tv David Cameron on Global Security CSPAN March 14, 2018 5:32am-6:45am EDT
bim active formulations committee comes to order reading to our distinguished witness but first without the potential russian involvement in your own country recently. and in the comments. we are delighted to have prime minister of the united kingdom 2010 through 2016 later the conservative party from 2005 through 2016. mr. cameron has devoted himself to chairing a commission on state fragility growth and development and that depends on social contract between the and their
government with the fundamental legitimacy is lacking traditional approaches with capacity building are not adequate. each state is vulnerable in some way that could not be understood not alone strengthened with the security perspective pounds and euros only to see them refer to conflict and stability and repression. one of the core questions i hope to lower is one that taxpayers here and in the u.k. are justified in asking. why do we concern ourselves? what challenges do they pose to our national interest? the number of refugees that are displaced persons around the world have never been greater human traffickers terrorist and arms dealers
with the safe haven a chaotic regime. with the destabilizing force routinely and globally have consequences national security. institutions must work smarter and together with a wide selection of tools at our disposal. it is the most effective when they can assemble the best minds in research to examine problems with fresh thinking and with that in mind i look forward to hearing what our distinguished witness has learned and how we can best collaborate with our friend to defend our common interest to prevent -- fragile state. with that i would like to ask our distinguished ranking member for any opening comments he may have. >> also prime minister thanks for having the opportunity and
to do very important work but before we get to that i would be remiss not to acknowledge the president unceremoniously dismissal of the top diplomat through twitter it is fragile states and the importance of strong governing two should respect in the rule of law on the b we to take a look inwards. it has been marked by chaos and to turn away from those values that made the united states vibrant and prosperous. we season leadership to address the normal additional challenges regrettably that is not the leadership i have seen in fact we have the opposite which pleases us severe strain and accelerates the decentralization of the regions. i certainly have my differences with secretary tillerson i cannot see the
hollowing out of our state department and remain silent i look forward to an opportunity to have a full vetting before the committee before the designee to be the new secretary of state because there is a vast cia director and i look forward to that opportunity. briefly mr. prime minister is an honor to have you before the committee and how we develop strategic policies and broadly speaking they do not effectively or equally represent or advocate for all people and experience high property and equality and the
citizen's are more susceptible to radicalization that indicates fragile states are increasingly responsible for the conflict in many parts of the globe. the united states has a vested interest to make investment and how we help build those states found fragile states with democratic institutions and rule of law. i will see say one americans wonder whether or not it is their national interest to be engaged across the globe i am reminded of the consequences of the interconnectedness we have in the world and what happened someplace else can
very often affect us at home and our interests abroad. mcdavid cameron served as prime minister ten through 2016 and during this time with a significant foreign policy challenge such as the arab uprising in the global fight against isis with u.k. a bending and also cochaired the sustainable development goals thinking for being here and it is certainly great for us to have you here with forward to the report so please begin. anything entered into the record.
and i thank you very much mr. chairman for the opportunity to talk about what is an incredibly important issue. maybe knocking not talking much about brexit but i have been chairing a commission on that one -- fragile state over the last year cochairing with the former finance minister of vermont and we have a very big academic input stanford and other u.s. leading universities and practitioners and policymakers from yemen and pakistan. so the nature of the problem and any other point.
so the problem mr. chairman is there is a set of countries supporting levels of corruption and high levels of conflict and in many ways failing state problems are not restricted we can see them as far filled but one of the reasons for having this commission the number of fragile states is actually increasing for fragility but there are two very big issues going into your introductory remarks some of them are poor than 40 years ago. to reduce the medicine for
going backwards. second these fragile states affect us in the developed world as it is health pandemic or the mass movement of people where terror training camp and take hold and so that affects the back at home so that nature is understood the commission is trying to really understand all of the elements of being a fragile state. there is a lot of good work being done and i'm a supporter of oversee aid we have achieved what others never have to get the gross national income spent on aid that was a promise and a lot of good work
is done with vaccination and education programs by lifting people out of poverty. but to be frank the aid may have helped in particular areas that they have not felt better. there are three things wrong with the current approach. we tend to give them and was list of priorities and that them up for failure. to ask the questions internationally with about those meeting those norms? that is hopelessly unrealistic so we set ourselves up for failure. second what we have been looking at is a poor focus. in many countries from the
basic governmental capacity those levels of security and the focus on what matters most to people and put food on the table. security and jobs and that is lacking. and a lot evidence has come through that quite a lot of what the international community has been doing has been counterproductive and good intentions working with fragile state that we go around the government trying to help them without actually assisting the authorities and why that is counterproductive because at the end of the day these countries will only succeed if the government becomes more legitimate or
capable and in many cases we have undermined that legitimacy. that is the current approach but we are still drafting our report and interested in the input of other countries are particular united states. but the source to work more on national priorities and backing their program and a more hardheaded approach through security and i think the issue of conditionality of course taxpayers do not want to see money endlessly sent that is wasted into where we only support your program if you agree to do this or this. there is an argument that it's
better to say to a fragile state, you have your national plan and we will back at instead of policy over governance if the money is : are wasted we pull back support we will back the plan but then they follow the ideas we are looking at. another issue is in the u.k. we have 50% of of the budget on fragile states and there is a strong case for others to take that similar route. so there are some points number one, peacekeeping. they do an incredible job but there is that? how long they can be effective. are we doing enough to back the basic security rather than holding together with peacekeepers? in the second point is
elections. i believe in elections and democracy that there is that argument whether with these fragile state to be rushed to election to put a western template toward the multiparty election in two quickly? can this lead to having an election in the winter then becoming one -- or using that outcome that conflict they were running? do we go from one person one vote into many circumstances? we have to think carefully about that also international financial institutions. is it one size fits all approac approach? did they give priority to the fragile state? treating them in a realistic way? actually looking at the
possibility of a new investing institution i think these are brilliant ideas because the support of the private sector to give the patient focus to be helped by well-defined institutions. another point is resilience they make limited progress or they to suffer from climactic events. can we help with insurance or other mechanisms.
and the strong case is made for that in many cases fragile state especially liberal rich ones have their money stolen and hidden in western countries including my own in the agenda to make sure that it is greater transparency that we can see owns what and to share tax information. tax avoidance and tax evasion that should be passed house with the fragile states. so the whole argument about fragile states is one me to the bigger argument about aid payments. we see a massive reduction to vaccinate children and
educating people with gender equality and other development goals. we can only continue to witness an argument and in the age where taxpayers asked about value for many need to talk about aid in fragile state to her own safety and security here. but i am convinced it isn't only a moral imperative in the last because we should be helping our neighbors, but also the security imperative because if we fail the problems of mass migration of terrorism and criminal gangs and people smuggling come back that's where i am sending time on this important issue and with that thanks for letting me comes to making for your testimony thematic mr. prime
minister great overview of the issues. i want to pick up on the ozone that you talked about with conditionality government and the rush to election as you describe that. freedom house latest annual report that it is the most serious crisis in decades with the basic tenants with right to minorities in freedom of press coming under attack under the world with the 12th consecutive year of decline and global freedom. this holds true in africa where leaders have attempted to circumvent obstacles democratic republic of congo refusing to sit down is a good example. so what is that intersection
maybe not rushing to election but democratic backsliding and fragility? or looking at donors to prevent backsliding where should we be focusing diplomatic efforts? because obviously wild me -- one may not want to brush elections but is not a pathway forward to those democratic principles below are transparency in all donor effort comes for nothing. this is a difficult question to answer is that we make a mistake if we take a fragile state to say the measure of success is how quickly the right constitution. .. ..
don't judge the success of the country simply by election. if you're dealing with a country recovering from conflict, if you rush to election, just wait for the election, try to win and complete the victory over their rivals because they won the election for what's required is a longer process of power-sharing in trying to deal with the fundamental
problems between the parties before getting to election. and we bear those things in mind. it's not saying we should be anti- elections are anti- democracy, zamora realistic approach that recognizes you can't go from afghanistan to denmark at 100 miles per hour. you have to resolve the fundamental problems in these countries to bring people together. >> i respect that answer. i look at the election of only one measurement of the totality of what we want to see a country in terms of rule of law and transparency and that may not all be solidified in an election for art those benchmarks we should be looking at because at some point you have to challenge the fragile state to move in
that direction. do we have to call for the elements of what a democracy is about not just elections to see what our peoples aspire for them. >> we do but if that's the main thing we measure we may not deal with the profound problem. i would say let's take to relevan relatively recent examples. afghanistan and yemen, in both cases arguably there wasn't a proper process of power-sharing, reconciliation coming together to form an effective provisional government before elections became the desired icon. it's a good argument to say we
should be in some way of trying to include conservative elements in some sort of national reconciliation. the same applies in yemen and power-sharing. that's always going to be more difficult and take longer, but if you're dealing with a fundamentally fractured country i would argue it's better to try to get that reconciliation power-sharing government together and perhaps measure the success of the provisional government. is it starting to do the things that will stop the state from feeling. public services and private sector economy and elections, all the elements of western democracy needs to follow shortly. if we measure speed to election were measuring the
wrong thing. we have to recognize what we've been doing has a networking. there are successful examples, rwanda would be a good case in point guard 1994, hideous genocide, country on its knees, incredible growth and recovery story. you can go for the back and by countries that might've had a fragile -looking start, even singapore so there are good examples but you have a number of countries i have been failure after failure after failure. more patient approach is perhaps one we need to think about. >> thank you so much for your service in this capacity.
we had an opportunity to briefly visit. one thing you may not have been aware of is that indiana is home to the largest burmese american community in our country. i have worked with senator merkley and others on the committee on legislative work pertaining to the ethnic cleansing by the burmese government of the rohingya population. i like your assessment with respect, if you a sense of the path forward, kindly share that with us and what broader lessons that we take away from a horrible situation. >> i was pride to be the british prime minister who
went to burma in a long time. things were beginning to open up anything we all have to admit, those of us who have been huge supporters of hers and the democracy processing berm about what's happened with respect there is appalling and it's still very disappointing the response of people who aspire to be democrats and believe in democratic societies who have allowed this to happen. it would take it back to the bigger question, we have all want to burma to move to democracy. we all wanted them to have a chance to stand and leave that
country and that is happening. there is a bigger question which is how are you going to resolve the tensions in this country and the ethnic differences. how will you have a government that represents all your people. there were problems with the different ethnicities and burma, including the rohingya and once apparent as it wasn't nearly high enough up in the priorities. i think that goes my point, passionate believer in the election, we are very focused on getting to those things in burma. did we make sure it was a burma for everybody? perhaps not. >> thank you. we will continue to collectively work on that situation and do whatever we can to be helpful to people of burma, the rohingya population
most especially. i'd like to turn out to the importance of crowding in private investment with respect to our development activities. last year i convened a subcommittee hearing on global philanthropy remittances as it pertains the international development. summer takeaways were that private-sector investment increasingly, it's a much greater. whether it's multilateral institutions or in a bilateral way from government. according to a 2016 report, this comes from the indiana university family school of philanthropy, 84% of all donors total economic development is through private financial flows. of course, we know that official government assistance plays a catalyzing role and
its essential private investment. one of the quick questions you ask in your testimony is how do we help to activate the private sector in the most fragile countries, creating jobs, growth and prosperity for everyone to share in. i believe that is the right question and like to know your answer. >> first of all, your point, you are absolutely right. remittances work overseas figures and they should be encouraged. the money flowing back into very broken countries like happy a is hugely important in the economy of that country. we should ask ourselves what we do to help that happen and there is a danger that some of these remittances get caught up in very appropriate and well-meaning legislation about money laundering and what have you. we do need to make sure were not holding back remittances. we should also encourage the
use of modern digital technology to transfer money because there are lots of ways you can save money by doing these things digitally while guarding against the dangers that bit coin and other mechanisms have. on your question about the private sector, one of the things we are fighting, the statement of the obvious, but in many of these countries there just isn't enough functioning or there's a very small functioning's private sector and there are problems with security that lie behind that but i would highlight two other things that we need to think about very seriously. one is that, as i've said, the feature of all the states as governments that lack even the basic capacity to get things done. there is an argument that says as they start to build that capacity, one of the most important bits is the bit of government that relates to the private sector and business
and relates to licensing and provision of services and all the rest of it. we need to think about how to supercharge that, how to make that happen more quickly. the second thing is, we always focus on infrastructure, how can businesses get their goods to market, how can they get their goods to port, are we building the correct rail and infrastructure. i think we've on emphasized, plenty of places you go to seeing this house is not for sale and the reason is because there is the clear property right or property register of people find what they thought was there is is sold by a crook without them knowing. the final.oh make the big lending institutions to a great job in promoting development in parts of the world but there is a question
in our mind, one are they focused on the most fragile states because if you apply lots of benchmark reports you will find that you only back the project in the slightly safer countries which would probably get the private sector back anyway. we have to focused on the most difficult countries and the most difficult projects because that's where we want to make a difference. in doing so, this will seem british but one institution which was the commonwealth has totally changed from being one that invested into other fronds into direct investment into specific projects and it targets fragile states. it has a whole set of targets to make sure it is putting the money into the most difficult and dangerous places. i think that is very helpful and as i've said, you're looking at the potential
institution that could do this and i think that would be a very positive development. >> thank you for your thoughts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you mr. prime minister for being here. one of the things you don't talk about in your remarks that i think is very important as we think about fragile states and how we can better support them is the importance of empowering women economically, improving their access to education, making sure they participate in any complex negotiations. data shows that does make a difference. you pointed out how well rwanda has done since their civil war, and in fact, one of the reasons they have been as successful as they have been is because women have played an equal role in that society
as it's been rebuilt. can you talk about what more you would like to see the united states and the west do in terms of supporting women in fragile countries. >> what i think is absolutely crucial and sustainable development goals which i play some role in the committee that was set off in which i cochair with the president of indonesia and five area, i thought we gave a much greater priority to gender equality and i think it's much stronger than what was there previously probably think it's absolutely crucial. the only reason it's not in the memo i sent out is we are really looking at what are the things we need to do differently in fragile states as compared to other poor countries. we need to apply the views that we share about the
importance of gender equality and what a massive driver of a quality can be. we need to apply that everywhere, fragile states included. i think what my memo is focusing on what we need to do differently and what is actually failing, but in terms of the support that britain or america gives in terms of aid, i think gender should be an absolutely crucial part of it in my plea would be that we stick with what we have historically delivered and we go on doing that and my plea here of course is that is not for me too tell you what to do but to keep going with usaid programs which you have done in enormous amount for gender equality. it is often the one thing that can absolutely flip the growth rate and progress of the country. they can see they are falling behind and even in saudi arabia they are beginning to realize that disadvantaging half of the talent of the
country or considerably more than half is not a sensible approach. >> i would urge you to that to your list even though you're making that distinction for people who are just looking at this, it's an important reminder about how important that is. as you look at countries or regions where you are particularly concerned about them deteriorating further or where you think intervention in a different way might change the outcome, are there particular countries or regions where you would urge us to look, especially hard at what we are doing? >> i would say first of all, i think it is worth differentiating between levels of extreme poverty that we want to tackle according to the sdg. that in between fragile states.
i think it's worth having a focus on fragile states. when we look at the world's poorest, we can see india and china, still home to a huge percentage of the world's poorest are actually lifting people out of poverty at quite a rate. soon we will get to a position where 50% of the world's poorest, those living on less than two dollars a day, 50% will be in fragile states. i think the focus should be on the fragile states. britain puts 50% of our bilateral aid program into fragile states and i hope other countries will look at doing the same thing. in terms of geographically where they are, many of the most fragile states would be in africa, barbarian, there are lots of countries that have suffered from conflict, corruption, weak governance, lack of resilience, all of those characteristics but you can also find them elsewhere
in every continent. there are fragile states. i think one of the most remarkable things is that you often find countries next door to each other with quite similar characteristics but one is a success and the other is not. botswana, massive success story. middle income country. columbia, coming out of complex, economically successful venezuela, what's interesting, what's the difference between these countries. it's not climate or geography, it's actually governance and leadership. the decisions they made in the choices they've taken. that reinforces our view that you can do something about fragility. you have to focus on governance. as you stop focusing on governance you get into difficult questions about how you help because you can't have a neil imperial program. you can't impose your own agend agenda.
if you can help with those modest improvements, governance can make a difference. >> i know i'm out of time but i think it's important to reinforce what you said, it's not just about governance. it's also about leadership and who the leaders are so you can have a great government structure, but if you don't have a leader who helps lead the country in the right direction, that governance structure doesn't account for what we would all like to see. >> you think there's something on that which the commission would really appreciate your views which is, i think if you look back at the advances out of utility, it might be a new president or the end of the war. in rwanda it was a national event so horrific that it gave a leader a chance to take the country in a different direction. i think that might have an implication about how we decide to spend money because
if what we do is just have continued programs for countries that sometimes failure after year after year, we just keep going, maybe that's not a good use of our money. it might be better if we say here's a country that has a genuine opportunity of change because of one of these events and put more resources and effort into that. we might want to think about how we a lot money, how we prioritize and there may be some cases where the governance in a particular country is so bad that we simply say were not going to help because we cannot have the guarantees and money will not be wasted and corruption will continue because it's not fair on our taxpayers to go on supporting a country where they're not even achieving the basic norms of governance in order to make sure the money isn't stolen. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here and thank you for what you are doing. i was just thinking, the
chairman and i went to the sudan into the president, the country that you referred to and i think both of those are primary examples of the two ways in which fragile states can exit or stay. the cdm goal to keep it a fragile state and the people saw a lot of the rich countries where the leadership keeps the money and they don't invest in the people so they had to build a way out of the poverty they had. then you take the opposite example, rwanda is the example where they came in and ended up horrible genocide and through economic empowerment and teambuilding which was just leadership, they exited a mass slaughter of each other and the national basket company of rwanda is a ten
height where every morning to two women go and divide up and wanted to get in each square on the floor and it's gone out in shock and they make two baskets a week. they fill those baskets and sell them to bloomingdale and new york and make it the commission on the sales and what they did, they've got the making baskets together instead of cutting each other's heads off. they created economic empowerment to the women and they built their way to a successful country. i know there were some issues but you gotta give them credit. i saw bob corker dig a tree out of the middle of the path in a little village we were in. the room about? there watching them clap and
we were taking it. that was leadership and they did those things to improve their structure. i think you want is a perfect example of how you can exit fragility and going to prosperity through economic empowerment and governance and through leadership. may not be our type of governance or our type of leadership, but just comparing that to al bashir and the people in sudan appear to be captive of a man whose dream is to keep them captive in the poverty. >> i would agree with a lot of what you said. i think rwanda is an example of effective leadership comes as no doubt he has been effective at delivering economic development but i think it also goes to the point i'm making about it was a rwandan national program. we didn't come in and impose our ideas and objective spirit was their plan and we backed their plan. i was talking to the president about this the other day. he said i'm very happy for you
to say if you find any of this money wasted, if you find the budget support you've given goes on, take the money away. but it's got to be our plan because you've got to allow, in the end these countries only escape if their institutions grow in both their capacity to get things done but also their legitimacy. they have to be seen as legitimate by the people. i think it is a good example. they focused on some important economic things. the time it takes to get goods from will rwanda. it used to take three weeks and i've got that down to a number of days and that was just because they were focused on what you need to get a private sector economy going. i think it's a very good example of what goes wrong when the country was divided, i don't think the international community was focused on the reconciliation, the needed to take place within sudan.
they started out with elections and all the rest of it without proper reconciliation between the tribes in south sudan, in terms of how power was going to be shared in checks and balances would be in place. it's possibly an example where the international community could be tougher because the economy is based on a mixture of oil and aid in those are two things of which the international community could exercise some leverage in order to try to ensure there is a proper way of sharing power in that country rather than just carving it out. >> thank you very much for your leadership. helping these states work their ways out of and establish the goals and leadership to work their way out into prosperity is something all of us could do to help. it would reduce our need for foreign aid or assistance but would improve the needs of those people 100 times over so thank you for your leadership. >> senator cardin. >> mr. prime minister, it's a pleasure to have you here, and i agree with your statements, it's about basic government
capacity as the key to dealing with the fragile states. we can't solve that problem by going around the governments. it may provide humanitarian assistance to the people that are still suffering, but it's not going to deal with the stability the fragile states. we do need to have a government accountability and that's why conditionality of affecting government change is the way i think we need to go. i want to talk a little bit about what i think is one of the major goals and that is to deal with the corruption that we see in fragile regimes. we have a lot of very poor countries where the leaders are doing extremely well because of corruption. you mentioned transparency. one of the areas we have been trying to work with in congresses transparency in the industry because a lot of the fragile states have minimum wealth but it's going for corruption rather the people itself.
the united nations took a major step forward in this sustainable development goal, number 16 which, for the first time dealt with governance as part of our major objective. the first round we had pretty good success so now under sustainable development goals, how can we coordinate an international effort. i understand the united states need to take a lead in the uk needs to take a lead but how can we mobilize the international effort to focus on accomplishing goal 16 which would help us with governance and fragile states so that we can have accountability and we can do something on a more permanent basis. >> i'm so glad you mentioned goal 16 because when i chaired that committee with the other leaders, it was one of the things i was determined to do, to get a goal on governance and corruption and rule of law and justice into whatever the
world agreed too. with the committee that we had that included countries of all different shapes and sizes and political outlooks, it was something to get it in there. when we went out and asked people what is that you most want from these goals, of course number one was tackling poverty. the same thing was access to justice. that was the cry from the poorest countries in the world. i think the answer to your question is that we have to lead by example. there are 70 cases of money stolen from poor countries and hidden in rich ones that of course we want those countries to be less corrupt. we want them to have morals in place and courts that work and we want people to go to prison when they steal money and all the rest of it, but we won't be able to have that leverage unless we sort our own act out and that's why when i chaired the g8 i put this issue of
beneficial ownership. we need to have a register so you can see who owns what. preferably having an open one so can be searched by members of the public but i think a minimum standard is that everyone should have one of these registers so that when you're looking for stolen assets, you can look and you can find them wherever they are. i would come by not with this crucial thing about sharing tax information between countries, including between poor countries in rich countries and that might mean we have to use some of our aid money to help these countries build their own tax capacity and tax inspection. if we do these things, there's a chance we can have a far bigger conversation about how we tackle corruption. we can say were sorting our own situation out. if the money has been hidden in delaware or london or paris, you can come find it. and the other piece that goes with that is returning stolen
assets. we've got to make that faster. you often find people vast larceny. and not just stealing small amount of money. it's billions. it would make material difference if they divided it up and gave it back to the people they took it from. i think there's a whole set of things that make this a global effort. >> let me say one thing this committee is doing. we passed legislation. it hasn't been taken up in the floor. there's an example of corruption so we can start best practices and rate countries and use that as a guideline for our development assistance to deal with corruption in countries. trafficking has been taken on
globally to fight that. >> i completely agree. i chaired in london, one of the first anticorruption conference and set out a whole roadmap that countries needed to do and we need too, i hope congress can help with that. sharing tax information and returning assets and making sure people who are corrupt aren't serving in public office, a whole bunch of stuff that we can encourage them to do. that can sometimes feel like a complicated battle. the truth is the world come along way and what was a very unequal struggle between big oil companies dealing with governments that were weak and
corrupt, we live in a different world now where there's far more understanding about what fair deals are what deal sees companies should come to. it could seem quite boring. >> thank you. >> it's a pleasure to be with you. thank you for being with you. when you talk about weak and corrupt countries and how you can get away from this, it does seem that information is helpful at all levels, if you think about what cell phones have done and electricity to allow people who are growing crops to not just be dependent on knowing the price from the guy who comes up with the truck and offers only so much money. they now know what price to ask for. this has helped in terms of medicine and technology and you have to make sure they have access to the cell phones, which they certainly do. when you talk about governance and terms of not imposing our
own views but allowing people to govern, sometimes i see the united states try to make decisions that they will only allow you to subsidize this power but not that power and what happens to be a global overview rather than putting electricity into the hands of people right there. in terms of just being able to refrigerate food versus what's best for the people on the ground. to give them the information to then get out of the situation. >> it think you're right. there's an enormous opportunity to use technology to do development better. i just give a couple examples, one is transparency. if it's clear how much money usaid is spending and how much money is going to schools, you
should be able to publish that money, you should be able to follow the money to the schools and all of that now come he can publish it and i think we should try and make sure that as we work with our development institutions and others that they should be encouraged to do more that is transparent and work with the death tax sector, the whole bunch of new businesses in development that are trying to do things differently. i think the most important part you made is when it comes to electricity and energy which many of these fragile states are woefully provided for, the temptation has been to do the big project. vast finance, big loan, government contract, corruption involved, big national grid being built, big power stations being go that either don't work, don't happen and is crab money.
it is possible to use small installations that can provide solutions at a much lower cost and a more local level. it is more difficult for the corrupt to get their hands on those things and so we should be looking at those and that goes to the point i was making about working with small and medium enterprises and the private sector and looking at equity rather than just loans and recognizing some of these things can be done small-scale rather than very big scale. >> to go back and forth, how do we address the cause and not just the symptoms. my really talking about the cause of the symptoms and how do we. >> i think one of the issues is that the people who been addressing this, and trying to address this, i think there's been a surge for the single cause of fragility and i think the trouble is were not going to find it. they're all interrelated.
you have a lack of security and so you don't have a proper market economy. don't have any tax revenue or capable government. because you got conflict going on, the institutions of your government are legitimate for half the country. it's all these things, everything causes everything also i think the search for the one cause is probably not a good use of our time. i think what we should be searching for is the many steps you can take as a fragile country and as an international community trying to support that that can slowly make a difference and build your way out of fragility. >> if you travel because you're done with one organization and they say were going to find one project, is at the road or the electricity, how do you help people focus on what is the one thing that they may not be
able to address all these that you just pointed out too. >> the best thing to do is to ask the people of that country and the government of the country what is your priority. then of course, if they say the priority is training jihad's communicative support that. it may turn out that the priorities they want is not actually a priority we might want. there was a classic example in south sudan where one particular donor said we are not going to support this country until they put in place a specific climate change. this is just asking a country that is at a fairly basic level of development to stop designing programs that i wasn't ready to do. it's your plan they are backing and something that over time builds to the legitimacy of that country and the government. in the end, we don't want to give these countries aid forever. they don't want to receive aid forever. in the end it's just effective governments that can solve
these problems themselves. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. thank you prime minister. it is wonderful to hear some well, thought out, deep commentary on this and the ways we can partner and focus our development investments and financing. work in ways that really have a significant impact. let me talk first about a bipartisan bill on modernizing our development finance tools. i think, i quote the ideas and that were brilliant. you can die and go to heaven now. it would provide a whole suite of new tools known as opec. i'd be interested, given the leadership you've shown, how
do you think we might focus on investing in fragile environments. you have any recommendations that would focus on development finance institutions and how we get them to target better development outcomes and how would you see this revised or strengthened u.s. development finance into tiny partnering better with allies particularly in western europe or that share the same priorities and worldview. >> i think i'm right in saying that the point about opaque is that it can do loans but it can't do investment and that's party your plan. the majority of your question, how to focus on fragile states, i think it's in how you set it up and how you incentivize and how you send out the plan. what we did with commonwealth and the cdc was literally give it a set of targets that
deliberately focus on the most fragile states and so that is how they define their success. if you define the success purely by returns, then you're always going to be motivated to find the least fragile of the states you've been asked to invest in annual tend to go to the bigger ones. it's easier to find, given that it would take a lot of management time and all the rest of it, project in nigeria will always be more attractive than a project in burundi but that's why they're investing there. >> i think it's simpler, just to focus on it. >> in some cases, you may want to look at altering the target returns and really significantly lowering them. some of these countries are so short of basic investment, particularly in legal and physical infrastructure that even if you compare with aid,
with these equity investments, even if you don't lose money you're actually helping build capacity to make a difference to the future of this country. focus on them, look at the returns, in terms of the outcomes, i think we've got to think about how we work with the countries. i haven't quite worked out how too do this yet, but ideally, if you want to make these countries stronger for the future and there in just a tuition's more legitimate, then the very best thing would be if the development of financial institutions were helping them to set up funds that were investing in small and medium sized enterprises that would make a difference in those countries because if we just see it as something being done to these countries, it might help with the infrastructure but it doesn't help with the longer-term
problem which is the legitimacy and capacity of the institution. i think that's worth thinking about the sme sector of these countries, when you look at them, what's really missing is what we have in your country or mine, vast businesses ranging from two employees to 200. they've got lots of one man or woman shows but nothing in between. i think part of it is getting the institutions together to try to make sure they have some common agendas and they think as you look to set up your new dfi, i've said it before but i do think cdc has a lot, is really worth having a good look at, particularly the way they've changed over the past five or six years. >> to give that answer. i do think our millennium challenge operation has moved quite away for our overall development approach in the direction of partnering with
the country, responding to its development priorities, having accountability mechanisms. one thing we've tried to work on here is to give them the authority to do regional contracts rather than just bilateral. do you think combating fragile states you gave some so small that it's difficult to prioritize, should we be looking at it on a regional basis as well as bilateral. >> there are regional organizations you can work with that have a good perspective, but at the end of the day, i think we need to work at the countries. i think sometimes the development world is a bit dismissive of the rights of nationstates. in the end, it wasn't the regional organization that helped bring out rolando, it was the government of the world wanda with the assistance of general aid donors who wanted to back a
leadership that had a plan for its country, and that i think is the best answer. i think often you will find areas where there is a series of fragile countries, for example initiatives are put together to help all of these, initiatives are all to the good, but at the end of the day, we need the government of marley to be more capable and more legitimate. we need the country, not to go away. you have to pretend you can go around them and i think the thrust of what we've been looking at is how to work with these countries rather than go around them. one other point, we haven't really talked about which is, of course you would help build institutions. they need licensing departments and education departments, but the truth is, you can't just build these things without at the same time trying to help that
country deliver a narrative about what it's trying to do and what its plan is and what it's for them what its goals are. i think it's quite interesting when you look at how different states have gone on, those ones that have had a national story about what they're trying to achieve have always done better than the ones who have tried to carve up the assets of the country between different tribes and keeping them happy. if you look for instance at what threatens botswana or to extend what was done in tanzania, there was an attempt to try to build some national identity and i think i can help hugely with trying to make these countries have a successful future so regional organizations, yes you can work with them but if you trying to go around the country, i don't think it will work. >> thank you. may close by also offering my condolences on the attack in salisbury and my thanks to you
for being clear eyed about the russian threat. i do think we have important work to do and if we have a moment i'd love to talk to more. >> can i say i am very grateful for you saying that. in britain, we are obviously united in seeing what has happened is completely horrific, unjustified and unjustifiable. i think the prime minister's response has been very firm and strong, quite rightly so him a special relationship, the partnership between our countries is so important to us and knowing that here in the united states you are with us in facing down these threats is incredibly important. all i would say is, it's so important that a clear messages sent by allies about the acceptability of this behavior and that real consequences will follow. all the experience i had over six years as prime minister is
that there are some countries and some leaders who only understand a very firm response and a weak response they will simply do again what they've done before. >> thank you mr. prime minister. >> we very much appreciate you sharing your world experiences in the work you've done on fragile states. it has been a great hearing. obviously we honor your service to the united kingdom and your great friendship to a spread we appreciate you taking the time to be here. the way our committee hearings work, we allow written questions after the fact and we will have those until the close of business friday. to the extent that you can, i know you're very busy, but to the extent you could add to those, we appreciate it. again, thank you for your great friendship. thank you for your outstanding service. >> my pleasure. can i also say, we have not finished a report. we're still thinking about it and if there are perspectives and ideas you have, perhaps particularly on this
development of finance institution, we are very keen of this report generate a change in how we deal with these states and we welcome your perspective. >> i'm sure the brilliant senator would like for you to include that in your report. >> i will do my best. >> with that, we are adjourned. >> thank you [inaudible conversations]