloquent on that. Secondly, in the Paris Agreement, our development partners agreed to provide $100 billion a year for the climate fund. Unfortunately, till today, not a single penny has been, you know, earmarked for climate change. We want this money should come forth, not $100 billion, more than $100 billion because we have to save this planet. And over, you see this, and it is not a big issue. Annually we spent around $2,300 billion for defense expenditure to increase the security of people. But unfortunately, I don't know how much security is improving. If I allocate only 5% fund from this defense expenditure, $2,300, then you are talking of more than how much, $115 billion a year. So easily, you need a political commitment. If there is a political commitment, we can do it. We can save this planet. And if we don't save this planet, our future generation will not pardon us. So our second goal is we need to have this financing from our development partners. Third, of course, we need, as I said, the rehabilitation of, we need sharing of the burden of rehabilitation of these climate migrants. Those are displaced due to erratic climatic changes. And then, of course, we also need, we also want to be taught our contribution to the, you know, the global warming is less than 0.4% Bangladesh country. And all these 55 climate vulnerable countries, their combined contribution to global emissions is only less than 5%. But unfortunately, they are suffering. So what we want, we want that, although the 5% will also improve our green energy, but we don't have technology. We want development partners to come up with, you know, newer technology so that we can have renewable energy. For example, Bangladesh, Prime Minister Shekhar Sinha took a, you know, very bold step before the COP26. What she did, we had 10 coal-based power plant was coming up. It was all finalized. Amounting to $12 billion FDI. But she canceled all those 10 coal-based power plant in order to have more renewable energy. And there was another six is in the offering. Possibly we'll cancel all of them. So she has that commitment to help the global, you know, emission go down. Renewable energy. Others should come forward. Now in the area of renewable energy, you have technology. And I need those technology to be shared with us at affordable prices. We also need, you know, consistently financing from institutions so that we can also pick up our own. And as such, we have, you know, we started one climate strategy, long-run strategy. We even started with our own financing, a $440 million trust fund for climate. And adopted, we picked up 800 projects. We could not finance all of them. We want development partners to come and help us. We in Bangladesh, we've decided by 2041, we want to, would like to have more than 40%. Currently, our, you know, contribution is very long. It's around 3.5%. We want to help increase it. We are planting 70 million new trees. This is Bangumandu Sheikh Mojib prosperity plan. We have adopted it. And we have already planted 30 million. We want to, I mean have 70 million. I have a proposal yesterday. I also speak to Samanta about that. Then we wanted to have USA can feel proud of it. We want to have a project. That would be for both mitigation and adaptation. And it will be a, you know, carbon sink for the whole world. We want to create something. We discuss about it. And I'm so happy that she says she will send her team for a technical study. I'm thankful to her and the USA. So Bangladesh alone cannot do it.  They should come forward. They should come forward. And we should create a public awareness across the world so that they listen to us. Many years ago when I was visiting, you know, this Robert Kennedy's gave it. And there is a little thing. I cannot coin the word, but he said, if you fight for the right cause, then someone else will join. Then another will join. Then another will join. And many, when many millions join, then the tyranny, the house of the tyranny, the walls of the tyranny is sure to collapse. So I believe if we can a global public awareness to save this planet Earth, then those are the polluters. They will come down and will listen to us.  USA is the leader. I'm so happy. I'm thankful to U.S. particularly Biden administration and Senator Kerry for rejoining the climate discourse. This is a great thing for USA. We thank, we salute you. And you have to create this public awareness that we must save this planet Earth and therefore the greatest polluters should listen to us and we should force them. Mr. Minister, we have an audience here and we have a much larger audience on Zoom. And we have a growing number of very interesting questions from them. So I think I should start moving down through the list of questions. And the first one is there have been increasing concerns about the stifling of dissent in Bangladesh especially with the digital security act. What is Bangladesh doing to preserve the space for dissent which is so important to democracy which is after all one of the foundations of the country? This is a very good question. You see, as I said in the beginning, we are a working process. We created one law that is digital DSA that we mentioned. It has certain weaknesses also. We admit it. And if you see we are trying ourselves to eliminate those weaknesses. But it is essential because with the new global, you know, the cyber space, we need to have some security because at times in the cyber social media you put up a false issue. And this digital security act is mostly to issues that are criminal in nature that can create public resentment and, you know, difficulties really they went to. It's not to carve the freedom of press. Remember, it's not to carve the... It is a given example that someone did, wrote a piece in the social media stating that affecting your religion that holocaust is not reality. This is a game. Now, this will create a big issue because this is an established fact and that guy has made a statement like this. Others people get upset.  It will create a lot of resentment in the community to stop this type of, you know, comments or, you know, what we have developed in the DSA room so that people stay away and also guarantee individual.  If you're a public figure, that's welcome. We don't mind. If you're a public figure, you are there to be criticized.  They made all false things. There you need to be guarded. In USA, your Excellency will share with me that here I have freedom of speech, but does not allow me to go to a movie theater or a conference room and shout, bomb, bomb. You see, I cannot do that. If I do, police will take care of me. So there has to be freedom of speech. You know, freedom must be regulated in a way so that it does not hurt somebody else's freedom. So this DSA, we have some weaknesses. We are working on it. It's interesting that a large majority of those who have been prosecuted under the DSA have been either journalists or politicians. No, there has been some cases. One journalist suddenly wrote some pieces. One journalist, what he did a mockery. There was, she said she has been raped. Another journalist said that this girl has been raped. Found out she is an actor acting, but she put in the social media. So we have to stop that because she is not by another group, another community people, because that will create public nuisance. So we have to take care of that. But this is not generalistic freedom. That you make a false acquisition and you, you know, stage something which is totally false. There you have a difficulty. There has been some, after some individual has, before I give an example. There was a group known as what is this group? They had a demonstration. It was fine. They were welcome. Then some journalist put up a picture. Some media, powerful media put up a picture. And they said that 2,500 people killed in the Hafajat movement. That was totally false. Not a single guy was killed. But then it was found, again journalists found it out, that that picture was Johnstone, 1978 picture. When there was a, in Johnstone, there was a, you know, this, they took, or poisoned and died. That pepper put up that picture. Johnstone picture of 1978. So they were misguiding people with the wrong picture. That is not journalistic freedom. This is not. Now, sometimes you have guys, what they does, they go after private and public property. They burn the houses. They burn, you know, the buses. This is not freedom of speech. These are criminal act. So naturally there you take action. As a government you have a responsibility. Here you cannot burn a bus without any, you know, because you have freedom of, freedom of, you know, choice.  No way. It's not allowed. Government has a responsibility. We use that in those cases. We have a question concerning the, the rab and the sanctions. I would like to take the privilege of the moderator and ask you a related but slightly different question. You have met with Secretary Blinken. I make the working assumption that this was part of your conversation and I wonder if there's anything you would like to share with us. I would discuss this issue.  In 2001 to 2004 we have a very difficult time. There was uprising of jihadists. There was uprising of terrorists all across and extremists. Radicalism became the day of the, you know, and you'll be, you'll be surprised to know on one single day 495 bomb was blasted across the country in 60th district out of 64 simultaneously. There has been bomb, the judges court, judge who were in this session you know, the bomb was blasted and killed. There's a school where the bomb was blasted. There was a, you know, this the cultural program in which the bomb was blasted and killed. Even when the then opposition party leader Shekhas organized rally against this extremism and terrorism against this bomb her own rally was a gradient attack and bombed as a result 24 people including the president of our women, you know, women section was killed. 24 people was killed. 370 people have the bomb on one single day. They're wounded. When even a foreign diplomat the high commissioner ambassador when the country was visiting some place and there was bomb. Unfortunately, he was unharmed but two of his guys was killed. That was the situation. It was unbearable. So therefore at the time with the advice of US government and also the British government they create the rapid action battalion. And they provided them training and equipment. It worked out very well. In the beginning there has been some accesses. I must say this possibility there has been some accesses. Over the things it has become more matured. They have been trained, many of them have been trained by justice department and the rules of engagement were designed by the justice department. Things improved, things improved dramatically. But yet I agree that there could be some accesses at times. But if there is an accesses then there is this judicial system of punishment. You'd be surprised to know that I am told that around 270 of these RAB officials either been you know, set or you know, this demoted. And 12 of them got life transportation because they're involved in illegal activity. So there is a judicial process. But yet, if there is the reason why there was many reasons. One argument is that in Bangladesh as per the UN High Commission's report 70 people 76 people you know, enforced disappearance. There is no over the last 12 years 76 people in a country of 165 million they, we don't know where what happened to them. Of course out of the 76 recently we found out, seven reappeared and they're living with their families. So number has changed. But as over the last 12 years there has been 76 people, you know, disappeared. And therefore this is one reason there has been human rights violation and therefore you know the US government keep a sanction on this institution. That was termed by your, one of your, you know the colleague, Ambassador James Moriarty, as the FBI your, RAB is the FBI of USA. And he put a sanction on them. They have been doing excellent job RAB because because of them there is no more terrorism in Bangladesh. Radicalism has been wiped out. Not only that the drug trafficking and human trafficking is one of your goals. That you don't want human trafficking in person they have dramatically reduced it. No wonder the US has improved our, you know, rating in the human trafficking. Because of efforts by government particularly is RAB. RAB has achieved public, you know public acknowledgement. Public like RAB. I can tell this little story. In my district one guy was killed in a police custody. And then the case was given to another section of police to do the inquiry. The parents of that guy who killed, they said why don't you put RAB in it? I said why? They said if RAB is there we'll get a better judgment because they are not corrupt. And they will not be influenced by anybody else. So that is that much respect for bad. Unfortunately, you know, but my issue is it's not, it's a decision of the US and I always try to help myself that when I'm driving beyond speed limit, you know, many people are driving beyond my speed limit but police catches me. They don't catch the other guys who are speeding faster. They catch me when I'm supposed to maintain that. So this is happened because you see many other countries like Iraq, they have 16,800 people disappeared. No sanction on them. Sri Lanka, they have 6,000, around 7,000 people disappeared. No sanction on them. Yes, but there was a time when that was the you know, but you see Argentina Argentina, Algeria, they have over 4, 5,000. The other population is not that Sri Lanka population 21 million. I have 165 million. But anyway that's a judgment of the US. But I thought, you know, it is up to them to look into re-examined and we'll be happy. I made this point. We'll be happy if they withdraw, at least from the institution because this institution is doing an excellent job and this sanction is creating, I mean, the people will not be interested to join RAV anymore. Young people will say stay away from this because there is a sanction on it. And it will create possibilities that there could be resumption of terrorism, you know, resumption of radicalism and we are afraid of it. And if those happen, say there are increasing number of trafficking, increasing of drug trafficking, who will take the blame? Who will take the blame? So this is an important issue we should look beyond and try to fix it. It certainly is an important issue and I'm glad you had an opportunity to I had, I raised it in every meeting because I feel it personally that it is it is inappropriate. And of course the statistics have gotten better in the sense of the idea. Yeah, I got all the prostitutes from the UN. But they don't explain exactly why they only said the face, public face is the violation of human rights. Actually what I don't know. Maybe you can help me out. We have come to the end of a very full hour with you, Mr. Minister. And I must thank you profusely for sharing so much of your time. So I'm very straightforward. Many diplomats may not like it, but being a teacher you see, they have it to tell the truth, whatever I feel like. Well, I haven't been a teacher for nearly as long as you have, but I can understand your attachment to the profession. And I would like to thank those who have joined us, both online and in person. And to thank you for coming to USIP on what I realize is a very crowded visit to the United States. I wish you all the best for the next 50 years. Thank you Ambassador and look forward to see you sometime in Bangladesh also. Thank you.


Selenium nanomaterials can exist in two distinct forms, thermodynamically unstable and metastable. Physicochemical synthesis produces thermodynamically unstable nanomaterials quickly, while biological synthesis produces metastable nanomaterials slowly. The biopolymer layer on biologically synthesized nanomaterials may be responsible for the slow rate of transformation. Additionally, phylogenetically diverse bacteria can convert selenium oxyanions into red amorphous selenium, which then transforms into the trigonal form of selenium. This form is used industrially as a semiconductor and alloy. It is unclear if biologically synthesized selenium nanomaterials have any biological function, or if they are simply a detoxifying and respiratory byproduct. Understanding the transformation of these nanomaterials could help recover them from secondary sources and use them in a sustainable manner. This article was authored by Miguel A. Ruiz Fresnida, Lucian C. Stecu, Guillermo Lasu and Lopez, and others. We are article.tv, links in the description below.


for your interest, a couple of words of introduction to the annual report, and I consider these introduction as a reading help because we cover you with a lot of paper or a lot of information. Let me just contextualize. The annual report is our standard reporting to donors. It's an opportunity to tell you where in the implementation of ICRC objectives we find ourselves and what activities and achievements we are accountable for in 2013. So it's not dealing with the period January to today, although in my introductory remark I will try to make the link between the situation today and where we are coming from. You will see from the structure that it deals with the headquarter activity, the field activity, and it gives a lot of information on finance and administration. Let me also say then when you read to the report, just recognize that ICRC is not just a relief organization, and you see it from this annual report once again. We have three important pillars. We are active in policy, in law and law development, law application and law development, and we have an operational arm, which is our assistance and protection work. We are not only active in dealing with the impact of armed conflict, but also in preventing armed conflict within our mandate of international humanitarian law. And you will see throughout the annual report that some of the basics of ICRC's approach to how we deal with issues, very contextual, multidisciplinary, is reflected almost on each and every page of this report. So we are not an organization dealing with only one segment, but trying to find a more comprehensive response to the assistance and protection of people in armed conflict. I also wanted to draw your attention to three new features in the annual report, which is that each region is introduced by a dashboard where you see what we have done overall in that region, in the Africa, in the Americas, and this is very practical and handy for you as journalists. So we have a sort of a separate report, which is, tracks the most important features, which is smaller than the annual report, more handy. That's the kind of thing you wish to have on your desk, probably, just to reference figures. And in the electronic version, you will find, from the major operations of ICRC, three pages, which allow you to find yourself quickly into what we are doing. So that's more the technical part of the introduction I briefly wanted to make, to give you some reading aid when you look things and to draw your attention to what is new. Let me just make a couple of remarks more substantively on our work first. When I came to ICRC two years ago, my sort of first impression in participating in the debates of the governance and the organization was that conflicts were transforming fast. And traditional armed conflict, either international or internal, was disappearing from the landscape and increasing new forms of violence, what we call other situations of violence, urban violence, criminal violence, drug cartels were the ones taking the forefront in conflict and violence. Today, and looking at 2013, we have to recognize that armed conflict has given a powerful comeback. And that in its core ICRC, while we still are observing the other forms of violence as well. And that is the development which we won't turn back the clock. But if you look at this 2013 annual report and if you look at the development since the end of December, we have been busy with very traditional internal armed conflict in South Sudan, in Syria, in the Central African Republic, in many other places of in which we are active for years already in the DRC in Afghanistan. We are looking at regional conflicts. If we look at Syria, we look at the whole region where conflict has broken out in Anbar province in Iraq. So armed conflict, internal armed conflict has made a very powerful comeback. You have also seen that since the publication of the report, we have presented to donor countries in some of those areas important budget additions. This is true for Central African Republic where we added since end of December 15 million a couple of weeks ago. It's right through for Syria where we have presented to donors a major budget increase just a couple of days ago, which was presented to you by the head of the region, Robert Mardini. We have added an important amount to our operation in South Sudan, which is one of the biggest operation in terms of budget in the meantime. With a plus of 48 million, it comes to 112 million, a budget for 2014. We have added since the publication of this report an important budget addition to our activities in the Philippines, which is the mix of natural disaster and conflict on which we are active. So let me just make this clear as, again, an important point, the clear importance of armed conflict. Same point. If you look through the report, I wanted to highlight the will and wish of ICRC to be as complementary as possible with others or to put it in other terms to be where others are not. And just to highlight you a couple of areas where you would like to draw your attention in reading the report. If you look at rural Afghanistan, if you look at southern south of Yemen, if you look at the central and south of Somalia, if you look at the rural DRC, if you look at Iraq Anbar province, if you look at northern Nigeria, if you look at the north of Mali, and if you look at some parts of the Philippines or Colombia, it's ICRC most of the time with very few other actors. Some international NGOs, some local NGOs covering that ground. So our operation is largely complementary to others. It's designed to be covering those areas where others can't. And it's underlining, I think, our capacity still with the specific approach of ICRC to cover ground in terms of assisting and protecting people that other humanitarian actors have had even more difficulties than we. When I say this, let me make a third point, and I'm not underestimating and please do not underestimate the challenges with which we are confronted in delivering. And I have mentioned this several times, but here again, when you read or look through the report, be aware that we have seen in 2013 a quiet dramatic shift in increase of complexities. We have seen many of the conflicts going regional, meaning that the impact is by far not limited to the country in which the conflict is unfolding, but it has regional implications. Syria is the most prominent. You have seen that we responded by making a regional appeal, but the Central African Republic, Mali, Niger, South Sudan, we are looking at a region of instability, which in the future will even more demand that we look in a regional perspective at some of those conflicts. So complexity in terms of impact on neighboring countries have increased. Complexities in terms of origins of violence have increased. I sometimes mention visits to hospitals, which are most of the time the best illustration what I mean by more complicated and complex origins of violence. In a single hospital you find, for instance, in Bangi, the sort of injured from the Seleka and Antibalakas who have fought with each other, you find the poor guy who has been shot at when he stole a bicycle or a banana in the shop. You have families who have been victims of attacks from other families because they are of different religions. So you have interethnic, interreligious, intercommunity violence. You have criminal violence. You have internal armed conflict. And the superposition of these problems have become very complex and difficult to manage. And in this report here you will see how we juggle with some of those complexities of managing those different origins of violence. We have seen important security and access problems. I have spoken many times on those issues, challenges going from Syria to Central African Republic to others with different motives and reasons. We are struggling with increasingly assertive states wanting to control international contributions to humanitarian action, which is a legitimate target of a sovereign government. But at the same time this legitimate target of sovereign governments comes into conflict with our analysis on where the needs are. And we are in increasingly complicated negotiations with governments who think they should control what the internationals are doing and our ambition to reach people in need. And sometimes this is a happy end in the sense that we do agree on a surface of operation which is comfortable for the government and comfortable for ICRC. And sometimes it's more difficult, as you know for instance, at the present moment we continue to be in relatively difficult negotiations with the government of Sudan in order to have again an agreement between ICRC and Sudan for our operational activities. So just wanted to give you a sense and this was my third point that we have some important challenges with which we are dealing. My fourth point is that when you read through the report and I spare you now big figures but nevertheless as examples, despite all those difficulties we have been able to deliver on the biggest budget ICRC in its history has presented to donors. You remember and I have mentioned this beforehand that at the beginning of 2013 we had a relatively modest budget at the end of 2013 with the budget allocations and supplements that we have asked. We have ended up with the largest budget and we do concrete activities. We have visited more than 750,000 prisoners, almost 24,000 individual interviews with prisoners in 101 contexts. We have assisted 7 million IDPs in 55 countries. We have assisted on water 28 million people in 58 countries. We have treated 8 million patients in 326 hospitals and 560 healthcare facilities in different contexts. We have provided assistance to more than 280,000 disabled in 90 countries of the world and we have delivered 22,000 prostheses to those new prostheses to those people. We have delivered forensic services in 50 countries on missing people. We have exchanged more than 100,000 Red Cross messages and we have delivered more than 150 specialized courses for 125,000 militaries in more than 90 countries on international humanitarian law in 2013. I mean these are examples taken out of this report just to illustrate that while we are confronted with important challenges with more complex environment we still manage to do quite important work in assisting and protecting people. My fifth point, may I just draw your attention when you look through the report on some of the horizontal transversal issues on which ICRC has been active and which are recurring patterns of problems and violence in different contexts in which we are active. This is where we report on the healthcare in danger initiative which has progressed significantly in 2013 and which we hope at the Red Cross conference of next year will materialize in concrete recommendations that countries and the movement can agree upon in terms of policy orientation. We have in 2013 considerably increased our activities and conceptualizing on sexual violence and we have deployed in the meantime pilot programs in a couple of countries in particular in African sexual violence and we have considerably also increased and here again in the policy part of the reports you will find accountability on our interaction with different other stakeholders from the movement to the United Nations, to international NGOs, to academia, to the private sector so this report also accounts for how and what ICRC is doing with other actors in the field. As I mentioned at the beginning, this is my sixth point, have a special look at ICRC's law and policy activities. I know that in terms of communication it's always the operational assistant that protection work which is of keen interest to you but we are committed to lead those two processes with regard to improving mechanisms of application of international humanitarian law and which we hope to come to decision moment at the next international conference as well as detention in international armed conflict. You probably know about those processes and we have continued over the past year as we continue now to deal with new weapons and new weapons technology development and international humanitarian law to find the adequacy on automated weapons, cyber warfare, drones and all those issues which need framing in terms of international humanitarian law with regard to those new developments. Let me conclude in saying that while ICRC is happy to deliver on the mandate given by states through the Geneva Convention to assist and protect people in armed conflict, we should never forget that the mandate comes from states and that the final responsibility on delivering is a political responsibility and not a humanitarian. So I know that you are journalists. I had this morning the opportunity to brief the permanent representatives to the United Nations here in Geneva on this report and I made it a little bit more explicit and extensive reminder that humanitarians can solve humanitarian problems. Humanitarians can mitigate on the impact of armed conflict and humanitarian problems and we have modus operandi to do so but at the end of the day if states are not working politically to solve some of those problems at the origin we will always be in attention between our ability to deliver and the needs with which we are confronted. So let me stop here and give you the opportunity to ask a question unless Regis for the moment is fine. Okay. So the floor is yours. Thank you. Yes. Yes. One of the very big ones, the first one is Syria today but with 112 million, it's number two. Yes. South Sudan is number two and the reason for which it becomes second is also because very frankly it's the number of people affected and at the same time it's the logistics difficulties. In South Sudan, the big problem is not so much that we always have access problems, is it not? But it's not that there is an objection of principle somewhere, neither of government, nor of armed forces and rebels, to prevent our activities. They are in principle agreed that we act, but logistically it's extremely difficult with the multiple movements that we have seen since December 15, people are really in places often difficult to access and then it increases considerably also the costs of this operation. Excuse me, a little bit to go, but to explain to you why South Sudan has become the second point of operation of the budgetary but you had a second question. Yes, it was about what was said last week by the CICR, you were waiting for the fever to come to help, to help people in Aleppo, have you received this fever since? No, today in short, I think that if we talk now about Syria, so in short I think that indeed we are always in an approach where we have certain contracts of access and then Aleppo was indeed one of our priorities in relation to the extent of the response that we would like to be able to put into action because we have the capacity to put into action and today at this stage finally we have not yet received the authorizations to put into action this operation. Yes, pardon me. The last year the Ukraine wasn't on the agenda and now we have crisis there and my question is do you think that the situation in Ukraine will increase the budget of ICRC and because I know that the last two weeks ago you asked for more medical supplies for the south and east part of Ukraine, could you speak about the situation in Ukraine is of course very high also on our radar screen and we try to adapt to the problems as they unfold. In our perception for a long month over the past couple of months Ukraine has not been a country with humanitarian problems first and foremost, this has been a country with political problems and tensions. Nevertheless since last year we started to cooperate with the Ukrainian Red Cross in order to increase their capacities to deal with humanitarian problems out of the mass demonstrations. So from zero operation in Ukraine we started to build up a cooperation with the Ukrainian Red Cross around the Maidan place in terms of emergency evacuation, in terms of medical activities. When the situation unfold in the east of Ukraine and in Crimea we increased our operation still working very closely with the respective Red Cross societies in Crimea and in eastern Ukraine and at the present moment ICRC has 22 delegates in Ukraine including the delegates which are in Crimea at the present moment and we have offices in Simferopol, in Odessa, in Karkov, and Donetsk, and in Kyiv. So we are still observing and trying to see where is our activities and problems emerging which are covered by our humanitarian mandate in terms of detention visits on which we have made service offers to the Ukrainian authority as well as to the local authorities in the east in terms of humanitarian problems which may emerge because of the disruption of public life because of the unrest in the country in terms of soldiers which somehow are unaccounted for or where chains of command are not anymore very clear. So we are trying to engage pragmatically with the respective local and central authorities in terms of trying to find how we can contribute to mitigate some of the humanitarian problems. And so while I hope that this remains a very modest operation only future can tell us and the conflict as it unfolds can tell us whether more will be needed. But again it's an operation which is now at the budget of four to five million Swiss francs and unforeseeable for me on what by the end of 2013 or 14 the budget will be. But at the present moment we are running in that category of budget. Just on the budget question so of course yes we are investing money in Ukraine these days because we started with the budget of close to zero because we had no permanent presence. We are popping up the budget and we are looking at what we call a budget extension because of course already with the amount of money spent today and with the situation as it evolves we have gone from being very much in support of the Ukrainian Red Cross to being more directly involved playing also this role we brought in like medical support I mean in the through the different groups so in that sense I think we will play a more direct role in responding to the situation. Let me also be maybe very transparent on one aspect of our activity because I know this is a particularly delicate aspect and it's the relationship between different sections of the Ukrainian Red Cross including the section and Crimea which of course with the change of sovereignty is eager to join the Russian Red Cross. I think ICRC's approach on this is that this is of course a highly sensitive and political environment and we are encouraging all sections of the Red Cross in Crimea as well as in eastern Ukraine and in the Ukraine as a whole to focus on concrete activities and not on status and allegiances. So our engagement is with all of them and in order to try to focus on what do people need and how can the Red Cross and Recrecent movement as a whole or in this case in particular ICRC and the respective Red Cross societies how can we deliver on some of the needs in terms of coping with disruptions of services, access to detention, engagement with armed groups to respect basic provisions of international humanitarian law and use of force. These are the traditional issues with which ICRC is dealing and trying to do capacity building, engage with and contribute to the crisis in Ukraine. Yes, bless please. I think the actor has said what he has to say about his disappointment that he has not managed to put the parties together, what I can say a little in the same direction of what the actor Brahimia said yesterday is that I have strong doubts that we will see as humanitarian spaces considerably different to suffer in Syria if the states are mainly affected by this crisis and have an influence on the actors of this crisis do not work in the same direction and in the same spirit. And for the moment, unfortunately, it is not the case, let's be very clear that the states of influence have different interests and as long as the interests are also different, I believe that the humanitarian space with which we can try to manage in Syria will remain strongly limited as it is today. And so I think the ICRC, the United Nations and others will continue their efforts to convince the states first of their responsibility and also of the primary interest that we would like to see given to humanitarian interests. And you have heard me several times in the past say that, and I repeat it, if the same energy with which we managed to make an agreement on chemical weapons would be used to reach a humanitarian consensus, to create a space in which a neutral, impartial and independent action, especially impartial, may be delivered, we may have, and especially the Syrian people, may be in a much better situation. As long as it doesn't happen like that, we will be limited. And every time you see me, you will hear me say that the space or the gap between what we do and what we should do becomes greater. And this dynamic that I have been criticizing for a long time, it is in progress today, even if we have presented a few days ago a budget record on Syria. And even if I consider that we will be able, first of all, to have this money and to reasonably spend it. And even if we present you a record budget, it will not be enough to change the dynamic in which we are. And so that's exactly what I just said, isn't it? That is to say, there is a political responsibility that we cannot impute on humanitarian organizations. These are the states that must get together and that must find a way to recognize that if humanitarian services are not improved, there will be negative effects on the Syrian people first, on the whole of Syria, on neighboring countries, and on stabilizers that could still hinder us more in the future. I illustrated it through the disintegration of medical systems. We could illustrate it through the difficulty with this situation that continues to have water systems and satisfactory sanitation for Syrians and neighboring people. We will see more crisis emerging if there is no return or another dynamic that must be political. Madame, behind you. Gabriela Sotomayor from Mexican news agency. Regarding the humanitarian situation in Syria and the states that you are talking about, don't you think that they have been very indulgent with the government of Mr. Bashar al-Assad? And I have another question. With regard to, I'm not blaming the ones or the other for the one or the other thing. I'm just saying as long as those who have an influence on developments and actors in Syria do not agree that there are more important things than their differences and that more important things are, for instance, the worry on the health and survival of Syrians suffering from the impact of armed conflict. And as long as there is no overwhelming agreement that this is a priority and is in the interest of those countries as well as of Syrians, we may not find a different dynamic. And so I'm not saying that the ones are indulgent with the regime and the others with the opposition or vice versa. I'm not blaming anybody. I'm trying to say that there may be an interest to look at the overarching interests and responsibilities that we have as international community and as countries. And as a president of a humanitarian organization, it's my task to constantly recall that putting humanitarian interests first place in a context like Syria is not only an issue of law, it's not only an issue of principle, it's not an issue of ethics, it's also an issue of the interest themselves of those countries because what we are seeing is a strong destabilization and destruction of a country, of its people, and of a whole region. I'm going to ask the journalist from Kosovo. Yes, because above all Belgrade, there are a few men and a few Jews who have found a common force. I can maybe start and then, Regis, if you have anything else to add, I said in my introduction that I made you aware that one of the important and often forgotten activities of the CISR in 50 contexts today in the world, and Kosovo is one of the contexts in which we are active to support capacity, procedures, and to accelerate the process that should lead to more clarity for families and their loved ones, the destiny of people who have disappeared, who are missing. So you have seen and you will see in the report that we present today, we are active on the Balkans, we are active with the respective institutions to ensure that all our knowledge and skills are also transferred to our colleagues from the National Red Cross and from the National Institutions to accelerate the process of clarification on the missing. In Brussels, for example, can we put conditions, can we put conditions to disappear, to find, to have better integration, because Serbia and Kosovo are waiting to be a member of the European Union? You know, we do not put conditions in negotiations in which we do not participate, but what I can say is that we hope and we try to convince not only the parties on the Balkans, but also in other contexts in the world to work together to clarify the destiny of the missing. And as you just said, this title is a problem that rests on societies that are often an obstacle to the reconciliation of societies, and that is the reason why we think it is crucial in our humanitarian activity to put as much as we can our commitment on the side of those who want to accelerate and clarify the destiny of these people. Maybe just a few points on that. First of all, thank you very much for the question, because we have talked a lot about the CICR and the CICR, which is present in all these places where no one wants to go, but we can talk about all these forgotten victims. And it is true that one of our strengths is our ability to work in the long run and to ensure that we never forget these victims of conflict and several of these victims are indeed what we call the missing. So the particular case of the Balkans, I think that today we remain as CICR, years after the conflict, the engine for precisely making sure that in one way or another, these families have the right to have news about their loved ones. Now, I will immediately add a part. We will also always have the same message. We must depoliticize the debate when we talk about humanitarian issues. So in our case, we have a unique objective. It is indeed to be able to give news to families and then, because they are in the desert, and they remain, they become old, they will disappear without ever knowing. And that is the main message. We must absolutely avoid using politics because it will ultimately not bring to what should be the primary goal of each of its states is to effectively help us or contribute to what these victims, in fact, these families, can finally have news. But so I think that today, there are a lot of debates on the inside, a lot of questions, but until when are we going to continue as CICR? And we are still there, there is a huge motivation to try to make sure that we have news in relation to the person. So in this case, I think we can count on this perseverance of the CICR, as we can count on the perseverance of the CICR that can visit prisons for years and years, and which will finally continue to bring a minimum of comfort to all these families who need it. What we are waiting for is not to leave all the parties, it is also that they engage themselves, we cannot simply let this work be done by the CICR. And where I travel in the world, and we have activities of this kind, I always try to convince government and parliament that the allocation of resources is of capacity to solve this crucial problem for the reconciliation of society. And unfortunately, in many contexts, we see that this is one of the subjects that is de-priorized, as we call them, this kind of process, right? We consider that it is not current, it is not a priori and sagical in the budgetary negotiations of parliament and government because, in the end, the constituency, the pressure groups behind this subject are not often the most powerful. It is the role of the CICR to always pay attention that you will not have a sustainable reconciliation without having to solve this problem and support those who put energy and capacities in the resolution of this subject. Yes, Mr. Mr. Maura, Mr. Maura, I wonder, you were recently in Iran, what was your most important goal? Did you achieve it? And maybe you could tell us a bit about your personal impressions there. Second question today was UNHCR presented a report about eternally displaced people. We have record numbers of 33.3 million. I just one quote if you permit, it's worse than in the darkest hours of the 90s when we had the genocide in Bosnia, on the Balkans, in Rwanda and in the Congo. That was the quote from this morning, the presentation, and you just said a powerful comeback of armed conflict. I agree, unfortunately, but what is happening? I wonder, I mean, what is really happening? Thank you. A $20 million question. I try first with a slightly easier one on my trip to Iran. Several objectives in our conversation with the Iranian Red Crescent and the Iranian government. First, you may know that for two years now we have entertained what we call a strategic partnership with the Iranian Red Crescent, who is one of the very powerful national societies in the Red Cross and the Red Crescent movement with enormous capacities. And we are developing cooperation with the Iranian Red Crescent in different parts of the world, in which ICRC's capacities and skill for negotiating access and being present, and Iranian Red Crescent capacities to deliver logistics and goods and medicine are very complementary. So one of the aims was to take our cooperation with the Iranian Red Crescent one or two steps further. You never achieved those goals in one visit, but what I can certainly say is that the Iranian Red Crescent is a very valuable partner and we are in agreement that we will continue to enlarge our cooperation, which is valid, which has activities within Iran, but also in some of the contexts in some of the humanitarian contexts outside Iran. With regard to my conversations with the Iranian authorities, the main objective was to find a more structured dialogue with the Iranian authorities on some of the issues of concern to ICRC, but also of concern to Iran with regard to some of the humanitarian crises in the world. So Syria, of course, has been an important issue. We have discussed other contexts Afghanistan, Iraq. You know that coming back to the missing that this is an important file still in the Iran-Iraq relations today from the respective war of 20 years ago. So still an important operation, a tripartite commission that ICRC is chairing between Iraq and Iran on the missing of the Iran-Iraq war. So there is a panoply of activities to discuss, to take stock of, to kick the ball forward and to see how we will work together. We have also discussed how within Iraq to work with the within Iran to work with Iranian authorities in terms of engagement with the armed forces, development of international humanitarian law, engaging on the adequacy and similarities and mutual reinforcing of Islamic law and Islam and international humanitarian law. So it's a broad range of issues that we have discussed and I'm very satisfied on the results of the conversation in terms that they were concrete and specific and allow us to move one or two or three steps forward in some of those files of cooperation or engagement on those issues. With regard to hypothesizing on what is behind I'm not going to speculate on that but just once again to share with you also the impression which probably Antonio has shared today with you and we are talking a lot that we have seen dynamics in several parts of the world which are adding enormous complexities and contagious effects of crises spreading, deepening of crises as I mentioned beforehand in my introduction and some of the result is displacements in terms of refugees and IDPs that you have received the very numbers of. I mean at the end of the day although this seems a little bit an abstract maybe assertion I can do is that obviously we are struggling with an international system which has difficulties to come to consensus and when powers in the international system have difficulties to come to consensus on some of the essentials then you probably see happening what is happening then probably there is not sufficient cohesion in the international system which compels different types of actors to respect certain parameters and if we see or have the impression I don't know whether the impression is true or not there is no sort of objective study on violation of international humanitarian law but we have a subjective impression that we see more violations, deviations from behavior consistency with international humanitarian law then it's also a sign that this system has and struggles with bringing important powers together towards some minimal consensus. More questions? Yes Gabriela? Yes, thank you. If you can answer my second question please because you are mentioning here that there was 1,400 incidents in 23 countries against volunteers and personnel so what about accountability in these cases? Did you call for investigation on these cases or what happened in this particular situation? Thank you. Well volunteers who work with the ICRC or with the National Red Cres most of the time they are employees of the National Red Crescent or Red Cross Societies we certainly consider them part of our activities we try to find their whereabouts the reason of their disappearance the reasons of what happened to them and we engage with the respective authorities in order to find out what happened if we have indication that they are detained by authorities we try to engage for their liberation we are not known and are not an organization with a mandate for legal accountability that doesn't mean that we don't care about legal accountability we care about legal accountability but there are other institutions dealing with legal accountability. Thank you very much. Thank you. I just want to remind that there are more there is more material on our website in addition to the news release that you already got at the beginning. Thank you. There is much more on our... We have 13 international staffs and 9 people who are from the National Red Crescent so it's been 22 staffs. That's roughly an accident. We had people in place because we had a regional delegation that covered Ukraine, Ukraine and other countries and we had a delegation at the time that we closed because there was no reason for us to be present because we weren't in a situation of violence or conflict.


Back in February, a group of scientists released a report called the malicious use of artificial intelligence, forecasting, prevention and mitigation. Open AI Sam Altman even acknowledged there's many ways this could go wrong. Where do you fall on this debate so far? Just to begin, I'd like to say I have always believed and loved and had strong affinity for Skynet. My bloodline loves Skynet. My future kids will love Skynet. We are a Skynet family just so it's out there. I'm not worried about AI yet. I'm worried about humans using AI.   And they think that they're talking to that person. It's always going to be what's going to happen terrible, but there's so many good uses for it. And the things that are bad right now are human based that are causing negative things for AI.