First of all, it's a great privilege to be here with so many friends. I mean, to see a lot of familiar faces here and to be sitting next to Jake Tapper, who did write a brilliant book called The Outpost, which is the experience of multiple units over time in a particular geographic area in Afghanistan. It's a book that I think brings out elements of the enduring nature of combat. So I thought what I might just offer up front are some thoughts about how the Army is thinking about future war. But first, I just want to thank Peter, I want to thank General Freakley, really ASU and this tremendous organization for bringing together a great group of experts to talk about, I think, a really important problem, which is the problem of future armed conflict. And I think it's important, particularly in timely conference, because of the threats that we can see so clearly to international security and national security. And I think those threats, I think we can identify them as coming both from really nation states, adversarial states, as well as non-state actors and the emergence of what so many have called really this hybrid threat of really the confluence between networked insurgent and terrorist type organizations now bridging over into transnational organized crime networks, but tied to nation states and really having access to capabilities that they didn't have access to in the past. And so we're fighting these so-called hybrid enemies and networked organizations that have capabilities previously associated only with the fielded forces of nation states. And those capabilities, as we know, involve communications, the ability to mobilize resources, and access to very destructive technologies. And so it's a very important time because we are at risk, I think. We are at risk by the various groups that we see in the greater Middle East and ISIL in particular these days who are advancing a medieval, anti-Western, anti-human, I would say, ideology, and are, in fact, the enemies of all civilized people. And we also see other developments today such as Russia's actions in Ukraine where they're using unconventional forces under the cover of conventional forces to change the geopolitical landscape in Europe and to change really the balance of power on the Eurasian landmass. So these are just a couple of examples. So super important conference, so glad to be able to participate in it. And I think what I would just say up front is I think how we think about future war is vitally important. And if we think about really how to think about future war, I think really about two main observations. The first is that we have to balance both continuity in the nature of war with change in the character of warfare and maybe not confuse the two. I think when we get in trouble is when we neglect continuities in the nature of war. War is an extension of politics. War is human dimension. War is inherent or imminent uncertainty based on the continuous interaction with the enemy and these very complex environments based on politics and the human dimension. And then war is a contest of wills. And so we have to think about continuity and do it with the historian Carl Becker said. He said the memory of the past and the anticipation of the future should walk hand in hand in a happy way. And so as we think about changes in the character of warfare, I think we ought to do it in the way that Sir Michael Howard suggested. Think about war and warfare in width, depth and in context. In width over time so you can see changes over time and understand both possibilities and limitations for example of technology. Look at conflict in depth like Jake's book on the outpost where you look at a very specific area and a campaign in depth and then sort of the tidy outlines of war from an academic perspective kind of dissolve and you see war as it is, right, chaotic, profoundly human. And then to consider war in context, context of what we have to achieve politically in armed conflict. Context of the military's role in society. Context of really a society's will and how we generate and sustain the will to confront increasingly determined, brutal and capable enemies and adversaries. So I think the two things I would just stress is continuity and change and thinking about war and warfare in width, depth and context as Sir Michael Howard recommended. Thank you. It's an honor to be here and thank you so much for having me and it's especially an honor to be talking to Lieutenant General McMaster. I want to read something to you and get your reaction to it. In Iraq and Afghanistan, gaps between prior visions of future warfare and the nature of the eventual wars themselves, complicated efforts to adapt strategy over time. Minimalist linear plans in place at the outset of both wars were disconnected from the ambition of broader policy objectives and the complexity of the operating environment. Indeed, recent war plans have at times been essentially narcissistic, failing to account for interactions with determined enemies and other complicating variables. In extreme cases, plans were based on the assumption that a war would end with the disengagement of one party to the conflict. The author is you. What do you mean by narcissistic? What I mean is we tend to define the problem of war and warfare in relation to us and what we would like to do and also in relation to how we would like war to be. And so what typically you hear when we neglect continuities in the nature of war is really, really the next war will be fundamentally different from all wars that have gone before it. And it's typically due to an over promise of technology, technological advantages, whether it is in the 1990s, the so-called Revolution in Military Affairs and the orthodoxy associated with what became the Defense Transformation Movement. Remember, future wars were going to be fast, cheap, efficient. We were going to conduct something called rapid decisive operations, which is sort of like the George Costanza approach to war. You just leave on a high note. You just go and do some military things and then leave. And then the language was hubristic in large measure because we didn't give agency to the enemy. So this is one of those continuities in the nature of war. There was uncertainty because of its political and human dimensions, but war is uncertain fundamentally because of the continuous action with determined enemies who really are adapting continuously, who are evolving conflicts in ways that you don't understand at the outset. And so recognizing that interaction with the enemy then I think leads to a more humble sort of understanding of what you can achieve through technological prowess. And I think for the U.S. military in particular, what we have to take from that example really, I think that setup of that ideology and defense theory of the 90s for the difficulties we encountered in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have to recognize that we have to learn lessons from that. And so I would say that we can learn quite a bit. As I mentioned up front, this is an important time for this conference because of the threats we see emerging to international and national security. It's also an important time because we have a tremendous opportunity to consolidate lessons of 13 years of war. And there's an old saying, hey the military, they're always ready to fight the last war. Well really if you look historically at military experience, those who were least prepared for the war that they embark upon were those who studied the last war only superficially. And so I think what we have to really do is study our most recent experiences and I think one of the things we relearned was that we have to pay adequate attention to continuities in the nature of war. And it's important for planning in wars, so that you're undertaking military operations, conducting military operations to get to sustainable outcomes consistent with your vital interests that you're acknowledging that your enemies are going to fight against you in ways you may not expect.  Now you may want to hope that people pick stupid, but they likely will not. And so the key is how do you seize, retain, exploit the initiative over the enemy. How do you continuously adapt? And so that's important for conducting campaigns, conducting operations in war, but it's also important in between wars. And I'd say we're not really in between wars right now, but if one day we are in between wars, then we have to recognize that in between wars, we interact with potential adversaries as well. And so if we take this narcissistic approach, and we define an objective, hey, here's where we're going to be in the future. Remember in the 1990s some of the language was that we're just going to be so darn good, so capable that we will lock the enemy out of the market of future conflict. They won't even mess with us, we'll be so bad, you know. And so of course if you bank on a narrow suite of capabilities and technological advantage as the principal element of your differential advantage over future enemies, your enemies are going to figure it out. They're going to figure out how to bypass that strength. So what's American military power? First of all is joint power. It's using land, air, maritime, now cyber forces space together. It's how we combine things in this game of rock, paper, scissors, you know, which is war. And American, I think Americans' differential advantage over the enemy has to do with skilled soldiers and teams, skilled sailors, airmen, Marines, and teams with multiple technologies that give us that differential advantage. There are three conflicts going on right now that almost could have been taken from a war textbook, perhaps written by you five years ago, ISIS, Ukraine, North Korea. And I'm wondering how you think we could have, if you could go back in that time machine and better prepare, how could we be better fighting ISIS? I'll do each one of them one by one. But it doesn't feel as though the United States and the coalition are even close to really posing a significant challenge to the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq and indeed throughout from Algeria to Afghanistan. Right, okay, so you gave three, I think, great examples of the complexity of war, right? And I think one of the main lessons from the experience in the greater Middle East broadly and the catastrophe that's happening there, and this applies to our experience in Iraq, is that in Iraq, the competition with our enemies was very complicated because of the political and the human drivers of that conflict. And so what it was important for us, I think in a period of time during which we adapted to the way that campaign had evolved, was to understand what was driving that conflict politically and develop a political strategy as the foundation for all other activities to be able to address those drivers of the conflict. And so in Iraq, I think it's a great study to look at the evolution of a conflict over time from what was initially a decentralized, localized hybrid insurgency that coalesced over time. An insurgency for which we weren't prepared because we didn't plan for anything really beyond unseating the regime. We didn't plan adequately, I think, is fair to say. And so as a result that some of the actions that we took initially against the former members of the regime and BATS has actually tended to help justify really this growing insurgency and inflame the situation. That insurgency changed its tactics over time.  Well, that didn't work. It was the whole Black Hawk down idea that Saddam had. Then later it was destroy infrastructure, right? The whole Lenin thing, the worst, the better. Grow pools of popular discontent from which the insurgency could draw strength. And then Zarkawi, as this insurgency morphs now with this alliance of convenience between al-Qaeda in Iraq and the former regime elements, they systematically went after Iraqi security forces because they saw them as a real danger to their strategy. But then ultimately the strategy became what Zarkawi called the Afghan model. We called it in December of 03, jump-start a civil war, pit-arrest communities against each other. And then we can portray ourselves as patrons and protectors of one of those parties to the conflict, mainly the Sunni-Arab and Turkmen populations. And then mass murder against the Shia population, drive them further away from any kind of a political accommodation, invite retribution attacks that can be used as justification, right? For you as a patron and protector. This is essentially the same sort of technique that is being used across the region. In Syria I think you see the same dynamics in Yemen, you see the same dynamics in Nigeria, you see the same dynamics in Afghanistan, Pakistan, where our enemies, I mean those who, these transnational terrorist organizations pick communities against each other and then they use a local conflict, a local competition for power, resources and survival to gain a foothold as a patron and protector. They establish control through a whole bunch of control mechanisms, intimidation, coercion and so forth. And then solidify their control over people and territory. And so I think we can learn from the evolution of the conflict and our response to that. Now what is left in Iraq in terms of potential for the kind of fragile political accommodation that set conditions for reversal of the deterioration of that situation in 2007, 2008 remains to be seen. And that's really the big political challenge. In Ukraine, I think Ukraine is an example of the importance of forward deterrence against a power that is going to wage limited war for limited objectives. And I think Yaakov Griegel's work on this is probably extraordinary in terms of really clear thinking about the problem of Putin, Russia and the use of his armed forces there. So limited war for limited objectives, go into Ukraine, take some territory at very low cost with very low risk and then portray the international community's reaction as escalatory. So how do you cope with that?  You have to ratchet the price up of taking action like that at the frontier or else it's very difficult to defend against that. And of course standoff capabilities, joint capabilities have application, but I think we undervalue you know, deterrent military capabilities at our own peril. We can make much more dangerous contingencies apparent. North Korea would say it's an example. We'll get to North Korea. So I just want to go back to, okay, I'll do Ukraine and then I'll go back to ISIS. So do you think that the United States or the coalition, or not the coalition, the United States or NATO should have armed the Ukrainian military months ago? No, I can't. I mean, obviously it's a policy decision and there are all sorts of complicating factors politically. Again, war is an extension of politics. I'm just using it as an example, you know, of really, of any power waging limited war for limited objectives in terms of security, stability, preventing conflict, forward deterrence, you know, is an important element of that kind of a solution. So how it applies to Ukraine, they're much better experts than me and obviously this is a policy decision. Okay, I understand you can't get into policy decisions, but in terms of ISIS, in terms of fighting ISIS, it does seem that a campaign that is limited to coalition airstrikes and whatever military might can be assembled from the Pereshmerga, the Free Syrian Army, if there's anyone there who's actually doing anything, and then obviously the Iraqi army, those who are still willing to go to the front, is insufficient. Right, well I think one of the key things to then look at is, you know, how are the continuities in nature we're playing out there? So for example, if war is an extension of politics and we're trying to do a sustainable political outcome, what are the broad range of actions necessary to be able to get to that political outcome, either done by ourselves or through proxy forces and partner forces? One of the key questions has to do with, you know, with the human dimensions of that conflict. What is the degree to which the Sunni Arab population under such duress, having been, you know, under such terrible conditions for now so long, how can that be pieced back together so you can have Sunni Arab participation in the future security, in their future security, and then a slow reform of Iraqi politics and of course, you know, Iraqi security institutions such that they have the capability they need, but also the legitimacy, and this bleeds over into war as a contest of wills, right? Is the will there among forces that we're supporting to be able to confront this brutal and determined enemy? And I think that we've got obviously a great team working on that, a great multinational team working on that with new Iraqi leadership and Haider al-Badi who I've got a lot of respect for as a person, worked with him over the years there. Of course, he has a tall order. It's complicated further by infiltration and subversion into the Iraqi government and security forces by Shi'i Islamist militias and those in particular that are beholden to the Islamic Revolution and Guards Corps of Iran, which I think has in large measure, you know, created the conditions that led to a return of large-scale communal conflict in the country. So, I mean, I don't know how to sum all this up. It's complicated as hell. It has a lot to do with, I think, our thinking has to be aligned with sort of the continuities in the nature of war, what we want to achieve politically, what is driving the conflict from a human perspective and, you know, people fight for the same fundamental reasons today, right? As Thucydides identified 2,500 years ago, fear, sense of honor and interest, right? What are the drivers of those local conflicts across different portions of Iraq recognizing war is uncertainty?  And I think all of this helps you understand what can be achieved through partner forces and proxy forces and maybe what can't, you know, based on what, you know, a political scientist called principal agent problems, you know, that tend to be pretty significant in these situations. In terms of North Korea, it's obviously not news to anybody in this room that a cyber attack was pending. I guess Admiral Rogers here yesterday told my colleague, Yanchudo, that the only thing they didn't know is that it would be attack on a movie studio that actually had such an effect, but these cyber attacks have been going on for quite some time. How could we be better prepared for the future? Do we need to integrate private and public more efficiently? Where's the weakness there? Right. Well, I deferred it to Admiral Rogers, you know, who's, I think, exactly the right leader at the right time for this very complicated problem set. And within the Army, Ed Cardone is our lead. For the Army, what we're looking at is really hard, and what are the tactical implications of the cyber space and what do we need to achieve in context of what we, in the Army, are calling joint combined arms operations, really, how we're going to operate in the future in this game of rock, paper, scissors, and what kind of cyber tools do we need? And so essentially, we have to try to be able to do three things in cyber space to support, I think, what we're doing militarily. The first of these is we've got to obviously defend our own networks and our capabilities. And this, again, gets to this continuous interaction with the enemy, right? Our enemies will do four essential things to us, I think, in the future. The first of these is they will evade our capabilities, right? So if you think you're going to have a quick answer to the problem of future war, I mean, enemies will evade that. And especially on land, I mean, land warfare is different, right? Because, I mean, there are a couple of complicated things. Geography complicates things. On land, it's not really a targeting exercise. I mean, I think on land you have typically tens of thousands of so-called targets, which they're not their people, all of whom are trying to avoid being classified as such, right? So you have them taking sort of countermeasures to evade your capabilities of dispersion, concealment, intermingling with civilian population deception. The second thing I think we'll see is enemies disrupting our capabilities. And this is where cyber attacks, I think, are a threat, but also other capabilities. You know, UAV-type capabilities, maybe swarm capabilities with autonomous and semi-autonomous systems, long-range precision munitions, tied to commercially available satellite imagery, weapons of mass destruction. I mean, these are all things EMP-type capabilities. These are things that can really disrupt what they see as our asymmetrical advantages. So evade, disrupt. The third thing is they're going to emulate our capabilities. And I think that there's a school of thought out there that we can maintain our differential advantage as a military force, as a joint force, by investing in high-end technologies. And that will deliver our capabilities in the future. But I think you could make the argument that technology is the most transferable element of our differential advantage to our enemies. So I think we're going to see more and more emulation in cyber and in other areas. And then the fourth area is our enemies will go into other battlegrounds. They will expand into other battlegrounds. And those battlegrounds are cyberspace, certainly. I think space and the maritime domains are going to be a lot more challenged than they have in the past. We've been able to achieve and maintain supremacy there. And we're also going to see that expansion into battlegrounds of political infiltration, subversion, and so forth. So cyber, we have to protect our ability to operate. We have to use cyber to better understand our enemies, how they're operating, what are their sources of strength, what are their vulnerabilities. And this is big data-type tool sets, but it's also really understanding social media and the dynamics there. I mean, if you look at what this team at the Institute for the Study of War does to advance our understanding of a very complex situation in Syria and Iraq, it's astounding. And they're getting it all off social media. So understanding is the third, and the third is to conduct offensive operations in cyberspace to limit the enemy's ability to use it. So I think cyberspace is analogous to those other domains where you want to ensure your own freedom of movement and action in those domains, whether it's the maritime, air, space domain, land, and want to restrict the enemy's freedom of movement and action. So what are the tools at the tactical level that we need to do that? We're developing those. I think if you look at military innovation, I think people will look back at this period years from now and look at Army Cyber Command as an example of well-executed innovation. And I think General Cardone, as I mentioned, he's doing a tremendous job and a very forward-looking effort to develop that capability within our Army. I have a lot more questions, but I also know that we only have 17 minutes and 17 seconds, so I will open up the floor and I'll call on you if you could stand up, state your name, if you're with a publication or a media organization, state that, and then you can go ahead. I'll start with you in the front row. Is there a microphone? Here we go. Thank you very much. Patrick Tucker from Defense One. So General, the other day at the Defense Writers Group, you were talking about what happened in Iraq and the failure of the Iraqi government to consolidate gains and how this was something that eventually led to a power vacuum that was eventually filled in part by ISIS. You don't write policy, you've made it very clear. The most recent authorization for the use of force in Iraq. There's nothing in it that speaks to consolidating gains. There's a small carve out for some special operations. To your mind, we've since then said that we are going to train like a group of 20,000 Iraqi security forces, Kurds, to move into Mosul. So that seems like a potential place for some gain consolidation. But to your mind, knowing that you don't write policy, does the most current version of the authorization proposal that's coming around make room to attack this problem the way you would attack it? Well, I mean, I think the key thing is that there obviously is a requirement to consolidate gains. And this is one of the things that we highlight in the Army Operating Concept. If you just Google Army Operating Concept, it's a real page turner if you want to read about. The Army's view of the problem of future armed conflict. I have it right here. And I'd really welcome any feedback you have on it. But we talk about the need for consolidation of gains. And I think this is one of those clear, important lessons from the last 13 years of war. Now, who consolidates gains? I mean, it shouldn't matter as long as you're getting to that sustainable political outcome consistent with your interests. And what's necessary to consolidate gains? There always has been military support to indigenous security forces who take on increasing responsibility, the development of security forces that are capable, but also legitimate and trusted by the population. It's military support to governance and rule of law consistent with the traditions of that society and the history of that society so that you can deny the enemy really the ability to operate freely amongst those populations. Now, if you could say, well, that sounds like a reinvention of Iraq and Afghanistan. Well, I mean, I think that the lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan, what we learn is going to be super important. And I personally believe the lesson is that we did not do it the way we could have done it. I mean, we could have done it more effectively, but because we didn't plan for it effectively, because we didn't recognize that this was an enduring requirement in a post-conflict situation, we were unable to consolidate gains effectively, and that created opportunities for our enemies to gain strength, and we could go into more detail about both if you'd like later. But the lesson for today is somebody has to consolidate gains, and we've always had to do it. If you look across our history, American military forces, except in conflicts where the political objective was very narrowly circumscribed, we've had to consolidate gains. The commander-in-chief likes to go, boy, girl, boy, girl. I'll follow his lead if there's a woman who wants to ask a question. You are definitely not a woman. Yes, ma'am, back there. So you should have come and dragged is what you should have done. I want to hear your question asked. Good morning. Erin Simpson from Keras Associates. HR, you've talked a lot about the enduring nature of warfare this morning. I wonder if you could highlight some of those things you think are definitely changing, and both where the Army and where the Joint Force more broadly needs to adapt to account for those changes. Well, those are great questions. Okay, so what is changing? I think the way we're thinking about future war is in four key areas, right? A lot of fours we use in training a doctrine of command. The first of those is threats, enemies, and adversaries in future operating environments. What is changing about that? I mentioned some of this already, that we see the outlines of that today. I think we've seen harbingers of future conflict in connection with the so-called hybrid enemies, but networked enemy organizations have the capabilities previously associated only with nation states and can do those four things, right? They can avoid our capabilities, disrupt our capabilities. They can emulate our capabilities and expand on to other battlegrounds. You know, the so-called hybrid warfare of Russia, or the very sophisticated, you know, sort of political subversion and infiltration that you see maybe the IRGC and its related organizations conducting the Greater Middle East. So I think that's what we have to be prepared for in terms of threats, enemies, and adversaries. And I'll talk about technology that was separately. Missions, what kind of missions are we going to have to conduct in the future? There's been a lot really discussed about anti-access area denial type capabilities, and that is significant. So part of our missions, I think, are going to be to ensure our freedom of maneuver and action in increasingly contested environments and across all domains. So for the Army, the implication is that we'll have to conduct operations on land for what you'll always need in Army for, right, which is to feed enemy organizations, to establish control of territory, to do what well to deny its use to the enemy oftentimes, but also to consolidate gains to get the sustainable political outcomes. But increasingly, Army forces, I think we're going to have to operate in a way where we can then project power outward from land into the maritime, air, space, and cyber domains to ensure our freedom of movement and action in those domains and then restrict the enemy's activities there. I think the other key mission is we're going to see a lot of bad things that can be delivered at long range emanating from enemy territory and increasingly urban areas.  So why do we care about urban areas? Well, I mean, we care because what could draw us there, terrorist safe havens and support bases, long-range ballistic missile capabilities tied to weapons and mass destruction, cities as launching pads, essentially. So for the Army, I think that we're going to have to conduct what we call expeditionary maneuver and that's rapidly deploying forces into unexpected locations to maybe bypass anti-access. But that can't be a force that just gets there. It's got to be a force that has mobility, protection, and lethality to get the job done that can transition quickly. And then the third area that we're thinking about is technology. Some technologies that we're developing will give us those kind of expeditionary maneuver capabilities. I mean, this is demand reduction, power and energy technologies. You know, we are working hard on our ballistic missile defense type capabilities and our air defense type capabilities. We're integrating autonomous and semi-autonomous systems so that the forces that we want to deploy in the future for the Army, we want those forces to really be able to operate widely dispersed with decentralized capabilities, but to do that while maintaining what we call mutual support, right? So you're not trying to create multiple little bighorns simultaneously, right? You want to be able to fight together and to support each other. Essentially what we're thinking about is air-ground joint teams is elevating the tactics of infiltration to the operational level. To operate dispersed, but be able to concentrate against enemies. To be able to defeat those enemies and then be able to establish control of territories, all in the context of joint operations. Technology is going to help us do that, but we have to recognize what enemy technologies are and we have to recognize countermeasures to our technologies. Again, rock-paper-scissors, right? Submarine sonar, bomber radar, machine gun tank, tank anti-tank missile, right? There's no silver bullet in this game, okay? It's combinations of capabilities. And then the final thing that we look at is history and lessons learned because we think that the way to think about the future, Aaron, is to walk backward into it, like the ancient Greeks, right? To pay attention to what's going on these days. So I think that, you know, I ask you to participate in our Army's thinking about future war. Sir Michael Howard said, hey, you're going to be wrong. No matter how well you think about future war, you're just going to be wrong. The key is to not be so far off the mark that you can't adjust to the real demands of conflict once they're revealed to you. So how do you do that? I think you do that by, you know, by asking the right questions, thank you. And so what we've tried to do in our Army is establish a framework of 20 questions. These are first-order questions, the answers to which will improve current and future force combat effectiveness. These are portrayed as first-order capabilities in Annex B of the highly readable Army operating concept. And these are enduring problems for the Army. And this is really, for this group, we would love to work with all of you on how well we think we can do that and how each of those challenges, meet those challenges, and how we might be able to do it better in the future. Jen, we have eight minutes left. Just a quick follow-up if you could give. It's exactly if possible, so we can get to some more questions. Give me a hypothetical of what you're talking about when you talk about bad things emanating from an urban environment. What exactly is a realistic idea of what you're talking about? I think there are some historical analogies that we ought to keep in mind. The V-1 and V-2 threat to London and World War II. The Skud missile threat out of the western desert of Iraq in 1991, the threat to Israel. The threat of rockets from Gaza and from southern Lebanon to Israel is analogous as well. I think we're going to see more and more of that, because we have long-range weapons systems that threaten us and our allies. And so this A2AD capability is very important. But we've defined it in a way that really it's just to keep us out, right? Because remember, we're so bad, right? But it's also an offensive threat. It's a coercive threat. And so just as you couldn't solve any of those other historical long-range weapons capability, those threats in the past, by standoff capabilities alone, I think that you're not going to be able to do it in the future either. In our Army's future force development, that's why we're emphasizing two really elements of the concept. Expeditionary maneuver and joint combined arms operations. Okay, the gentleman in the green sweater has been very patient. The green turtleneck in the red sweater has been very patient. I'm Harlan Alman, HR. That was a brilliant summary of warfare. Thank you. I'm going to ask you a career-ending question, so be prepared.  I'm overdue, Harlan. No, you're not. You've got a long way to go, HR. If you were to update dereliction of duty, which for those of you who haven't read it, was a stunning critique of Vietnam in terms of continuity and change today in 14 years of war, what might you have to say if you're prepared to say anything? Well, I mean, the book I wrote was about... which is also a real page-turner too, by the way. It was about how and why Vietnam became an American war and how decisions were made that led to an American war in Vietnam. And from the research, I was able to identify really problems that undermined our ability to think clearly about the problems in Vietnam and develop a strategy. And it resulted really in a situation in which we went to war without a clear strategy, without an ability to connect what we were doing militarily to sustainable political outcomes there. And it led also to a failure to consider long-term costs and consequences as a result of a number of factors. One was a difficult civil-military relationship. There's blame on the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well, who actually compromise principle for expediency in some cases or for corporateness. Some of these problems then led to the Goldwater-Nichols Act. There's a much different civil-military dynamic, a different way that civilian leaders can gain access to military advice. But I think the bottom line is, hey, what's the role of the military in these sort of situations? I mean, your role is to give your best military advice, right? And not cross the line between advice and advocacy of policy. Nobody elects generals, right? I mean, to make policy. I mean, we would escape, you know, sort of a responsibility to the American public. It's our civilian officials who have that responsibility. So that's what we owe, and that's why for military officers, we have to be able to think clearly about future war. We have to study it with depth and context. We will benefit tremendously from forums like this and from the tremendous knowledge and experience that's brought together here. And so I think for me, you know, what I want to emphasize inside of our Army, and this is consistent with General Ordeano, who you're going to have a real treat of hearing from him tomorrow, is, you know, his number one priority is leader development. And that's leader development so that we can do what we need to do tactically in the Coral and Gall Valley, right? And the great story that Jake told, we have to be able to conduct fire and maneuver, combined arms operations. We have to be able to defeat our enemies in close combat. And we have to develop those core competencies in our junior officers. But from the very early time, our officers and NCOs have got to be thinking about how do you connect what you're doing to that political outcome? That might sound crazy, but I think what we owe our soldiers and a test of good strategy is, can you answer this question? Can you explain to your soldiers how the risks that they're taking and the sacrifices they're making are contributing to an outcome worthy of those risks and worthy of those sacrifices? And so I think we could become better at strategy. We have to be better at communicating it. We have to be better at communicating the nature of the conflicts we're in. I mean, how many Americans could name the three Taliban groups that we're fighting in Afghanistan, even? So it's tough to generate the kind of understanding across our nation, but then also even within our military oftentimes, on who we're fighting, what are the stakes, right? Why is this worth it? And then how is what we're doing going to get to that sustainable and worthy outcome? I mean, I believe that we are engaged in sort of righteous causes right now, okay? And I think it's okay for us to want to win against these misogynistic, murderous bastards that we're fighting in the greater Middle East. And so I think that we ought to be unabashed about it and we ought to really define what winning is, okay? It's not. And MacArthur's lifting of all restrictions on force, but it is a rational determination to succeed and it's a clear idea of how what we're doing militarily is connected, right? To all the other elements of national power that are directed at achieving that sustainable and worthy outcome. So I think if there's a big lesson that you can take from really across multiple conflicts is that clarity in our strategic thinking and planning is something that we can all work on, you know, across civil military teams, multinational teams. I think I heard in there a very diplomatic answer to what you asked. And I'm looking forward to the next book. Presumably after you retire. We have time for one more question. Is there a woman that has a question in the Boy, Girl, Boy, or your own? She's right here, actually. I'm sorry? She's right behind this silver-haired gentleman. Oh, there you are, okay. My name is Martina Vandenberg. I'm an international human rights lawyer. And this panel is called Continuities in Change in Future Arm Conflict. But I'm wondering as you talk about strategy and as you develop the sort of tactics of the future, what's the role of international law? Is international law keeping up? Are there discussions about this? What about the Geneva Conventions and how we're training our future warfighters to actually fight in a way that's consistent with international law? Right. Well, you bring up a really great point. I think international law is behind based on the nature of the enemies who we've been fighting. But I think that really what's important is moral, ethical, and psychological preparation of soldiers and units for combat in these very complicated environments, environments where the enemies intermingle with civilian populations, and in these environments of persistent danger. So I think legal sort of restrictions on the use of force are super important, obviously, right? Because they are what helps make war less inhumane, right? But also, you know, we have to go beyond that. We have to inculcate into our soldiers our values in our army, our warrior ethos. Because it is that warrior ethos that allows you to, you know, to operate effectively in these complex environments. And the story that's been untold, I think, about the wars both in Iraq and Afghanistan is how many times, every day, do our soldiers take on greater risk, and our Marines take on greater risk so that they can protect civilians, you know? And so I think that what we have done is inculcated into our force, really an understanding of the importance of moral, ethical, and psychological preparation for combat. And that is, you know, from a, you know, the ethical preparation is really building across our army. What do we expect of each other? What do you expect of the soldier, the man or woman next to you, in terms of their conduct in combat? Vis-a-vis civilians, vis-a-vis the enemy, captured enemy, right? And we have to do this from kind of a John Stuart Mill kind of utilitarian perspective, right? That every time you, you know, you take action in a way that's against your values, you might as well be working for the enemy, right? But also from a Kantian sort of manners and ends and a recognition of our values and that we can't violate our values or we may have lost already, right? So I think our army is very focused on this. I know all of our services are very focused on moral, ethical, and psychological preparation. A lot of this is also education. It's learning about the histories and the cultures of the regions. I think a deliberate effort to cultivate empathy is very important as you go into these very complicated environments. And I think that we've made tremendous progress on it, but we have to continuously get better at it. So I think it's a great question. I think our legal frameworks are dated. Our enemies know how to operate around them in so-called law fair and so forth. But I think that what's equally important is maybe even more important is moral and ethical preparation as well as understanding legal constraints and standards in terms of soldier behavior and combat. I'm afraid that's all the time we have. Thank you so much to Lieutenant General McMaster. It was really great hearing from you. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.


Hello friends, welcome to the session, I am Malkha, I am going to help you find d by by dx in the following that is xy plus y square equal to 10x plus y. So let us start with the solution and given equation is xy plus y square equal to 10x plus y. Now we will differentiate both sides with respect to x. So this gives us d by dx of xy plus d by dx of y square equal to d by dx of 10x plus d by dx of y. This is equal to now we will apply the product rule in d by dx of xy which is d by dx of fx into gx is equal to fx into d by dx of gx plus d by dx of fx into gx. Now we will apply this product rule in d by dx of fy. So this will give us x into d by by dx plus y into d of x by dx plus d by dx of y square is 2 y into d by by dx equal to d of dx of 10x is say x square x plus d by by dx. Now this can be written as x into d by by dx plus y into 1 plus 2 y into d by by dx equal to say x square x plus d by by dx. This can again be written as x into d by by dx plus 2 y into d by by dx minus d by by dx equal to say x square x minus y. Now on taking d by by dx common we get x plus 2 y minus 1 equal to say x square x minus y. Therefore d by by dx equal to say x square x minus y upon x plus 2 y minus 1. Hence d by by dx equal to say x square x minus y upon x plus 2 y minus 1 which is a required solution. Hope you understood this solution and enjoyed the session. Goodbye and take care.


Marianne Espresso Press Design. Welcome. Thank you for joining me on this beautiful Tuesday, March 12th, 2024. Today we're gonna do something easy because it's my birthday and I didn't feel like working. So I have a surprise for you and first the usual. Get my list out here. Thank you to all my customers and everyone who has left kind reviews and kind comments. Jolene, the second one is Japanese so I can't read Japanese, but thank you. Love you, Japan. Cindy, Marla, and Lynette. So thank you for your purchases. I appreciate it very very much. Three or four new papers for you and then we'll get into what we're gonna do today. The first is Primrose Path. Very lovely papers here. Let me bring these up because I know that my light is fading colors, especially the greens. Where do these seed catalog labels? I don't know if you're gonna read the seed company on there, but I only printed a couple. Well yeah, I only brought down a couple. Black set. Vintage Seascapes, collage type. Seascapes are a variety and what is this? Mixed Media Collage and that is your surprise today. I have a set. One set. I'm probably gonna make two sets because I fell in love with it and I had enough to make two. So I'm probably gonna make two sets. So what we're gonna do today is make some tags and I have mine already cut and I use these papers, which I have for you and I have three of them, three designs for you, which I already cut off to make these tags and if I have time I'll make another one or maybe I will make some ATC cards because it occurred to me. After I did these, did these would make great ATC cards. So maybe we'll have time to do that. But yes, it's my birthday and I didn't feel like working. So what you'll need, I'll have this PDF for you to download under the description in the description and you can create along with me or make your own tags however you want. And how did this come about? Well, my daughter's birthdays was Saturday and I made her a tag and I made this little gift card holder pop up. Well, actually I made two and then I just realized, you know, that's not her style. I know what she's gonna think when she sees that.  So I made her a completely new one and then it just occurred to me that I need some different styles of tags in my stash so that when this happens I don't have to be scrambling around for or make my own mixed media paper, which I have a bunch of it, but so I just decided what I wanted to play around with was some tags. So I made one and there it is and all my extras and whatever little scraps I could come up with. I added to it so it's a little little dimensional. So what you'll need are your tags. I have some scrap paper. I have some tags for words. I have some magazines and other stuff so I can make some washi. This new thing I did with the washi is tape the word underneath that says enchanting and that came off of this pattern. So I was looking for patterns. Things like that. So okay let's get started and I used some of my millefiori. I thought it kind of went well together. Don't be afraid to mix things. So that's what I did and I'm just gonna add a little bit to these too. So they're all similar in some way and I was kind of looking for one with more gold but I guess it doesn't really matter. There's enough red in there that this will work and I'm just gonna put a little strip along the bottom of this one because I forgot to put it on. I don't think I want the same. I forgot to put it on before I cut my tag. That's what I meant to say. So I'm just gonna go along the bottom or I might go across the center on the third one. I don't know yet. So that's what we're doing today. It's gonna be a beautiful day. Almost 70 degrees which is quite unusual for my birthday. Can't even tell you how many birthdays I've had. Two feet of snow got a snowstorm for my birthday but I don't know if I said I'm 62. 62 years young hopefully. Gonna have to start writing that on my forehead because ever since I've been 50 something there have literally been times when I forgot how old I was because not necessarily because I have Alzheimer's yet but just because I don't pay attention to that kind of stuff anymore. If you don't have to you know it's not like my daughter where you're looking forward to being 18 which she is. Can't believe she's 18 so she's looking forward to you know a lot of things. After 50 I kind of quit counting so that's why some years I literally forget how old I am. Then I just asked my husband how old are you and then I subtract two. Okay so I got that on there. So you're just gonna need the usual glue. I have tape. I have some stamps. I might do some stamping but I really don't think so. So now I'm gonna look for a word. Put it on there. Hopefully I have good paper here. Charming. Maybe I'll go with friend. I'm just looking this one real quick. So I hope everyone's doing well. Smiled and chanting. Okay I think I'm gonna put glorious and I see extraordinary and I see exquisite. I love this paper. You know sometimes well you all know sometimes I get tired of vintage and so does everyone. I think I should have put it was glorious. Keep that maybe. I think that space is calling for something so I'm probably gonna go there. I'm probably gonna use glue. So these really didn't mostly the design did all the work so that was helpful. So I didn't even get anything yet. I'm still deciding what I want. I have a wish list of my long so we went out to dinner already over the weekend. It's a co-celebration. Then I go to this place that has the best steak and the best hamburgers. They grind their steak or cut their own steak and grind their own meat. So let me see here. I know I want a piece of washi going over that. I think that's kind of cool. I see if I have something to do. It's probably a little too bright. How to work. Try to get that sleeve. So I get there and this is part alcohol which I always keep a little bit of alcohol in my water just so things dry faster. It's a little too much of a spray there. Let's see what I can get off of here. It's a little long. So anyway like I said I get there. That's what I got. And I can never decide if I want the burger or the steak. I'm going to try to make sure I can see that word through there and if I can't I'll use it. I might not use it. It's not there. So let me see if I can get another one with a little white, a little clear left. Don't go so close. This tape is... I always think that there's the end finally. Okay. I'm going to get a little clear. There we go. I'm going to put some blue on this too. So anyway I can never decide which one I want when I get there. And they also make the best potato salad. So when if they don't have the potato salad then I have to go to plan B. So I always say well okay if they don't have this then I guess I'm not having that. So I always end up just going for the burger because the burgers are so fabulous. But this time I did try a different burger. So I skipped the steak because I didn't... I feel like if I'm going to have steak I want the whole premier meal. And I want all of their signatures and their potato salad is a signature. They're always sold out of it by the time we get there. You have to get there and go much earlier to get the potato salad. Okay. So there's that. There's the bottom. Now I honestly don't know if these need any more. I was toying around with cutting out flowers and putting them on. I have some buttons. I have some stamps, some butterflies. Those little flowers go. There's one.  If they go on. We'll see. I'll see if I can add anything at the end. But I'm really have a little stamp. I'm really thinking they don't need much. Just let the design do the work. So yes after this, this evening, I might shop. We'll see. Trying to decide what what I want. I might end up buying a craft iron. Okay. So I have glorious enchanting, extraordinary, or exquisite. Probably exquisite. And there's the bottom. If you can hear that, I don't know. It's kind of... Let me see where I want to put the tape on this one. I don't know if I want to go up and down because probably not right there. I'm thinking. So that was pretty much that. As far as birthday. Let's see. What colors do I have left? I don't know if I'm gonna get anything off of here. This paper is a little thick. That's a little busy. What else do we have? Let's go for a little spot of that. Let's see how that works. I went to buy new tape and new glue. I accidentally left my glue stick open and I'll probably have to wait till near Christmas before they come back out with the invisible tape. A dollar tree. And they did not have a glue stick. So I just got that little pattern. I don't know if you can see that. Let's see what that's gonna do. It's even gonna show up barely. Okay. Let's see. Come through here. See if I can get something a little more exciting. Oh, that's kind of interesting. There's any glue in there or not. Maybe. Let's try that. So I saw some interesting Etsy news this last week. Apparently if you open a new shop, well first of all let me practice by saying that they had a survey and they got so many responses they had to shut it down early. That's not much better but I don't want to take the time. Let's see how it shows up if at all slightly but at least I can still read my words. So anyway they had a survey and had to shut it down early and then apparently if you open a new shop you're gonna have to pay because they want to get rid of people who aren't serious. Yeah, like two years too late. So I don't know what's gonna happen on Etsy but it's not looking good. Why they did what they did in letting two over two million, oh wait how many is it? Almost five million new shops in two years is beyond me but they did and now this seems like a retro, retrofit solution to a problem, a self-created problem. So I've been thinking I don't know how much longer I'm going to be on Etsy. Just gonna play it by ear, which I've been doing for the past year and a half since I recognized, since I discovered there was a problem and began to investigate as to why there was a problem. So I used every little scrap and I just created some extra tags and I'm gonna string these up hopefully quickly and see if those tags need anything else. I was toying with putting a paper bead on somewhere but I couldn't make it work. I ordered some new bulb pins and now that's your fraying already. I didn't even get you in the hole. Let me get a needle. I do have a safety pin project possibly coming up that I've been wanting to do for a while. Okay, there's number two but I don't know. It seems like Etsy's going to jump the shark if they don't come up with a solution. You can't make it through the churn and you can tell just by your stats that people aren't seeing your items and because there's too many shops and there's nothing you can do about that unless you want to spend all your time marketing for Etsy and going outside and hoping to draw more customers in, which I'm not about to do anymore than I already do because that's why I'm on a platform in the first place to take advantage of. It's like being in a mall and there's no advantage to being in a mall. Why be there? Okay, so with just that many shops and that many products, if you can imagine seven million people probably have at least a hundred products and even if you advertise you're probably not getting on page one. I don't know if they have a tier structure for advertising. They don't go by conversion rate. It's praying a little bit but I'll fix it later. Okay, they don't go by conversion rate so they might put bestsellers on the front page but they don't seem to go by whether a store is... they don't seem to go by stats most people would go by. Let me put it that way. So I don't know. Okay, so there's tag number two. Very simple. Number three. That says Exquisite. I don't know if you can read that. That's just scraps. I wanted to use every inch of that paper I cut off and I did use most of it. There's tag number one again. Enchanting. Very simple but I know my daughter would probably like something like that a lot better. So now I have some tags and paper and I love this paper and I probably will make some ATC cards with it because that would be a lot of fun. Okay everyone, thank you for stopping by. I'll see you next time. You have a great week. Bye.


My name is David Donohue. On behalf of the Institute of International and European Affairs, I'd like to welcome you to today's talk by the European Commissioner for International Partnerships, Jutta Opilainen. The Commissioner's Talk is the third webinar in the Development Matters series hosted by the Institute and supported by Irish Aid, the Irish Government's Development Cooperation Programme. We're delighted to have Commissioner Opilainen with us today. She'll speak for about 10 minutes, first of all, on the subject of harnessing inclusive multilateralism for international development. And she will then have a few minutes in which she can take questions from the audience. We're delighted to be joined also by the Director General of Irish Aid, Rory de Berke, who will deliver some remarks following the Commissioner's address. And the Commissioner's Deputy Chef to Cabinet Sandra Bartelt has also kindly agreed to answer questions when the Commissioner needs to leave us. Rory de Berke will also be available. Some housekeeping points. The Commissioner's presentation and the subsequent Q&A are all on the record. You're free to pose questions using the Q&A function at the bottom of your screens whenever they occur to you during the event. And we'll do our best to get to them. We welcome also those who are participating via YouTube. And you're invited also to join the discussion on Twitter using the handle at IIEA and the hashtag should mention that the Institute is currently celebrating its 30th anniversary. Let me turn now to Commissioner Opilainen. Her role involves, as you know, providing managerial oversight and strategic direction for the European Union's vast programme of activity in support of international cooperation and sustainable development. And Ms Opilainen served as a member of the Finnish Parliament from 2013 to 2019. She was the first woman to lead Finland's Social Democratic Party from 2011 to 2014. She served as Finland's Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister. And we are honoured and delighted to be here that you're with us today. You have the floor. Thank you very much. And first of all, thank you for the invitation to speak at today's webinar. And congratulations for the Institute's 30th anniversary. The topic of today's discussion is actually very timely. Today's reality sees a post-war multilateral system under pressure. Unilateralism is on the rise. And after the false end of history, we are back to more competitive international environment. We are back to power politics, but also competition between societal models. At the same time, actually, we face a growing number of global challenges that cannot be addressed by any country alone. Climate, environmental and biodiversity crisis, widening inequality, under-regulated migration, erosion of democracy. And now the global pandemic, which has caused huge societal and economic damage. Concerted international action is no longer an option, but a necessity. Yet this is more difficult to secure than unilateralism. Against this background, the EU must revise multilateralism. And not only in multilateral organisations themselves. We need to pursue our ambitions throughout our international partnerships. So dear friends, what does this mean? Firstly, the multilateral system and the EU's place in it. Europe believes multilateralism to be the most effective means to regulate international relations, protect the most vulnerable and promote open societies that leave no one behind. So in other words, to build a sustainable future from which all can benefit. It's in our DNA. The EU and UN were set up at the same time. Our values are the same. Yet there is no place for complacency. The ultimate objective is impact. We want to work with multilateral organisations, but do so in a way that is effective and delivers results. In February, as you know, we published a joint communication on strengthening the EU's contribution to rules based multilateralism. And this communication really sets out our vision for re-energising and reforming multilateralism. The multilateral system needs to be more fit for purpose. This means making international organisations more accountable, more transparent and more results-oriented. It also means developing governance in emerging areas not yet subject to global governance, particularly those where national boundaries mean nothing. For instance, how do we secure the right balance of rights and responsibilities for major multinationals, including major technology companies? It also means building inclusive multilateralism to ensure the full range of partners, private, public, regions, governments, civil society, participate in multilateral decision-making. Partnership is one of the five pillars of the 2030 Agenda. It is an abler for the other piece, which are pupil, planet, prosperity and peace. So the EU will work in an open and excessive way with partners, while being more strategic and targeted at the same time. This also includes partnerships with like-minded partners and regional organisations, as well as civil society. We will work with them at a multilateral level to advance our strategic priorities, which are green deal, digitalisation, sustainable growth and jobs, migration and peace, security and human development. The COVID crisis has shown the value of multilateral action to address shared challenges. So working with multilateral partners, there is an opportunity for real, real impact, an opportunity to shape global responses to 21st century challenges. So dear friends, this brings me to my second point. Being more strategic and targeted also implies speaking and delivering as a strong and visible European Union in a well-coordinated approach with its member states. Europe faces mounting competition from an increasing number of emerging or re-emerging powers. And in this more contested world, we can no longer afford to luxury of fragmentation and duplication. In early spring 2020, so one year ago, all major European development actors decided to come together to help partner countries deal with the shock of the pandemic. And this new way of working in a Team Europe approach combines resources, expertise and networks of the EU, but also from the member states, their implementing agencies and European development finance institutions. So this innovation arose in a grave moment of crisis where scale, coordination and focus were necessary for maximum impact. And I'm very delighted to tell you that we are now using the current EU programming of our funds for the period up to 2027 to develop Team Europe initiatives. So we also are doing this programming exercise in a Team Europe way. These Team Europe initiatives, they will focus on coordinated actions to bring strategic transformation in areas related to key EU priorities. The Green Deal, human development, digital, growth and jobs, good governance and migration. So ladies and gentlemen, securing a multilateral system that is fit for tackling the challenges we face is far from easy. But the crisis has brought home the absolute need for us to work together and not selfishly. And the Team Europe approach with its wealth of skills, experience and partnerships offers real hope for positive change.  Together, let's deliver as one Team Europe. So greetings from Brussels and looking forward to our conversation. David, I don't hear you now. I was thanking you, Commissioner, for that terrific tour of the force on the challenges facing the EU. And I'd now like to ask Roy de Berca to pick up the gauntlet as a word, to take up the challenge that the Commissioners put out. What are we doing, Roy, from the Irish perspective, to respond to this challenge? Yeah, thanks, David and Tito's Commissioner. Thank you. Really useful and I think interesting remarks there. And what are we doing? Well, I think in the first instance, I mean, we are, we've moved to be net contributors. So the amount of money that Ireland is putting into the shared pot has gone up. It's more than doubled in quantum over the last decade. And it's gone from about 16% of our ODA in 2013 to 25% of our ODA today. And I think that means we have to play a better game. You know, we have to ask better questions. And we have to become a much more active member of Team Europe, which has been a fantastic innovation, one which we've embraced. And I think from a smaller member state perspective, Team Europe allows us the possibility of contributing to a greater whole, but also maybe being catalytic, I would hope, in trying to encourage the member states and to work in a more communitarian way in country with the institutions. And I think we need to do better. And I think we're at the beginning of a journey where we try and maximize the highest common factor of our collective actions. And I really would be interested in hearing from you, Commissioner, how you would see a member state of Ireland size try to do better in terms of Team Europe. And that partnership approach that you mentioned that is at the heart of the 2030 agenda that David with Kenya helped us achieve. And the symbolism of the renaming of your role to the Commission of International Partnership is really important. And I think we have to work with you to put life into that, to breathe into it, and to help you take it forward. And I think we're really interested to hear how you see that we can use our voice in New York, in Geneva, elsewhere, married with our actions on the ground to try and maximize that sense of working together to making that rules-based system be as effective as we want as a member state. That's at the heart of our development cooperation policy, but it's at the heart of our foreign policy more generally. There's an Irish phrase, we live in the shadow of others. And I think that multilateral system is the umbrella that smaller countries take shelter under. And I think that's the truth, not just for us within Europe, but more broadly. So really interested to hear your comments as to how we could help you help us on this journey. Thank you. Thanks very much. Commissioner, would you like to come back in on some of those points where you raised? Yes, thank you very much. And yeah, I have a couple of points I would like to make also relating to your comments. And the first one is that I think we have, as I told you, we do this programming exercise now a bit differently, because we have really at the country level to be able to define these Team Europe initiatives through our EU delegation together with the member states, but also with the financial institutions like European investment bank. And we have defined approximately 150 Team Europe initiatives around the world. And what Ireland could do is definitely to be part of these initiatives. So I really hope that you could contribute and participate in these different initiatives, especially in Africa, but also elsewhere. And I think there are several policy areas where you have experience and also competence to provide us and to be part of this journey and joint approach at the country level. So I can't remember now by heart to how many initiatives you are already planning to participate. But I think there are always room for improvement. So of course, you know, this is the one message I wanted to pass. The second relating to multilateral organization, you know, that what we could do more in order to work as a Team Europe in different international organizations. I think this is very, very important question. And I want to give you one example. For instance, education. Under the previous MFF, we funded around 7% of our external funding or financing to education. So 7% went to education. Now because of the COVID-19, I wanted to increase funding to education to be at least 10%. If we look at the global architecture, eight architecture of education, there are several players. We know that the many European Union member states are also, you know, providing financial support and aid to those organizations, like also to partner countries. So that actually 50% of ODA to education comes from the European Union member states or the Commission. So we are the biggest donor. But how well are we coordinated? Do we really, you know, have this kind of a strategic vision that how are we able to provide access to quality education to the children and adolescents of the world in Africa or elsewhere? No, we don't have that. And that's why we need more coordination. And I think the coordination is needed also in order to strengthen the visibility of the EU action.  And also from that perspective, I think in order to achieve results, but also to strengthen the visibility, we need to be well coordinated. And that's what I try to do now. Of course, at the UN level, so in the UN family. But also, I would say that the role of the IFIs is very, very crucial. So how do we work within the World Bank as a team? How do we work within the IMF as a team? So I would say that this need for improvement in the name of coordination is not only in the UN family, it's more broadly everywhere where we really are, you know, participating in the international organization. So, but this is the priority. And step by step, we try to also make progress. We should thank you very much. I'd like to bring in a couple of questions now from the audience. So, if I may begin with one of my own, I'm delighted that you are putting delivery of the STGs at the center of your efforts. And I wish you every success in that regard, especially as we move further into the decade of action. But in the joint communication in February, you recognized that COVID-19 is having a negative or regressive effect on delivering the STGs. I mean, what do you think the EU can do to try to ensure that we build back better on the basis of the STGs, that we use the STGs as a positive agenda to get beyond the COVID or to respond to the COVID-19 challenges? Thank you. And this topic is actually very close to my heart because being a commissioner for international partnerships, I really see that STGs and Agenda 2030 is a kind of framework for our activities and cooperation. And definitely, COVID-19 has had a negative impact, we know that. And that's why actually we proposed, so as a commission, we proposed the Global Recovery Initiative last year, where the idea was to combine debt relief, debt restructuring, but also investments, both private and public investments to STGs. Because of course, as a politician, I always need to be honest and I want to do that and I want to be. We are not able to achieve sustainable development goals by the year 2030 without a very strong engagement with the private sector. We know that the challenges are so huge, and they are now even bigger than they were before the COVID-19. So the only way to really achieve those goals is firstly, we need a very strong commitment from the governments to increase their public finances to our partner countries and also their commitment to support debt restructuring especially in Africa. Because their fiscal space is so limited that they are really not able to operate without debt restructuring. And the second commitment we need is from the private sector, so that really they are part of this approach. And that's why what the European Union can do is really to push forward this Global Recovery Initiative we launched last year so that the whole international community buys in in a way and also commits to this initiative. Thank you Commissioner. A question from Porig Carmody who is with Trinity College in Dublin. Porig refers I think to other countries outside the EU and asks whether the commitment that we do see within the EU to inclusive multinationalism, whether other countries outside the EU are similarly motivated. Is it your sense that the EU is acting to some extent on its own in trying to rebuild multinationalism? That's a very good question and I think of course during the past year we have been really in the middle of pandemic and crisis and you know the focus has been you know on the exit strategy how to get out of the crisis. Now we can see that more and more in Europe but also in the US and elsewhere the focus is on recovery but we have to remember that still you know in the great majority of the countries of the world the focus is on the exit strategy. So they are still really struggling with the crisis and that's why we of course need to help them for for instance with vaccines and so forth. But my impression is that whenever we are at the stage of recovery and really we can also think of the lessons learned in a way that you know what we learned from the crisis we are able to discuss a bit more deeply or more in a detail on multilateralism that you know what do we and how do we want to revise the multilateral organization and the multilateral system and we wanted to put to the table this idea of inclusive multilateralism because we see that it's not enough anymore to operate only with you know intergovernmentally that you know the governments are negotiating and then we make agreements and then we either implement those agreements or not but we also need to because these you know the challenges we are facing for instance the climate change it's not enough you know to operate through the governments we need them of course but we also need to engage with the private sector as I explained in my previous answers but also with the civil society. So the idea of this inclusive multilateralism is also to build up a different networks like we actually did in the COVID-19 crisis because first we operate it you know mainly between the governments but then we started to operate also with GAVI and WHO and you know with other stakeholders of the international community so this is the idea of the inclusive multilateralism and personally I'm very optimistic that we are able to get support also outside the EU and especially now looking at the US and the new administration in the US I really hope that this could be one of the topics to cooperate and work together with them. Great thank you Commissioner there were many many questions I know your time is limited but let me try and get to some of them. Donald Cronin who is with Irish aid asked to what extent are the STGs being followed through by the other European commissioners by your colleagues in the college and what are the challenges of ensuring coherence across the EU's action in support of the STGs? Yes actually this is of course I'm a new commissioner so I don't know what was the tradition in the previous colleges or commissions but I can tell you that we really try to work in a holistic and comprehensive way within the commission so of course we know that now you know for instance STGs are part of this semester European semester procedure and Paolo Gentiloni as a commissioner for economics is responsible for that but you know also with with other DGs and commissioners we try to work as a team and of course this programming exercise I was referring to also earlier this gives us gives us an opportunity also to to look in a holistic way you know the green deal digitalization human development all those policy priorities which are in a way part of the sustainable development goals but also they are priorities for the current commission and we do this programming exercise together with the different DGs within the commission so even though I'm the you know the the commissioner who is responsible for NDG Global Europe this new financial instrument for my portfolio countries we do this programming exercise together with my colleague and other DGs also within the commission and that's also the way to take taking into account of course their expertise and really have this kind of a holistic and comprehensive approach also relating to STGs but David thanks for this opportunity it was great to be for a while in Ireland and have a very nice spring and somewhere actually and looking forward to outcome of this great conversation and my dear deputy head of cabinet Sandra is then replacing me thank you very much commissioner we really valued you giving us your time this morning it's terrific to meet you this way we hope you can come physically to Ireland at some stage and in the meantime we wish you every success and I know that Irish aid will be working very very closely with you and your team thank you very much indeed okay so Sandra can I welcome you to continue the conversation on behalf of the commissioner let me ask another couple of questions which have been coming in Sandra do you think that a stronger cooperation on global health will be part of will be achievable over the coming period in response to the pandemic is is it something where you think team Europe will be able to make a contribution yes thank you very much and also good afternoon afternoon from my side to Ireland so definitely global health will be a policy area in which more multi-level and which we will see more multilateral cooperation and also more team Europe approaches so we have already seen how it has started it has started with the COVAX initiative that commissioner Opeline also mentioned and now we are also working very closely together with member states to see also how we can roll out and distribute vaccines to our partner countries and this can be done preferably through COVAX or other bilateral sharing mechanisms so there are a lot of practical examples here so COVAX is maybe the most known but then we are also now looking very much to Africa and the African Center for Disease and Control that is also a bit under the auspices of the African Union and or the Pasteur Institute in Senegal where it is multilateralism but with regional partners or regional organizations and we are also trying to do this of course with our member states in a team Europe approach where it is always possible on the other hand you can see that for instance now in Geneva they are negotiating or they are looking at the possibilities to negotiate this new international pandemic treaty and this is of course another dimension in a way because this then really goes into an international agreement legally binding and here I think the cautiousness is maybe bigger than when it comes to just coordinated cooperation that can deliver concrete results in terms of policy financing and cooperation activities so we need to see but here of course also if it was to come the international pandemic treaty this would also be something where the commission would be mandated by the member states to negotiate and to be representing the union and to coordinate with the member states in this of course. Thank you very much Sandra just still on on team Europe a question from Ashfa Quresi who asks whether South Asian countries will feature on the agenda for Team Europe. Yes definitely what we are looking at in the programming exercise so we are trying to have maximum two team Europe initiatives per partner country not more because we want to ensure that the team Europe initiatives that they are consistent and coherent with our programming priorities and normally we only have three priority sectors that is coordinated and based on the partner countries poverty strategy and so we do not I mean we do not want to lose focus here and we want the team Europe initiatives also to fit into these priorities and this is why we are saying maximum two team Europe initiatives per country but so far what we have seen I mean now it is still work in progress but what we have seen is that we have a really one or two team Europe initiatives in relation to each country. Thanks Sandra coming back to the issue of more effective modularism what can the EU do to strengthen or to improve its own representation in the IFIs and to speak with one voice there given the various challenges posed by the treaties and the starters of the EU there. Yes this is also an area that is addressed in the multilateralism communication and you might have there are also currently council conclusions actually in preparation for in preparation of the UNGA this year that is also dealing with multilateralism and here first of all it is the coordination through the boards so with the European board members in W in the World Bank and in the IMF so and we are already having this kind of we are inviting them once a year to Brussels and now last year was virtually but and then we are trying to coordinate and we try to talk about our priorities and objectives in working with the IFIs that's one thing but the other thing is then of course to speak with one voice and to be also able to represent the EU and its member states at the multilateral level and here you know of course that in at the UN for instance here sometimes we were not able to speak because we require this common accord or unanimity which is nowhere really stated in the treaties for these kind of statements but it is a practice and here from the commission side we are told we are actively promoting the qualified majority approach so that we are not really weakening our representation in international bodies and that we are able to speak on behalf of the EU and its member states with one voice so to also be a truly geopolitical actor there yes yeah there are various questions on Team Europe Sandra one of them asks really whether the Team Europe approach can lead to better outcomes on migration given the lack of solidarity in relation to EU migration policy among member states yes so this is this is of course a very important policy area that we will have to address so under the new funding instrument that the commissioner also mentioned and the global Europe we have a spending target of 10 percent for migration and here I think also that the expectations from member states are going to be very high because so far under the last MFF we always had the European Union trust funds on for instance the emergency trust fund in Africa and they foresee possibilities where member states are very closely involved in the different projects through the operational boards of these trust funds but they will now be discontinued because now we have the new MFF we have sufficient funding and we should be able to roll this out whatever however we have committed to also address migration at the regional level to be able to top up for instance national programs when it is necessary and here we have also seen already a couple of interesting Team Europe initiatives on migration for instance Spain for western Africa they are thinking about a regional Team Europe initiative there and that we are looking in with them great let me turn Sandra to EU Africa relations I mean how how can we use the the closer cooperation between the EU and the EU to strengthen multilateralism within Africa or on the issues facing African states this is I should say something of great importance to Ireland and when you have spoken I might just ask Roy de Broca to come in on that from the Irish perspective but if how do you see the EU-AU dialogue as a way of achieving more effective multilateralism yes this will also be a definitely an important actor in particular now in the run up to the EU summit that we are likely or that we're going to have probably another French presidency then and here we already see emerging events and high-level conferences and like you know the the finance financing for Africa on the 18th of May in Paris and so here we really see that the cooperation is accelerating and the African Union will be a very important actor in this absolutely so and how this is going to be done in concrete I guess that when we're coming a bit closer to it that there will be also a roadmap towards the summit that we have such a roadmap we will be presented with such a roadmap and there are then the different member states commission will have their respective roles there in but if I may also mention that also my commissioner she has been chief negotiator for the commission for the new post-scotland agreement with the with the organization of the African Caribbean and Pacific states and here we managed to close the negotiations the initiative the agreement and as compared to the previous agreement there is also language on international cooperation and that we really also want to mobilize this group of state in order to foster international cooperation and to coordinate our positions in view of forthcoming big international conferences so as such as the COPS conferences this year and indeed I suppose the food security summit that would be another one coming up in September yep Rory could I ask you to intervene on any of those points yeah and thanks David I mean and thanks Sandra I mean I think specifically on on on the EU EU summit I mean I think I think this is a this is a really important structure that we have to engage with and I think it's the it's one of those classic foreign policy dilemmas where where I think we can all see the importance of an EU dialogue that's really rich and functional but I also think that trying to bridge two different structures and I think sometimes there's a challenge to us you know in we're not the same the EU structure is much more integrated than the EU structures and I think sometimes we we miss the politics in it and I think that's a challenge to us as we move forward because the real issues that are on our shared agenda Europe and Africa you know ultimately have a lot of politics in them whether it's migration whether it's climate whether it's food and whether it's development but we know that we have to have you know the defining relationship for Europe in this century will probably be with Africa as it becomes you know the biggest continent in the world by population over the next 40 50 years so it's really strategic and I think that brings us back to the team Europe point you know and team Europe I mean I think there's the projects that the commissioner mentioned that you know we're currently planning on a deep engagement in about 20 but I think it's also about a state of mind I think it's more than just just just coming together to work on projects I think it is about how we how we work politically in a very engaged way as member states as 27 plus the institutions are in smaller groups and then feed it back up and there are going to be real challenges to us in that because the tensions between member states will play out for example in the discussion on you know coordination the IFIs you know that what's good for us collectively brokering that as we all navigate our national positions is going to be a challenge and I think this is where you know it's really good to see the commission take leadership and pushing a team Europe approach I do think we're at the beginning and I think in that effect of multi-lateralism that we've been talking about today and that sense of a world that's becoming more challenging you know the tectonic plates of global power are shifting we are going to have to come up with new and smarter ways of working together that's intensely political intensely practical and much better coordinated over the decade to 2030 and I do think you know we're at the beginning of that at the moment and I think there's a journey to go but but it's a good beginning and I think we can take take a lot of hope from that so that's just a reflection that I have from the very from the conversation so far with that David back to you thank you worry another question here Sandra it relates to the challenge of getting bigger financial flows for the least developed countries and fragile states currently only about 6% of development finance which is mobilized goes to the LDCs what can we do for example in building on the NDICI regulation in the MFF what can we do to increase the flows available for LDCs yes so here I mean I don't have now the full figure but it is also in the objective of the NDICI that they should be treated with a priority so that those should be looked at financially with a priority and if you see the financial allocations in the NDICI this somehow also matches with these objectives because we have most of the LDCs in sub-Saharan Africa and this is where most of our funding is going so here we have 29 million and here we have most of the LDCs already by definition we have this amount of funding that needs to be dispatched among the sub-Saharan African countries thank you very much Sandra I mean coming back just to the general issue of inclusive multilateralism you know clearly there are forces within the EU who are which sort of act in a different direction you know there is nationalism there is populism in some member states how competent are you that we can keep a consensus going within the EU in favor of of multilateral approaches I mean how can we keep the entire number of member states on our side in relation to that well I think that for the European Union as also being an international organization and so by definition being in way part of the multilateral system as the commissioner said it's part of our DNA it's part the values on which the union is founded are the same values and the values of the united nations for instance so and and this is something very important to have better participatory approaches and the rule of law democracy human rights as the underlying principles of this reinvigorated multilateral system because I think what we have seen in the past is also that big players are using the multilateral system in a way pretending there are being multilateralists but pushing their own national interests and we want to move away from that and reinvigorate it also on the basis of the values that they are sharing so this is a very important point for us and I think here a key point will also be how to work together with like-minded partners and as the commissioner said now we're also having high hopes on on the US and coming back and being willing to engage into the multilateral system again we will have the EU-US summit on the 15th of June and I think also there that democracy and multilateralism what we can do together they'll be high on the agenda yeah I think that the the return of a US administration which is committed to multilateralism is obviously very encouraging dare I say a good friend of ours Samantha Power is now the head of USAID so we touch particular hopes to Samantha's arrival that you mentioned the UN Sandra you're absolutely right the EU and the UN are grounded in similar values are there sort of synergies that can be pursued between the the EU and the UN at country level if for example in in relation to delivering the STGs are there ways in which the EU and the UN can work more closely together at the at the country level yes this is actually what we are also trying to do now with this programming period because now for a couple of years the UN they have undertaken this very comprehensive UN development assistance reform and an important point of this reform is the UN resident coordinators that are in country and so for us it's also important to work together with them in country in order to really be aligned on the achievement of the STGs and yeah if you are also working in using the same frameworks in a way to see a bit what each donor is doing and how we can be complimenting each other so this is for us an important element and even more so since with the NICI we are following this principle of geographization so we have most of the funds that have been shifted to actually the the national levels and the regional level so that the cooperation with the UN for us will be very important at the country level thank you very much Sandra we're coming towards the end of this conversation there I mean there were many issues that one could take up for example the the whole area of climate multilateralism what the EU can do to ensure a really strong impact at COPS but the commissioner has touched on that a little bit the role of the private sector the commissioner didn't really have much time to go into that I mean if one is talking about inclusive multinationalism the private sector's contribution for example to achievement of the STGs is clearly vital are there particular initiatives which the EU can take or is already taking to mobilize the international private sector in support of of international development well um so for us the private sector is in the first place or I mean now I'm distinguishing between private sector and civil society organization of course I mean just private business private yes yes but because we're also doing a lot with civil society organizations and to have more to create more space for civil society you know shrinking space and here we are also thinking about having partnerships through our funding with civil society organizations now with private sector private sector I would see the private sector first and foremost in the context of our EFSD plus the financial arm of the NDICI and because here they can be among the illiterate counterparts and of course when we are for instance concluding the contracts with the big IFIs or European financial institutions then this is cascading down and the private sector is a very important element in there and for us what is important is to foster and mobilize investment also by mobilizing the private sector here so and this will be an important point I don't know whether you have heard the announcement of our president at the global health summit that we are looking now also into this team Europe initiative concerning manufacturing in Africa this would of course also be an example where we will need the private sector and where we'll also need to create an investment climate for the private sector to invest like pharma pharma industry and here it will be important also you know to think about the transfer of technology and now how training technical assistance measures and all all these kind of things to really make a careful analysis on how we can best roll that out so this would be definitely now also in view of the of the global health crisis and what we were saying that this is also a core area of engagement multilaterally that this would be of course a flagship initiative for as a team group initiative no that sounds very interesting very worthwhile direction to go in Sandra thank you very much for being so generous both in your time and in the replies you've given to the very diverse questions we were really really grateful I found it fascinating and now I'd like to ask Rory to work out to just to say some final words really reflecting on both what the commissioner told us and the the Q&A session Rory over to you thanks David thanks thanks Sandra I mean it's not much to say I think because it's been said and look I think this is a really important discussion it's really important to have have both Sandra and the commissioner here partly because you know the as I said earlier on the the commission you know spends more of Ireland's ODA than any other actor in the world but I think much more importantly than that because the EU acting as the EU and the EU plus the 27 is the biggest development actor in the world and as the commissioner said you know if we can coordinate effectively we can be really really effective and that is a challenge to us I think in a more complicated world and the theme of today's discussion is around effective multilateralism how can we make multilateralism more effective and when we heard Sandra and the commissioner talk about the EU itself as a multilateral organization and that's true and I think and I think there is you know if you look at all of the positions that member states occupy in multilateral organizations I think it's clear we can do better collectively than we are doing and today's discussion I think is a reminder to us in Ireland that we need to think about how we coordinate more effectively and better to maximize return on our own investment but also to maximize you know our influence and our kind of collective safety and so I think you know just like team Europe is I think at a beginning I think this conversation is going to be one we're going to have to return to and I think today was a really really useful introduction to a theme that we'll have to take forward again so with that David I'll hand it back to you. Thank you very much Roy. One final comment from my own side is that I think in your earlier remarks Roy you referred to the interesting change of title for the commissioner and I agree I think it is quite significant that development is now presented explicitly in terms of partnership the commissioner herself referred to the fact that partnership is one of the five P's in the 2030 agenda and as I would say modestly I had some role in drafting those five P's but we were consciously trying to provide for partnership as the concept which will underlie implementation of the STGs partnership between all countries but also within individual societies between government the private sector civil society academia and indeed international organizations like the European Union so I'm glad that the commissioner's title has altered in that sense and it sends a very important signal I know that partnership has been a central theme for Irish aid for many years so let's just say that the commissioner's talk I think has brought all of these themes into focus for us and it is very very helpful and interesting to hear that presentation and Sandra renewed thanks to you for very ably answering a whole range of questions for which you wouldn't have had any advanced warning thanks a lot we really benefit from it we look forward to seeing both you and the commissioner on on future occasions the meanwhile the best of luck with your vital work okay and on behalf of the IIA I thank everybody who took part in in today's event and looking forward to the next events in this development matters series thank you all