Manama Dialogue Opening Dinner
Secretary of State
SECRETARY CLINTON: Good evening, Your Majesty, Royal Highnesses, Highnesses, ministers, ambassadors, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen: It is a great pleasure for me to join you this year for the seventh annual Manama Dialogue.
And I want to congratulate the International Institute for Strategic Studies for the vision of this Dialogue and for convening what I am sure will be another thought-provoking conference. Every year, this Dialogue makes a valuable contribution to regional security by giving the Gulf states and their partners a chance to discuss urgent challenges, bring new issues to light, and find avenues for common action toward common goals.
I want to thank His Majesty King Hamad and His Royal Highness Salman for hosting us so graciously, and I also thank the foreign minister for meeting with me earlier today. As I have told our gracious host, this is my first trip to Bahrain. It’s one I’ve been looking forward to for a long time, and I can attest that the hospitality is just as warm as promised.
The United States is proud of our partnership with Bahrain, which has flourished for many years. Since we are meeting for a security conference, let me mention just one facet of this partnership. Bahrain is home to our Central Command’s Naval Forces, which in turn includes a number of combined task forces that bring together nations from around the world to address critical security issues facing this region, including terrorism and piracy. These task forces are an example of the kind of transnational military cooperation that makes us all safer, and I thank His Majesty the King for making this work possible.
As I look around this room, I can see that we do hail from countries across most continents. And we have come here because we share a common interest, and that is to work toward achieving lasting and comprehensive security and peace in the Gulf region.
This goal does not belong only to governments. It is an aspiration that lives in the hearts of citizens across the region – from Dubai to Baghdad to Riyadh. Across differences of religion, class, language, and nationality, people of this region, like people everywhere, express the same basic wish: to live free from violence, free from intimidation, free to develop their talents and pursue their dreams in an atmosphere of stability and peace.
It is in our interests to help the people of the Gulf fulfill that vision. And I believe we have the capacity to do so.
The starting point for the United States is our profound commitment to the security, stability, and development of the region. We have enduring stakes here. We have historical friendships here. We have invested blood and treasure to protect those stakes, those friendships, and those vital national security interests. We have acted to reverse aggression – and no one should mistake our resolve in standing by our friends.
When our engagement with this region began decades ago, our relationships were largely rooted in security and trade. Now, they extend much further. We and our Gulf partners are working together on issues including economic development, energy, education, water, and health – the building blocks of stable, thriving societies.
And increasingly, what we are seeing is the opportunity to work with our Gulf partners beyond the region, in fact, on the world stage.
United Arab Emirates is doing cutting-edge work in clean and renewable energy, and is home to the International Renewable Energy Agency, located in Masdar, one of the world’s most sustainable cities. That is a security commitment.
Last year, Saudi Arabia opened the King Abdullah University for Science and Technology, a world-class research and teaching institute for both men and women. That is a security commitment.
Bahrain has become a dynamic banking center, whose sound practices helped it largely to avoid the recent global financial crisis. That is a security commitment.
Oman and the United States are together supporting vital desalination research to help solve the global water crisis. That is a security commitment.
Kuwait is home to lively media and parliamentary debate, which foster one of the region’s most dynamic political cultures. That is a security commitment.
And Qatar is working to improve agricultural productivity in arid regions, to help fight hunger and protect natural resources. That is also a security commitment.
And let me congratulate Qatar on its being named for the World Cup in 2022 – more proof that this region is at the leading edge of important world affairs.
The innovative, forward-leaning work that is happening in these countries, on some of the defining issues of the 21st century, signals a new era in our partnership. You are no longer Gulf partners. You are global partners.
Our engagement with each other is broader and deeper today than ever before. And I have had the great privilege of meeting with many people from the countries represented here in the Gulf who have a personal stake in the success of our efforts. Because their futures will be shaped by what we do today to strengthen Gulf security.
Conflicts that arise here echo across the world. Many of our nations are targeted by the same networks of extremists; when they make headway here, they are emboldened elsewhere. The economic significance of the Gulf means that when your security is threatened, energy supplies, global commerce, and trade flows can be disrupted.
Now, part of being committed to the security of this region means identifying new threats and anticipating future ones, assessing how our defense cooperation can be improved, and addressing the root causes of instability – the political, economic, and social conditions that give rise to unrest and mistrust.
This evening, I’d like to discuss a few core principles that have been critical to maintaining Gulf security thus far and will be critical as we move toward the effort to try to resolve these problems in the 21st century.
The first principle is respect for national sovereignty.
Sovereignty is the foundation of the international system and the cornerstone of peaceful relations between nations. It protects the integrity of borders and territories. It proscribes external intervention in the affairs of another state, in particular forbidding outside support for those who would use violence to achieve their agendas. In short, sovereignty authorizes nations with the sole responsibility for charting their own destinies.
We meet as significant change is underway in one of those nations: Iraq. After years of hard work, Iraq is realizing its goal of becoming a fully sovereign, stable, and self-reliant state. And last month, Iraq’s political leaders agreed to form a government that reflects the results of their election – an inclusive government, with every major community represented, no one excluded or marginalized. Theirs must be a government made in Iraq by Iraqis.
Let me be clear about the position of the United States regarding our relationship with a sovereign Iraq, today and in the future. We are fully committed to working with Iraq as equal partners and equal members of the international community. Together, we will carry out the two agreements that our government and the Government of Iraq reached: our Strategic Framework Agreement, which covers the full range of our bilateral relationship; and our Security Agreement, which covers our security commitments and the drawdown of U.S troops.
The decisions that are charting Iraq’s course today are Iraq’s alone. The people and government of Iraq are in the lead. The speaker is here with us today, and he and the parliament are off to an impressive start. No country should pursue its own interests in Iraq at the expense of Iraq’s unity and sovereignty. And no country should threaten or intimidate or coerce Iraq or political stakeholders in Iraq.
We call on all of our partners in the Gulf region, in fact all countries in the region, to join in protecting the course that Iraqis have elected to take, and furthermore, to play a constructive role in supporting Iraq’s full reintegration into the region. Iraq’s positive engagement with other nations will rise as diplomatic, economic, educational, and cultural ties are reinforced.
These actions are actually in all of our interests, because Iraq’s progress is essential for the long-term peace and prosperity of us all. The brutal regime of Saddam Hussein unsettled the Gulf for years, and the sectarian strife that followed was devastating to Iraq and destabilizing to the region. Now we are seeing the possibility for something new: a future in which Iraq does not pose a threat to regional security, but instead a strength to it.
Also on the matter of sovereignty, let me just mention Lebanon. Because the international community has repeatedly aimed to secure and promote Lebanon’s sovereignty and independence, including through multiple UN Security Council resolutions.
The Special Tribunal established by the United Nations represents a statement by the world that the era of political assassination with impunity in Lebanon or anywhere must end. To those who claim that the tribunal will destabilize Lebanon, I would answer: Justice is not a threat to Lebanon’s stability – the attempts to subvert justice by undermining the tribunal are the threat. (Applause.)
The United States joins the international community in supporting a sovereign, independent, and stable Lebanon. The support we provide is transparent and in accordance with our signed agreements with the Government of Lebanon, in accordance with our mutual interests, and in accordance with respect for Lebanon’s sovereignty.
The second principle is security partnership, especially in the face of new and complex threats.
The foremost measure of our partnerships’ success is whether they help protect the people of this region, the United States, and elsewhere from harm. As others have said, the threat of violent extremist groups – both within countries and across borders – and the threat of states that pursue destabilizing actions against their neighbors are among the immediate security challenges facing the region.
Like other modern threats, these challenges call for shared solutions, which require cooperation on every level: political, economical, strategic, and especially among our militaries.
Our security partnerships with countries in the region have broadened and deepened to account for the changing security environment. Last year, General Petraeus spoke at this conference about our increasing cooperation on air and ballistic missile defense, early warning, counter proliferation, developing a common operational picture, and broad-based strategies to counter violent extremism.
This past year has produced even more progress on these fronts. Our cooperation extends beyond the theater. Gulf and Arab countries have been among the most stalwart partners in our shared mission against violent extremist networks in Afghanistan. Our hosts here in Bahrain, the UAE, Jordan, and Egypt all deserve special mention for providing substantial civilian and humanitarian assistance in fields ranging from police training to civil service development, education, to women’s health. And we are grateful that the OIC has offered to host a meeting in Jeddah of the International Contact Group for Afghanistan and Pakistan next year.
But there is so much more that we can do together. Among other things, we seek to strengthen the Gulf Security Dialogue, which represents our primary security coordination mechanism with the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. The Dialogue is designed to bolster the capabilities of GCC partners to deter and defend against conventional and unconventional threats and improve interoperability with the United States and with each other.
We all know that efforts to deepen cooperation, coordination, and transparency among this region’s militaries would yield broad benefits that extend to the whole range of modern threats. It would become easier to manage incidents at sea. The likelihood of dangerous errors and undue escalations would decrease. The success of joint military operations would rise. In sum, cooperation among countries of the region would not simply helpful, but vital, for no one country can combat the security challenges of the 21st century.
A third, and related, principle is freedom of navigation.
The bounty of natural resources found in and around the Gulf gives this region a special place in the global economy. The Gulf states must be able to ship oil and other goods freely and securely, by land and sea, through the region. It is critical that we work together to protect free and open transit and strengthen maritime security. The U.S. has long stood behind this principle.
All countries, including Iran, should do their part to cooperate in the common defense of the waterways. This is particularly important as we address the serious problem of piracy in the waters off the Horn of Africa. Pirates disrupt vital shipping corridors, kidnap mariners, interfere with the delivery of humanitarian aid. Stopping them requires a comprehensive approach, not only at sea and but also on land, where desperate poverty and failed governments give pirates the room to operate with impunity.
Several nations in the region have begun to contribute to this effort. Bahrain has deployed a frigate to assist with counter-piracy operations as part of the Combined Task Force dealing with piracy. Yemen is prosecuting pirates in its courts. Oman, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Yemen are among the original participants of the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia, which has helped encourage the use of best practices by shippers in case of attack. Thanks to this outreach, successful attacks have gone down by 20 percent in the last two years.
At the same time, however, the total number of attacks has gone up. The problem is outpacing the resources we have committed to solving it. So it is urgent that we accelerate our efforts to end this dangerous business by improving maritime security, targeting the finances of pirate networks, prosecuting the criminals, and addressing the conditions on the ground that give rise to piracy in the first place.
The fourth principle is a commitment to human security.
Now, it may be tempting to dismiss this kind of security as soft or insubstantial. But the human dimension is often where the investments we make in military hardware and diplomatic outreach pay off. Because true security is not just the absence of violence. It is also the presence of opportunity. Like the opportunity to receive an education or find a job, to live in a safe environment, to have access to the basics of life – food, water, health care, and housing.
It is also the opportunity to participate in the decisions that shape one’s life and future, and the freedom to develop and express one’s point of view.
All of these aspects of human security depend not only the support of leaders, but also on the contribution of civil society. And no country can afford to dismiss that.
I could not stand here and address this distinguished group without underscoring the importance of women as leaders and participants in the search for and the realization of human security, because when women are deprived of the opportunity to participate as full members of society – when they are denied access to justice and cut off from the civic life of their communities – the impact is felt not only by the women, but by their families and particularly their children.
Human security is particularly urgent in the Gulf. A majority of the population in this part of the world are young people. They are now connected. They now know what is going on across the world through the social networks that they have pioneered, developed, and basically dominate. Whether countries succeed in creating conditions that give them opportunities to live the lives that they are shaping for themselves will have a major impact on the security of the country in which they live.
I know that Yemen is searching particularly for ways to meet the growing needs of their young people. And the United States and others here are working with Yemen to improve economic development and job opportunities. We need broad international involvement for our efforts to succeed in Yemen, and I urge the Gulf Cooperation Council in particular to use its reach and resources to support Yemen’s progress.
We will continue to work on human security in the region. And it is one of the many reasons why President Obama and I are committed to achieving a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. We are working intensively in close consultation with many of the countries represented here to create the conditions for negotiations that can produce the peace that has eluded us for so many years. Negotiations are the only path that will succeed in securing the aspirations of the parties: for the Israelis, security; for the Palestinians, an independent, viable, sovereign state of their own. And I look forward to addressing this critical issue in greater depth during my participation in next week’s Saban Forum.
The fifth and final principle goes to the heart of one of the most complex challenges facing the Gulf and the world as a whole: nuclear nonproliferation.
The position of the international community on this issue is clear. All nations begin with the same rights and responsibilities. They have the right to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. But they must comply with the international safeguards that apply to states in order to prevent the diversion of that technology to destructive and destabilizing military purposes
In this region, we see evidence of real promise on upholding nonproliferation norms. And of course, we see areas of profound international concern.
Last year, for example, the UAE concluded an Agreement for Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation with the United States, which makes clear that it seeks only the peaceful benefits of nuclear energy, not the capability to produce nuclear weapons. It also adopted the IAEA’s Additional Protocol, which will make its nuclear program transparent and build confidence in the international community that its intentions are entirely peaceful. These steps gave a major boost to the global nonproliferation regime, and they paved the way for UAE to successfully deliver nuclear energy to its citizens.
At this time, I would like to address directly the delegation at this conference from the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
I am pleased to have this opportunity for your government and mine to gather here with representatives from other nations to discuss problems of mutual concern and interest.
In Geneva next week, the P-5+1 will meet with representatives from your nation – the first such meeting since October of 2009. (Applause.) We hope that out of this meeting, entered into with good faith, we will see a constructive engagement with respect to your nuclear program.
Nearly two years ago, President Obama extended your government a sincere offer of dialogue. We are still committed to this offer.
But the position of the international community is clear. You have the right to a peaceful nuclear program. But with that right comes a reasonable responsibility: that you follow the treaty you signed, and fully address the world’s concern about your nuclear activities. We urge you to make that choice – for your people, your interests, and our shared security. We urge you to restore the confidence of the international community and live up to your international obligations. Unfortunately, the most recent IAEA report reflected once again that so far Iran has chosen a different path, one that leads to greater international concern, isolation, and pressure.
We know that Iran is home of one of humankind’s great civilizations. The Iranian people are heirs to that tradition with tremendous potential to contribute to the world we are building together. And the world in turn would benefit from the full participation of the Iranian nation in the political, social, and economic life of this region.
We continue to make this offer of engagement with respect for your sovereignty and with regard for your interests – but also with an ironclad commitment to defending global security and the world’s interests in a peaceful and prosperous Gulf region.
The principles of security I’ve briefly discussed tonight are not remote abstractions. They are evident in how our countries treat each other. They guide our interactions and the steps we take to maintain trust. But it is not enough to list them or even to praise them; we have to put them into practice – as individual nations, through our bilateral relationships, and in the regional context.
And that is where regional organizations come in. Around the world, the United States is finding that increasingly nations must work together through regional forums and institutions in order to find ways to expand their own reach and deepen their understanding of the problems we face.
Here in this part of the world, the Gulf Cooperation Council already provides a useful forum for addressing regional issues. It is my hope that the GCC will go further and take on an even greater leadership role, bringing nations together to discuss urgent regional challenges.
I am sure over the next days, you will have conversations about many important topics, but I believe that all of the complexities of our world and the challenges we face come down to this. We all have choices to make. We can choose partnership, or we can choose division. We can face toward the past or turn to the future. We can let the differences between us define us, or we can focus on all that connects us – the common experiences we share, the hopes we have for the future for our children.
We have arrived at this place in our history because, for the most part, when faced with the choice to come together or move apart, we have chosen to come together. And we have made real and meaningful progress. Now, our work is far from finished, but it is well underway.
And on behalf of the United States, I look forward to continuing to work with you to create that more secure, prosperous, and peaceful world we all seek. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
MODERATOR: Madam Secretary, thank you very much for a sweeping, profound, and nuanced set of remarks that established the principles on which security not just in this region, but around the world, can be established, and pointed out the variety of contributions that individual countries can make to that security, and the goals that your government has for reaching out and establishing productive and constructive partnerships with the states in this region and others interested in its security.
You have very kindly agreed to take a few questions, and I’d like to invite anyone who would like to ask a question to raise their hands. I cannot promise to include the dozens who I’m sure will seek the floor, but I will do my best to ensure a variety of commentary. If I don’t identify you, identify yourself, but I see the first, (inaudible), who is actually senior fellow for regional politics at the (inaudible) here in the Kingdom of Bahrain from Kuwait, and then Michael Burns (ph)* to your left. If you could stand, please.
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, it’s a great privilege to have you address this (inaudible) Manama Dialogue. (Inaudible) I’d like to ask you the same question I posed to your predecessor, Secretary Rice, on one of her many visits to Kuwait. The past administration prioritized an electoral-based democratic progress as political reform in the region and the results were often problematic for both the U.S. Government and the international community; for example, Hamas’s victory in Palestine. In your opinion, is the current (inaudible) the same line on political reform in the region?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that’s an excellent question, because I do think there needs to be a much broader definition of what democracy means. Democracy is not only elections. Democracy is building the institutions that will enable a process of electing representatives to deliver results for people and do so by creating an inclusive approach to decision making.
Democracy also requires the protection of minority rights, the independence of the judiciary, a free press, the kinds of institutional changes that have to go hand-in-hand with elections. So we very much support democracy and we are continuing to provide support for organizations and individuals who speak out for and work on behalf of democracy. We are helping – for example, today in Bahrain at my town hall, I heard from a young parliamentarian who had gone to some of the courses that the United States runs to help young people go into politics and what it means not just to win an election, but to serve people.
So clearly, the United States remains committed to democratic process and to the democratic enterprise, because we believe that ultimately, it is the most stable form of government. But we know that different countries have taken different paths, and so we want to emphasize the broad array of actions that can lead to democratization. So elections are part of it, but it is not the only part, and too great an emphasis on it can lead to having one election and no more as people don’t fully invest themselves in what it takes to build the institutions of democracy.
MODERATOR: Thank you very much. The next (inaudible), to be (inaudible), if you could come out a little bit so that you’re within the line of sight of the Secretary as you put your question. The microphone’s right behind you.
QUESTION: Thank you. Given the amount of time it took for the Iraqi Government to be formed, what do you think that says about its future stability and policy direction?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I have a somewhat different take than perhaps others might have, but democracy is hard work. And people don’t just wake up one day and say we know how to do this. Politics, Max Weber said, was the slow, hard boring of hard boards. I mean, this is hard work. And for the first time, the Iraqis themselves had to bargain with each other, negotiate over future commitments and decisions, and what they came up with was an inclusive government that provided for recognition of the legitimate participation of all elements of their society.
Now, I would hope that the next time there’s an election, forming the government won’t take so long, but it is only fair to say that Belgium and the Netherlands had recent elections and took months to form a government, and they have had a lot more practice in politics than the Iraqis have had. So I think we ought to be very understanding of the difficulties that new democracies face, and to go back to the young woman’s question, really work not only to build the institutions, but embed the attitudes of what it takes to do politics in a democratic system.
Now, the real test is whether this newly formed government will begin delivering results for people, because democracies have to deliver results. The lights have to stay on for longer than three hours a day. There have to be some tangible signs of difference that will reinforce the commitment of the Iraqi people to the political process. So I think they’re off to an encouraging start from what we have seen so far.
MODERATOR: (Inaudible), if you could stand up, I think there’s a microphone right behind you, (inaudible).
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, first of all, as a German, I am thrilled that you’re here with us this evening and want to thank you, as John has and (inaudible) constructive, broad-spectrum speech. My question is about the strategic implications of the so-called WikiLeak affair. When (inaudible) was an individual, I traveled and my credit card figures an irregular-appearing transaction, my bank immediately gets in touch with me. This triggers alarms. This is a basic form of cyber security which applies to hundreds of millions of people.
In the case of WikiLeaks, we have had one individual who engaged in a rather strange transaction, that of downloading 252,000 diplomatic telegrams and memoranda. This apparently triggered no alarms, or if it did, they were not listened to. What are we to make of this very basic, massive breach of cyber security of the United States? What lessons should we as non-Americans draw from what has happened? And what lessons are you going to draw, given the scale of the affair?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, there are lots of lessons to be learned here, and I appreciate the thrust of your question, because obviously, the United States must learn and apply lessons, but the lessons are ones that all of us in the international community will have to apply as well.
And the process was undertaken in order to do a better job of what’s called connecting the dots, because after 9/11 one of the principal criticisms of our government was that information was stovepiped, that the Defense Department knew things that the State Department didn’t know that the White House didn’t know and, as a result, there were signals missed and information not processed. So it was understandable for the Bush Administration to say we need to end the stovepiping and figure out how to have greater awareness, situational awareness, and sharing of information.
The individual that you referred to was a fully cleared military intelligence officer. And I cannot speak for the Defense Department, but I’m sure you would assume, which is correct, that they are conducting, and have been, a very vigorous investigation to determine why no alarm bells went off.
In addition, I directed that we would cease sharing, for whatever period of time it may take, our cables. That stopped as soon as this gentleman was apprehended. And he is clearly going to be prosecuted along with anyone who participated or contributed to the crimes that he committed.
But I do think your point is a very important one. We all have now so much information on networks, and no matter how secure you think a network is or how carefully vetted or polygraphed a person might be who has access to that network, it’s probably impossible to have a completely secure network with so many pieces of information that are flowing in and out 24 hours a day.
We are obviously taking steps as I speak to upgrade and make our confidential information more secure, but I think it is incumbent upon everyone else to take a hard look, because as I said shortly after this unfortunate matter came to light, the attack on the United States’s information system was really an attack on the international community. Because for those of us who are in the diplomacy business, we are working to constantly gather information to put things in context so that we better understand what is going on. And there’s no surprise there.
In fact, some of the analysis that has been done of the information that has been made available through these leaks has basically concluded that there’s not much news, there’s not very much to comment on, there’s no big revelation. It’s the day-to-day work of what diplomats all around the world do. And we need to be sure we can continue to have candid and open conversations.
So I hope that we have fixed and will continue to strengthen our own security systems and that all of us do the same, because I believe that this attack, if left unpunished, will be just the first of many against anyone anywhere who can possibly suborn or convince an individual who has access to the systems to provide information for public release.
MODERATOR: I have just received a communication, and I can have one more question. So I think there’s 14 people who are about to be disappointed. Mark Fitzpatrick (ph)*, if you could ask it? Thank you very much. And I apologize profoundly, and I shall try to compensate during the course of the next day to those I’ve had to leave out. Mark Fitzpatrick (ph),*
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, in your direct address to the representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran, I heard nothing but positive words. You spoke of recognition of the right to nuclear energy, of commitment to engagement, respect for sovereignty; it almost sounds as though you’re trying to create the right mood for the talks that will begin in Geneva on Monday. My question, Madam Secretary, is what can we realistically expect to come out of those talks?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I believe that that is largely in the hands of the Iranians. I said nothing different tonight than what I have said on many occasions since the beginning of this Administration. We very much hope that the negotiations in Geneva over the nuclear program will lead to breakthroughs. I wanted to stress again that Iran is entitled to the peaceful use of civil nuclear energy.
But the facts are stubborn and undebatable about the concerns that the international community has expressed, and the fact that the UN-adopted sanctions illustrates the concern, because no one is particularly fond of sanctions. It’s not something that any country or certainly the United Nations or the European Union or others wish to pursue. But it is a diplomatic tool – one of the strongest we have in the toolbox – to send a message that there is a level of concern that must be addressed by Iran. Otherwise, we are left drawing the worst conclusions, and that is a recipe for further destabilizing of this region in ways that would have long-term consequences.
So it is for me – if you are thinking strategically – very much in Iran’s interests to come to these talks in Geneva committed to working out a way to restore the confidence of the international community and to firmly, conclusively reject the pursuit of nuclear weapons, and to understand the strategic calculation at work here. Because if anyone in Iran believes that either acquiring nuclear weapons or the breakout capacity for nuclear weapons will make Iran stronger and more dominant in the region, that is an absolutely wrong calculation. Because it will trigger an arms race that will make the region less stable, more uncertain, and cause serious repercussions far beyond the Gulf.
So I’m hoping and waiting to see the results of the discussions in Geneva, and the United States, as I said, stands ready to continue engagement if there is a sincere effort by Iran to deal with the nuclear program in a way that permits the international community to move forward with Iran.
MODERATOR: Madam Secretary, this has been a profoundly fascinating evening. You’ve provided an extraordinary set of remarks, a wonderfully genuine response to really important questions. We are hugely in your debt for the tremendous food for thought and direct policy prescription that you’ve offered us – to us tonight. You’ve sung for your supper. I think you now deserve to have it. Madam Secretary, thank you very much indeed. (Applause.)