The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

August 01, 2014

Press Conference by the President

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:45 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. Happy Friday. I thought I’d take some questions, but first, let me say a few words about the economy.

This morning, we learned that our economy created over 200,000 new jobs in July. That’s on top of about 300,000 new jobs in June. So we are now in a six-month streak with at least 200,000 new jobs each month. That's the first time that has happened since 1997. Over the past year, we’ve added more jobs than any year since 2006. And all told, our businesses have created 9.9 million new jobs over the past 53 months. That's the longest streak of private sector job creation in our history.

And as we saw on Wednesday, the economy grew at a strong pace in the spring. Companies are investing. Consumers are spending. American manufacturing, energy, technology, autos -- all are booming. And thanks to the decisions that we’ve made, and the grit and resilience of the American people, we’ve recovered faster and come farther from the recession than almost any other advanced country on Earth.

So the good news is the economy clearly is getting stronger. Things are getting better. Our engines are revving a little bit louder. And the decisions that we make right now can sustain and keep that growth and momentum going.

Unfortunately, there are a series of steps that we could be taking to maintain momentum, and perhaps even accelerate it; there are steps that we could be taking that would result in more job growth, higher wages, higher incomes, more relief for middle-class families. And so far, at least, in Congress, we have not seen them willing or able to take those steps.

I've been pushing for common-sense ideas like rebuilding our infrastructure in ways that are sustained over many years and support millions of good jobs and help businesses compete. I've been advocating on behalf of raising the minimum wage, making it easier for working folks to pay off their student loans; fair pay, paid leave. All these policies have two things in common: All of them would help working families feel more stable and secure, and all of them so far have been blocked or ignored by Republicans in Congress. That’s why my administration keeps taking whatever actions we can take on our own to help working families.

Now, it’s good that Congress was able to pass legislation to strengthen the VA. And I want to thank the chairmen and ranking members who were involved in that. It's good that Congress was able to at least fund transportation projects for a few more months before leaving town -- although it falls far short of the kind of infrastructure effort that we need that would actually accelerate the economy. But for the most part, the big-ticket items, the things that would really make a difference in the lives of middle-class families, those things just are not getting done.

Let’s just take a recent example: Immigration. We all agree that there’s a problem that needs to be solved in a portion of our southern border. And we even agree on most of the solutions. But instead of working together -- instead of focusing on the 80 percent where there is agreement between Democrats and Republicans, between the administration and Congress -- House Republicans, as we speak, are trying to pass the most extreme and unworkable versions of a bill that they already know is going nowhere, that can't pass the Senate and that if it were to pass the Senate I would veto. They know it.

They’re not even trying to actually solve the problem. This is a message bill that they couldn't quite pull off yesterday, so they made it a little more extreme so maybe they can pass it today -- just so they can check a box before they’re leaving town for a month. And this is on an issue that they all insisted had to be a top priority.

Now, our efforts administratively so far have helped to slow the tide of child migrants trying to come to our country. But without additional resources and help from Congress, we're just not going to have the resources we need to fully solve the problem. That means while they’re out on vacation I'm going to have to make some tough choices to meet the challenge -- with or without Congress.

And yesterday, even though they’ve been sitting on a bipartisan immigration bill for over a year, House Republicans suggested that since they don't expect to actually pass a bill that I can sign, that I actually should go ahead and act on my own to solve the problem. Keep in mind that just a few days earlier, they voted to sue me for acting on my own. And then when they couldn’t pass a bill yesterday, they put out a statement suggesting I should act on my own because they couldn't pass a bill.

So immigration has not gotten done. A student loan bill that would help folks who have student loan debt consolidate and refinance at lower rates -- that didn’t pass. The transportation bill that they did pass just gets us through the spring, when we should actually be planning years in advance. States and businesses are raising the minimum wage for their workers because this Congress is failing to do so.

Even basic things like approving career diplomats for critical ambassadorial posts aren't getting done. Last night, for purely political reasons, Senate Republicans, for a certain period of time, blocked our new ambassador to Russia. It raised such an uproar that finally they went ahead and let our Russian ambassador pass -- at a time when we are dealing every day with the crisis in Ukraine.

They’re still blocking our ambassador to Sierra Leone, where there’s currently an Ebola outbreak. They’re blocking our ambassador to Guatemala, even as they demand that we do more to stop the flow of unaccompanied children from Guatemala. There are a lot of things that we could be arguing about on policy -- that's what we should be doing as a democracy -- but we shouldn’t be having an argument about placing career diplomats with bipartisan support in countries around the world where we have to have a presence.

So the bottom line is this: We have come a long way over the last five and a half years. Our challenges are nowhere near as daunting as they were when I first came into office. But the American people demand and deserve a strong and focused effort on the part of all of us to keep moving the country forward and to focus on their concerns. And the fact is we could be much further along and we could be doing even better, and the economy could be even stronger, and more jobs could be created if Congress would do the job that the people sent them here to do.

And I will not stop trying to work with both parties to get things moving faster for middle-class families and those trying to get into the middle class. When Congress returns next month, my hope is, is that instead of simply trying to pass partisan message bills on party lines that don't actually solve problems, they’re going to be willing to come together to at least focus on some key areas where there’s broad agreement. After all that we've had to overcome, our Congress should stop standing in the way of our country’s success.

So with that, let me take a couple of questions. And I will start with Roberta Rampton of Reuters.

Q Thanks. I want to ask about the situation in the Middle East. And why do you think Israel should embrace a cease-fire in Gaza when one of its soldiers appears to have been abducted and when Hamas continues to use its network of tunnels to launch attacks? And also, have you seen Israel act at all on your call to do more to protect civilians?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I think it's important to note that we have -- and I have -- unequivocally condemned Hamas and the Palestinian factions that were responsible for killing two Israeli soldiers and abducting a third almost minutes after a cease-fire had been announced. And the U.N. has condemned them as well.

And I want to make sure that they are listening: If they are serious about trying to resolve this situation, that soldier needs to be unconditionally released as soon as possible.

I have been very clear throughout this crisis that Israel has a right to defend itself. No country can tolerate missiles raining down on its cities and people having to rush to bomb shelters every 20 minutes or half hour. No country can or would tolerate tunnels being dug under their land that can be used to launch terrorist attacks.

And so, not only have we been supportive of Israel in its right to defend itself, but in very concrete terms -- for example, in support for the Iron Dome program that has intercepted rockets that are firing down on Israeli cities -- we've been trying to cooperate as much as we can to make sure that Israel is able to protect its citizens.

Now, at the same time, we've also been clear that innocent civilians in Gaza caught in the crossfire have to weigh on our conscience and we have to do more to protect them. A cease-fire was one way in which we could stop the killing, to step back and to try to resolve some of the underlying issues that have been building up over quite some time. Israel committed to that 72-hour cease-fire, and it was violated. And trying to put that back together is going to be challenging, but we will continue to make those efforts.

And let me take this opportunity, by the way, to give Secretary John Kerry credit. He has been persistent. He has worked very hard. He has endured on many occasions really unfair criticism simply to try to get to the point where the killing stops and the underlying issues about Israel’s security but also the concerns of Palestinians in Gaza can be addressed.

We're going to keep working towards that. It's going to take some time. I think it's going to be very hard to put a cease-fire back together again if Israelis and the international community can't feel confident that Hamas can follow through on a cease-fire commitment.

And it's not particularly relevant whether a particular leader in Hamas ordered this abduction. The point is, is that when they sign onto a cease-fire they’re claiming to speak for all the Palestinian factions. And if they don't have control of them, and just moments after a cease-fire is signed you have Israeli soldiers being killed and captured, then it's hard for the Israelis to feel confident that a cease-fire can actually be honored.

I'm in constant consultation with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Our national security team is in constant communication with the Israel military. I want to see everything possible done to make sure that Palestinian civilians are not being killed. And it is heartbreaking to see what’s happening there, and I think many of us recognize the dilemma we have. On the one hand, Israel has a right to defend itself and it's got to be able to get at those rockets and those tunnel networks. On the other hand, because of the incredibly irresponsible actions on the part of Hamas to oftentimes house these rocket launchers right in the middle of civilian neighborhoods, we end up seeing people who had nothing to do with these rockets ending up being hurt.

Part of the reason why we've been pushing so hard for a cease-fire is precisely because it's hard to reconcile Israel’s legitimate need to defend itself with our concern with those civilians. And if we can pause the fighting, then it's possible that we may be able to arrive at a formula that spares lives and also ensures Israel’s security. But it's difficult. And I don't think we should pretend otherwise.

Bill Plante.

Q Mr. President, like that cease-fire, you’ve called for diplomatic solutions not only in Israel and Gaza but also in Ukraine, in Iraq, to very little effect so far. Has the United States of America lost its influence in the world? Have you lost yours?

THE PRESIDENT: Look, this is a common theme that folks bring up. Apparently people have forgotten that America, as the most powerful country on Earth, still does not control everything around the world. And so our diplomatic efforts often take time. They often will see progress and then a step backwards. That’s been true in the Middle East. That’s been true in Europe. That’s been true in Asia. That’s the nature of world affairs. It’s not neat, and it’s not smooth.

But if you look at, for example, Ukraine, we have made progress in delivering on what we said we would do. We can’t control how Mr. Putin thinks. But what we can do is say to Mr. Putin, if you continue on the path of arming separatists with heavy armaments that the evidence suggests may have resulted in 300 innocent people on a jet dying, and that violates international law and undermines the integrity -- territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, then you’re going to face consequences that will hurt your country.

And there was a lot of skepticism about our ability to coordinate with Europeans for a strong series of sanctions. And each time we have done what we said we would do, including this week, when we put in place sanctions that have an impact on key sectors of the Russian economy -- their energy, their defense, their financial systems.

It hasn’t resolved the problem yet. I spoke to Mr. Putin this morning, and I indicated to him, just as we will do what we say we do in terms of sanctions, we’ll also do what we say we do in terms of wanting to resolve this issue diplomatically if he takes a different position. If he respects and honors the right of Ukrainians to determine their own destiny, then it’s possible to make sure that Russian interests are addressed that are legitimate, and that Ukrainians are able to make their own decisions, and we can resolve this conflict and end some of the bloodshed.

But the point is, though, Bill, that if you look at the 20th century and the early part of this century, there are a lot of conflicts that America doesn’t resolve. That’s always been true. That doesn’t mean we stop trying. And it’s not a measure of American influence on any given day or at any given moment that there are conflicts around the world that are difficult. The conflict in Northern Ireland raged for a very, very long time until finally something broke, where the parties decided that it wasn’t worth killing each other.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been going on even longer than you’ve been reporting. (Laughter.) And I don’t think at any point was there a suggestion somehow that America didn’t have influence just because we weren’t able to finalize an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

You will recall that situations like Kosovo and Bosnia raged on for quite some time, and there was a lot more death and bloodshed than there has been so far in the Ukrainian situation before it ultimately did get resolved.

And so I recognize with so many different issues popping up around the world, sometimes it may seem as if this is an aberration or it’s unusual. But the truth of the matter is, is that there’s a big world out there, and that as indispensable as we are to try to lead it, there’s still going to be tragedies out there and there are going to be conflicts. And our job is to just make sure that we continue to project what’s right, what’s just, and that we’re building coalitions of like-minded countries and partners in order to advance not only our core security interests but also the interests of the world as a whole.

Q Do you think you could have done more?

THE PRESIDENT: On which one?

Q On any of them? Ukraine?

THE PRESIDENT: Well look, I think, Bill, that the nature of being President is that you’re always asking yourself what more can you do. But with respect to, let’s say, the Israeli-Palestinian issue, this administration invested an enormous amount to try to bring the parties together around a framework for peace and a two-state solution. John Kerry invested an enormous amount of time. In the end, it’s up to the two parties to make a decision. We can lead them to resolve some of the technical issues and to show them a path, but they’ve got to want it.

With respect to Ukraine, I think that we have done everything that we can to support the Ukrainian government and to deter Russia from moving further into Ukraine. But short of going to war, there are going to be some constraints in terms of what we can do if President Putin and Russia are ignoring what should be their long-term interests.

Right now, what we’ve done is impose sufficient costs on Russia that, objectively speaking, they should -- President Putin should want to resolve this diplomatically, get these sanctions lifted, get their economy growing again, and have good relations with Ukraine. But sometimes people don’t always act rationally, and they don’t always act based on their medium- or long-term interests. That can’t deter us, though. We’ve just got to stay at it.

Wendell.

Q Mr. President, Republicans point to some of your executive orders as reason, they say, that they can’t trust you to implement legislation that they pass. Even if you don’t buy that argument, do you hold yourself totally blameless in the inability it appears to reach agreement with the Republican-led House?

THE PRESIDENT: Wendell, let’s just take the recent example of immigration. A bipartisan bill passed out of the Senate, co-sponsored by not just Democrats but some very conservative Republicans who recognize that the system currently is broken and if, in fact we put more resources on the border, provide a path in which those undocumented workers who’ve been living here for a long time and may have ties here are coming out of the shadows, paying their taxes, paying a fine, learning English -- if we fix the legal immigration system so it’s more efficient, if we are attracting young people who may have studied here to stay here and create jobs here, that that all is going to be good for the economy, it’s going to reduce the deficit, it might have forestalled some of the problems that we’re seeing now in the Rio Grande Valley with these unaccompanied children.

And so we have a bipartisan bill, Wendell, bipartisan agreement supported by everybody from labor to the evangelical community to law enforcement. So the argument isn’t between me and the House Republicans. It’s between the House Republicans and Senate Republicans, and House Republicans and the business community, and House Republicans and the evangelical community. I’m just one of the people they seem to disagree with on this issue.

So that’s on the comprehensive bill. So now we have a short-term crisis with respect to the Rio Grande Valley. They say we need more resources, we need tougher border security in this area where these unaccompanied children are showing up. We agree. So we put forward a supplemental to give us the additional resources and funding to do exactly what they say we should be doing, and they can’t pass the bill. They can’t even pass their own version of the bill. So that’s not a disagreement between me and the House Republicans; that’s a disagreement between the House Republicans and the House Republicans.

The point is that on a range of these issues, whether it’s tax reform, whether it’s reducing the deficit, whether it’s rebuilding our infrastructure, we have consistently put forward proposals that in previous years and previous administrations would not have been considered radical or left wing; they would have been considered pretty sensible, mainstream approaches to solving problems.

I include under that, by the way, the Affordable Care Act. That’s a whole other conversation.

And in circumstances where even basic, common-sense, plain, vanilla legislation can’t pass because House Republicans consider it somehow a compromise of their principles, or giving Obama a victory, then we’ve got to take action. Otherwise, we’re not going to be making progress on the things that the American people care about.

Q On the border supplemental -- can you act alone?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m going to have to act alone because we don’t have enough resources. We’ve already been very clear -- we’ve run out of money. And we are going to have to reallocate resources in order to just make sure that some of the basic functions that have to take place down there -- whether it’s making sure that these children are properly housed, or making sure we’ve got enough immigration judges to process their cases -- that those things get done. We’re going to have to reallocate some resources.

But the broader point, Wendell, is that if, in fact, House Republicans are concerned about me acting independently of Congress -- despite the fact that I’ve taken fewer executive actions than my Republican predecessor or my Democratic predecessor before that, or the Republican predecessor before that -- then the easiest way to solve it is passing legislation. Get things done.

On the supplemental, we agreed on 80 percent of the issues. There were 20 percent of the issues that perhaps there were disagreements between Democrats and Republicans. As I said to one Republican colleague who was down here that I was briefing about some national security issues, why wouldn’t we just go ahead and pass the 80 percent that we agree on and we’ll try to work to resolve the differences on the other 20 percent? Why wouldn’t we do that? And he didn't really have a good answer for it.

So there’s no doubt that I can always do better on everything, including making additional calls to Speaker Boehner, and having more conversations with some of the House Republican leadership. But in the end, the challenge I have right now is that they are not able to act even on what they say their priorities are, and they're not able to work and compromise even with Senate Republicans on certain issues. And they consider what have been traditionally Republican-supported initiatives, they consider those as somehow a betrayal of the cause.

Take the example of the Export-Import Bank. This is an interesting thing that's happened. This is a program in which we help to provide financing to sell American goods and products around the world. Every country does this. It’s traditionally been championed by Republicans. For some reason, right now the House Republicans have decided that we shouldn’t do this -- which means that when American companies go overseas and they're trying to close a sale on selling Boeing planes, for example, or a GE turbine, or some other American product, that has all kinds of subcontractors behind it and is creating all kinds of jobs, and all sorts of small businesses depend on that sale, and that American company is going up against a German company or a Chinese company, and the Chinese and the German company are providing financing and the American company isn’t, we may lose that sale.

When did that become something that Republicans opposed? It would be like me having a car dealership for Ford, and the Toyota dealership offers somebody financing and I don't. We will lose business and we’ll lose jobs if we don’t pass it.

So there’s some big issues where I understand why we have differences. On taxes, Republicans want to maintain some corporate loopholes I think need to be closed because I think that we should be giving tax breaks to families that are struggling with child care or trying to save for a college education. On health care, obviously their view is, is that we should not be helping folks get health care, even though it’s through the private marketplace. My view is, is that in a country as wealthy as ours, we can afford to make sure that everybody has access to affordable care.

Those are legitimate policy arguments. But getting our ambassadors confirmed? These are career diplomats, not political types. Making sure that we pass legislation to strengthen our borders and put more folks down there? Those shouldn’t be controversial. And I think you’d be hard-pressed to find an example of where I wouldn’t welcome some reasonable efforts to actually get a bill passed out of Congress that I could sign.

Last question, Michelle Kosinski.

Q You made the point that in certain difficult conflicts in the past, both sides had to reach a point where they were tired of the bloodshed. Do you think that we are actually far from that point right now? And is it realistic to try to broker a cease-fire right now when there are still tunnel operations allowed to continue? Is that going to cause a change of approach from this point forward?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, keep in mind that the cease-fire that had been agreed to would have given Israel the capability to continue to dismantle these tunnel networks, but the Israelis can dismantle these tunnel networks without going into major population centers in Gaza. So I think the Israelis are entirely right that these tunnel networks need to be dismantled. There is a way of doing that while still reducing the bloodshed.

You are right that in past conflicts, sometimes people have to feel deeply the costs. Anybody who has been watching some of these images I’d like to think should recognize the costs. You have children who are getting killed. You have women, defenseless, who are getting killed. You have Israelis whose lives are disrupted constantly and living in fear. And those are costs that are avoidable if we’re able to get a cease-fire that preserves Israel’s ability to defend itself and gives it the capacity to have an assurance that they’re not going to be constantly threatened by rocket fire in the future, and, conversely, an agreement that recognizes the Palestinian need to be able to make a living and the average Palestinian’s capacity to live a decent life.

But it’s hard. It’s going to be hard to get there. I think that there’s a lot of anger and there’s a lot of despair, and that’s a volatile mix. But we have to keep trying.

And it is -- Bill asked earlier about American leadership. Part of the reason why America remains indispensable, part of the essential ingredient in American leadership is that we’re willing to plunge in and try, where other countries don’t bother trying. I mean, the fact of the matter is, is that in all these crises that have been mentioned, there may be some tangential risks to the United States. In some cases, as in Iraq and ISIS, those are dangers that have to be addressed right now, and we have to take them very seriously. But for the most part, these are not -- the rockets aren’t being fired into the United States. The reason we are concerned is because we recognize we’ve got some special responsibilities.

We have to have some humility about what we can and can’t accomplish. We have to recognize that our resources are finite, and we’re coming out of a decade of war and our military has been stretched very hard, as has our budget. Nevertheless, we try. We go in there and we make an effort.

And when I see John Kerry going out there and trying to broker a cease-fire, we should all be supporting him. There shouldn’t be a bunch of complaints and second-guessing about, well, it hasn’t happened yet, or nitpicking before he’s had a chance to complete his efforts. Because, I tell you what, there isn’t any other country that’s going in there and making those efforts.

And more often than not, as a consequence of our involvement, we get better outcomes -- not perfect outcomes, not immediate outcomes, but we get better outcomes. And that’s going to be true with respect to the Middle East. That’s going to be true with respect to Ukraine. That’s going to be certainly true with respect to Iraq.

And I think it’s useful for me to end by just reminding folks that, in my first term, if I had a press conference like this, typically, everybody would want to ask about the economy and how come jobs weren’t being created, and how come the housing market is still bad, and why isn’t it working. Well, you know what, what we did worked. And the economy is better. And when I say that we’ve just had six months of more than 200,000 jobs that hasn’t happened in 17 years that shows you the power of persistence. It shows you that if you stay at it, eventually we make some progress. All right?

Q What about John Brennan?

Q The Africa summit -- Ebola?

THE PRESIDENT: I thought that you guys were going to ask me how I was going to spend my birthday. What happened to the happy birthday thing?

Q Happy birthday.

Q What about John Brennan?

Q Africa summit?

THE PRESIDENT: I will address two points. I’ll address --

Q And Flight 17?

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on, guys. Come on. There’s just --

Q And Africa.

THE PRESIDENT: You're not that pent up. I’ve been giving you questions lately.

On Brennan and the CIA, the RDI report has been transmitted, the declassified version that will be released at the pleasure of the Senate committee.

I have full confidence in John Brennan. I think he has acknowledged and directly apologized to Senator Feinstein that CIA personnel did not properly handle an investigation as to how certain documents that were not authorized to be released to the Senate staff got somehow into the hands of the Senate staff. And it’s clear from the IG report that some very poor judgment was shown in terms of how that was handled. Keep in mind, though, that John Brennan was the person who called for the IG report, and he’s already stood up a task force to make sure that lessons are learned and mistakes are resolved.

With respect to the larger point of the RDI report itself, even before I came into office I was very clear that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 we did some things that were wrong. We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values.

I understand why it happened. I think it’s important when we look back to recall how afraid people were after the Twin Towers fell and the Pentagon had been hit and the plane in Pennsylvania had fallen, and people did not know whether more attacks were imminent, and there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this. And it’s important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. And a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots.

But having said all that, we did some things that were wrong. And that's what that report reflects. And that's the reason why, after I took office, one of the first things I did was to ban some of the extraordinary interrogation techniques that are the subject of that report.

And my hope is, is that this report reminds us once again that the character of our country has to be measured in part not by what we do when things are easy, but what we do when things are hard. And when we engaged in some of these enhanced interrogation techniques, techniques that I believe and I think any fair-minded person would believe were torture, we crossed a line. And that needs to be -- that needs to be understood and accepted. And we have to, as a country, take responsibility for that so that, hopefully, we don't do it again in the future.

Q Mr. President --

THE PRESIDENT: Now, I gave you a question.

Q All right.

Q The summit -- the U.S.-Africa --

THE PRESIDENT: We’ve got a U.S.-Africa Summit coming up next week. It is going to be an unprecedented gathering of African leaders. The importance of this for America needs to be understood. Africa is one of the fastest-growing continents in the world. You’ve got six of the 10 fastest-growing economies in Africa. You have all sorts of other countries like China and Brazil and India deeply interested in working with Africa -- not to extract natural resources alone, which traditionally has been the relationship between Africa and the rest of the world -- but now because Africa is growing and you’ve got thriving markets and you’ve got entrepreneurs and extraordinary talent among the people there.

And Africa also happens to be one of the continents where America is most popular and people feel a real affinity for our way of life. And we’ve made enormous progress over the last several years in not just providing traditional aid to Africa, helping countries that are suffering from malnutrition or helping countries that are suffering from AIDS, but rather partnering and thinking about how can we trade more and how can we do business together. And that’s the kind of relationship that Africa is looking for.

And I’ve had conversations over the last several months with U.S. businesses -- some of the biggest U.S. businesses in the world -- and they say, Africa, that’s one of our top priorities; we want to do business with those folks, and we think that we can create U.S. jobs and send U.S. exports to Africa. But we’ve got to be engaged, and so this gives us a chance to do that. It also gives us a chance to talk to Africa about security issues -- because, as we’ve seen, terrorist networks try to find places where governance is weak and security structures are weak. And if we want to keep ourselves safe over the long term, then one of the things that we can do is make sure that we are partnering with some countries that really have pretty effective security forces and have been deploying themselves in peacekeeping and conflict resolution efforts in Africa. And that, ultimately, can save us and our troops and our military a lot of money if we’ve got strong partners who are able to deal with conflicts in these regions.

So it’s going to be a terrific conference. I won’t lie to you, traffic will be bad here in Washington. (Laughter.) I know that everybody has been warned about that, but we are really looking forward to this and I think it’s going to be a great success.

Now, the last thing I’m going to say about this, because I know that it’s been on people’s minds, is the issue of Ebola. This is something that we take very seriously. As soon as there’s an outbreak anywhere in the world of any disease that could have significant effects, the CDC is in communication with the World Health Organization and other multilateral agencies to try to make sure that we’ve got an appropriate response.

This has been a more aggressive Ebola outbreak than we’ve seen in the past. But keep in mind that it is still affecting parts of three countries, and we’ve got some 50 countries represented at this summit. We are doing two things with respect to the summit itself. We’re taking the appropriate precautions. Folks who are coming from these countries that have even a marginal risk or an infinitesimal risk of having been exposed in some fashion, we’re making sure we’re doing screening on that end -- as they leave the country. We’ll do additional screening when they’re here. We feel confident that the procedures that we’ve put in place are appropriate.

More broadly, the CDC and our various health agencies are going to be working very intently with the World Health Organization and some of our partner countries to make sure that we can surge some resources down there and organization to these countries that are pretty poor and don’t have a strong public health infrastructure so that we can start containing the problem.

Keep in mind that Ebola is not something that is easily transmitted. That’s why, generally, outbreaks dissipate. But the key is identifying, quarantining, isolating those who contract it and making sure that practices are in place that avoid transmission. And it can be done, but it’s got to be done in an organized, systematic way, and that means that we’re going to have to help these countries accomplish that.

All right? Okay.

Q Happy Birthday, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: There you go, April. (Laughter.) That’s what I was talking about -- somebody finally wished me happy birthday -- although it isn’t until Monday, you’re right.

Thank you so much.

END 3:34 P.M. EDT

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

August 01, 2014

On-the-Record Conference Call on the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit

ON-THE-RECORD CONFERENCE CALL
BY DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR FOR
STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS BEN RHODES;
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AFRICAN AFFAIRS
LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD;
AND SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR DEVELOPMENT AND DEMOCRACY
AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL GAYLE SMITH
ON THE U.S.-AFRICA LEADERS SUMMIT

Via Telephone

**Please see below for a clarification marked with an asterisk.

July 31, 2014, 6:09 P.M. EDT

MS. MEEHAN: Hi, everybody. This is Bernadette at the National Security Council. Thanks for joining us today for this press call on the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit taking place next week. We have with us today three senior administration officials who I’ll introduce in just a moment. I do want to announce a change to the ground rules for this call. It was advertised as background, but we will conduct this call on the record. So you should feel free to quote each of the administration officials by name. And again, this will be on the record.

Our three senior administration officials are: Ben Rhodes, the Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications; Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Linda Thomas-Greenfield; and Senior Director for Development and Democracy at the National Security Council Gayle Smith.

And with that, I will turn it over to Ben Rhodes.

MR. RHODES: Great. Thanks, everybody, for getting on the call. I'll just give an overview of the summit and the schedule for the summit, and then Linda and Gayle can make some additional comments. And then we'll take of your questions.

First of all, the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit is truly an historic opportunity for the United States to strengthen our ties with the African continent and to underscore America’s commitment to investing in Africa’s development and future peace, prosperity and security.

This is by far the largest engagement by any American President with Africa. It will include nearly 50 African leaders, as well as the participation of a range of U.S. and African civil society and business leaders, young African leaders, and members of Congress.

We've just concluded a very successful three days with 500 Mandela Washington Fellows from our Young African Leaders Initiative. The President, the First Lady, Susan Rice and other senior officials, including Secretary Kerry, were able to engage with those young leaders and also to hear their views about what the agenda is for the United States and Africa.

We chose to do this summit to send a very clear signal that we are elevating our engagement with Africa. We see enormous opportunities in Africa as it continues to advance its own economic development and continues to develop its capabilities as African countries continue to develop their capabilities as security partners of the United States and as democratic partners of the United States.

The theme of the summit is “Investing in the Next Generation.” And I think that's a symbol of the forward-looking and future-oriented nature of our engagement with Africa.

One of the things that we thought about as we prepared the summit is what does the United States uniquely bring to the table in its partnership with African countries. Other nations hold summits with African leaders. We very much wanted this summit to be focused on the distinct and unique attributes of the U.S.-African partnership. And what we believe is unique about the American contribution is our focus on African capacity-building and integrating Africa into the global economy and security order.

What the United States has done in all of our signature development programs -- on food and power and health –- is not just provide assistance to Africa but build African capacity so that public health sectors are empowered to meet challenges on the continent; so that through our Power Africa initiative we are bringing electricity to the continent in a way that will foster development and integration with the global economy; and through our food security initiative we are building the capacity of the agricultural sector within Africa to feed populations and also to foster economic growth.

Now, these initiatives are making substantial progress. Power Africa aims to double access to electricity on the continent. Our food security efforts are combating famine and promoting sustainable agriculture. Our global AIDS efforts are dramatically reducing –- or our global health efforts, I should say, are dramatically reducing deaths from preventable diseases and have enabled the promise of an AIDS-free generation.

We also are very focused on trade and investment. And the summit will include a U.S.-Africa Business Forum that is dedicated to that purpose. This is an important interest to the United States. Africa has six of the 10 fastest-growing economies in the world, and insofar as we can promote trade and investment, that is going to create new markets for our goods; that’s going to create win-win outcomes that advance prosperity in both the United States and Africa, and ultimately create jobs in both the United States and Africa. So this is about seizing the opportunity of African growth and development in our mutual interests.

At the same time, there remains a significant amount of security challenges on the continent, and so we'll be talking about how we can work to build African capacity to counter transnational threats like terrorism, but also to support African peace and security operations in different parts of the continent. And of course, we're committed to supporting strong democratic institutions in Africa as well as the next generation of African leaders. And so we'll be able to discuss efforts to promote open and accountable governance and respect for human rights in Africa, which, of course, continue to be an abiding interest for the United States.

So with that, let me go through the schedule and make a few comments on why we structured the summit as we have.

First of all, tomorrow, there will be an event called Faith Works that will honor the contributions of the faith community to the U.S.-African relationship. As many of you know, many different religious and non-governmental organizations support development on the African continent, and tomorrow USAID will play a lead role in convening many of those faith leaders to not just pay tribute to their work, but to draw from that experience as we roll into the summit next week.

Then, on Monday, there’s a series of events that get at different aspects of our agenda with Africa. There’s a Civil Society Forum at the National Academy of Sciences on Monday morning, where we’ll discuss our efforts to support civil society in Africa -- both the very positive role that civil society plays in consolidating democratic progress, but also efforts to combat closing space for civil society in certain parts of the continent as well.

Then there will be an all-day African Growth and Opportunity Act Forum hosted at the World Bank. AGOA has been a critical piece of our trade relationship with Africa for the last decade. It is up for reauthorization next year. The President has made very clear that we’re committed to renewal of AGOA. We want to do what we can to work with Congress and with African countries to build on the progress of the last several years, but also to improve AGOA. And so this will be an all-day opportunity for trade ministers to discuss our priorities as we work toward the reauthorization of AGOA going forward.

Then there will be several events focused on different parts of our agenda, including investing in women and peace -- investing in women for peace and prosperity, given our focus on supporting gender equality in Africa, and the fundamental notion that the President spoke about to the Young African Leaders that the empowerment of women is good for all of our priorities on Africa.

There will be an event on investing in health. And the global health program that we have continues to be our largest development program in Africa. That builds not just on the success of PEPFAR, but on what we’ve done to combat preventable deaths and to reduce instances of diseases like malaria that are preventable, but also to build the capacity of African public health sectors.

There will be an event on resilience and food security in a changing climate. And we have done a significant amount under this administration to ensure that as we pursue development programs we are factoring in climate resilience. And a key part of our international climate agenda is supporting developing countries as they aim to skip the dirtier phases of development so that the world can meet ambitious emissions reductions targets.

There will be an event on combatting wildlife trafficking. And the administration recently released a landmark strategy on working with Africans to combat the scourge of wildlife trafficking, which denies a critical natural resource of the world but also a critical tourism resource within Africa.

Then, there will also be a congressional reception for the African leaders on Monday evening. Congress has played an enormous role on a bipartisan basis in supporting Africa policy. It is important to note that in an environment in Washington where there’s not a lot of bipartisan agreement, Africa has been a true exception. When you look at programs like PEPFAR, when you look at bipartisan support for Power Africa through the Electrify Africa bills that are making their way through Congress, and when you just look broadly at the support on the Hill for peacekeeping operations and development initiatives, we want to make sure members of Congress are fully integrated into the summit, and the reception will be an important part of that.

Then, Tuesday is the U.S.-Africa Business Forum that Bloomberg Bloomberg Philanthropies* is co-hosting with the Department of Commerce. And throughout the day there will be several panel discussions. One is focused on expanding opportunities for business to invest in Africa. Another on opening markets, so that we can help finance the Africa of tomorrow. Another on Power Africa and leading developments in infrastructure. And then one on shaping the future of a fast-growing continent.

Just to step back here, part of what the United States brings to the table in Africa is not simply our governmental resources, but the huge demand in Africa for trade and investment and partnership with American businesses. And that leads to commercial deals that have a specific benefit both for the United States and for the African countries that are partners in those fields, but also to the broader trade and investment environment that we’re seeking to foster so that African growth creates broader prosperity on the continent but also new markets for U.S. businesses.

President Obama will then close the U.S.-Africa Business Forum by making remarks and then answering some questions about our agenda as it relates to trade and investment.

Then, that night, Tuesday night, the President and Mrs. Obama will host here at the White House a dinner with all of the African leaders to pay tribute to this historic event.

On Wednesday, the summit sessions themselves will take place at the State Department. The first session is on investing in Africa’s future. The second session is on peace and regional stability. And then the third session is on governing for the next generation.

And these three different sessions will allow us to build on the discussions of the previous two days to focus on issues like how we’re supporting development on areas like food, health and power that have been priorities for us, but also the continued growth and economic development of Africa; on regional peace and security, what we’re doing as a partner to facilitate African solutions to peacekeeping challenging; what we’re doing to consolidate democratic progress in Africa and strengthen democratic institutions around issues like the rule of law; and, of course, what we’re doing to support the next generation of African leaders -- something that is so demonstrated by our Young African Leaders Initiative.

The President will then, at the conclusion of the summit, have a press conference. I’d also note that the First Lady will be hosting a spousal program along with Laura Bush, on Wednesday, where she’ll focus on a number of issues, including her commitment to girls’ education and the empowerment of women in Africa.

So we’re very excited about this opportunity. We believe it can be a game-changer in the U.S.-Africa relationship, that it will advance our work on all the areas that the U.S. is focused on, from the food, power and health development agenda; to the trade and investment partnerships we’re building; to the peace and security initiatives that we have across the continent; to the strengthening and consolidation of democratic progress.

We engage Africa and African countries as equals, and that’s the spirit in which the President will receive the leaders.

With that, Linda, why don’t you provide some perspective from State, and then Gayle can close us out before questions.

MS. THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Okay. I’ll be brief. But what I’d like to talk about is the engagement that we’ve had with African governments on putting together this fantastic agenda. We started engaging about eight months ago, working with ambassadors here in Washington as well as going out through our ambassadors to various posts to confer with governments about the agenda. Also, in all of our official travel to the continent, we talked about those areas that countries were interested in seeing on the agenda.

Gayle Smith, Grant Harris and I were in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea in late June and we met with a record 30 African delegations where, again, we went through the agenda for the summit, heard from them additional ideas that they wanted us to take into account in the agenda. And I can tell you that everyone was excited. They were -- the response was enthusiastic. And I think that we have come up with an agenda that is going to provide for a very productive meeting.

I also want to note -- Ben didn’t mention that we have about 80 unofficial side events that have developed as a result of the summit. The summit has really galvanized the African community around Washington. And the NGO community, the local universities, think tanks, business organizations have all put together an interesting set of side meetings that I think will keep everyone in Washington busy for the entire week -- that the heads of state and other members of the delegation will be during the time they will be here in Washington.

So I will end there and turn it over to Gayle.

MS. SMITH: Hi, everybody. And I’ll be brief, I’ll just add a couple of things. I think a few things that are unique about this summit have to do with both the style and the frame. Ben laid out the sequence of events. The YALI Summit has been this week; we have the faith event tomorrow. Civil Society Forum, AGOA Ministerial, Business Forum and Conference -- all these things will flow into the actual discussion on Wednesday, and we think set up a conversation that will be quite unique, including because the frame of this is about the next generation. So rather than an exclusive focus on the challenges or opportunities of today, the questions on the table in each of these three sessions are what do we need to be thinking about and doing now so that we are at a place in 10 or 15 years where the gains we’ve seen in Africa are consolidated, where the growth we are seeing is inclusive, and where some of the ongoing challenges are more systematically and strategically addressed.

It will also be informal. There are an awful lot of summits that are comprised by a huge number of speeches and a great deal of formality. This summit will be one where there will be an active exchange of views, and this is something -- again, it’s not the usual case. I think the Assistant Secretary described our consultation process. We have had a lot of positive feedback from leaders directly that they are looking forward to being able to have the opportunity to talk with the President and each other in a way that it is less rather than more formal.

We’re focused on outcomes that are tangible. In other words, this is not the culmination of anything. This is a very big step in the long evolution of our Africa policy, but we do intend and will be coming out of this summit with some tangible outcomes that we’re going to want to move forward on together.

If I can just flag a few things that I think may be of interest to many of you covering this that stand out I think in ways consistent with the kind of broad principles that Ben laid out. On the Monday when there will be a great focus on development, the changes we have seen in Africa on development are quite phenomenal -- a real shift from a dependence on assistance to the investment of their own dollars. Some of the greatest gains we’ve seen on the planet in HIV and AIDS, maternal and child health, agricultural development are in Africa.

Food security, which Ben mentioned -- President Obama called for a worldwide food security initiative in February of 2009, very shortly after coming into office, at a time when worldwide investments in agricultural development were down very, very, very sharply and where the world was spending much more on relief than agricultural development. We were able to build those initiatives to Feed the Future and the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition based on what Africa has done.

African leaders agreed some years ago to increase their investments in agriculture, that every country should have a plan. They have since, in the last couple of months, committed themselves to tripling agricultural trade, further reducing hunger. This is an area where we have been hugely successful but in large measure because we’ve got a huge number of leaders putting skin in the game.

We’ve also seen that with Power Africa, which launched only a year ago, which has gotten enormous traction. We will have some things to say about how far that has come and where it is going. So those are just a couple of things on the Monday.

On the Tuesday at the business forum, I think by virtue of the fact of who is in attendance, what kinds of things will be announced, and the general buzz around it, I think there is now a solid recognition that what we are talking about is a very fast-growing and dynamic emerging market where we have mutual interests in increasing U.S. investment. There will also be significantly there a number of prominent African CEOs. Among the business leaders in attendance, we will have a huge diversity of companies from very large and well-known companies to a lot of smaller companies. And, again, both American and international, but also significantly African corporate leaders.

So I think -- I would say we’ll leave it at that, Ben, and turn it back to you. We’ve spoken a lot and maybe take your questions.

MR. RHODES: Yes, happy to take questions.

Q Hi there, thanks so much for doing this call. I wanted to begin by asking you about the competition for U.S. investment in Africa. There is a lot of it. As you mentioned, because there is this recognition that it’s such a (inaudible) emerging market -- competition from China, Malaysia, Turkey and Europe. And Ambassador Rice said this week that the engagement with the U.S. is different because the U.S. doesn’t see the continent as a place to extract resources but a place of boundless opportunities. What I hear from African leaders and people who work in Africa is that they already know that. And I would ask you what message will you deliver to show that the U.S. approach to Africa has truly turned a corner, that you do value them as this equal partner, and how are you showing that during a summit without using bilateral meetings?

MR. RHODES: Thanks, Jessica. Let me just say a couple things. First of all, with respect to China, President Obama has made clear that we welcome other nations being invested in Africa, and, frankly, China can play a constructive role in areas like developing African infrastructure. At the same time, we do believe we bring something unique to the table. We are less focused on resources from Africa and more focused on deepening trade and investment relationships. And I think the way in which that will be demonstrated at the summit is if you look at the nature of our engagement -- first of all, we are engaged across the U.S. government so that it is not simply the State Department, but the Commerce Department, the United States Trade Representative, OPEC and Ex-Im -- all have very deep ties in Africa.

All of those principals have made recent trips to Africa or had recent meetings with African leaders to discuss what the United States can do to increase our trade and investment footprint on the continent. Our businesses will be represented at the U.S.-Africa Business Forum -- are pursuing a much broader engagement on the continent. And they are seeking to deepen their own investments in Africa in ways that will I think create a broader prosperity on the continent, because they are putting resources into African economies in ways that support development and job creation in Africa, but also create new markets for American goods. And so there will be specific commercial deals that can be discussed, but also the broader climate around trade and investment.

And then there are some very specific things that we're focused on. AGOA is one -- as we seek a renewal of AGOA heading into next year. But also, we've sought to support the greater integration of trade within Africa. And it happens to be the case that in some cases it's easier for African countries to export beyond Africa’s shores than to trade with their neighbors because of how their economies were set up. And so we've worked, for instance, with the East African community to facilitate greater trade across borders in East Africa so that you're looking at issues like customs and you're looking at ways for different countries to integrate their trade practices.

That will be good for them because they can create more integrated economic arrangements, but it will also be good for us because that will then make it easier for us to harmonize our trade and investment across different parts of the African continent.

So when you look at this agenda, it's really about how do we use the remarkable growth in parts of Africa to go to the next level, so that investment is flowing into Africa, jobs are being created, new markets are being grown, there’s integration on the continent, and there’s deeper trade with the United States. And again, we, uniquely as a country in the global economy, bring all those different assets to bear -- not just dollars, but business partnership, trade expertise, and an interconnection to the global economy.

I don't know, Gayle, if you want to add anything to that.

MS. SMITH: I think just one example I would point to is Power Africa, because one of the challenges in Africa that we found in the energy sector and that our partners have talked to us about is you’ve got a huge number of potential projects, you’ve got a lot of capital that is looking for a place to invest, and how do you bring those two things together.

Through Power Africa, what we have been able to do is provide a menu of things that can render those projects bankable. So we're working with governments to improve their regulatory environment, or provide risk insurance to companies that want to go in but there is still a high perception of risk.

So at the same time, we are bringing capital to investments in power and energy, including U.S. capital, but we're also building the capacity of these countries to grow economies that are sustainable and deliver. And I think that's one of the big shifts. We're interested in the investment, but we're also interested in building the capacity, even as we move more closely into this emerging market.

Q Do you have a count now on how many countries will be participating in the official events? And for those countries whose Presidents cannot attend, what level of representation is allowed, I guess is the question –- vice president, ministerial -- for the dinner and for the Wednesday session, Presidents at the State Department?

MS. THOMAS-GREENFIELD: All 50 of the delegations that were invited are attending, not all at the level of the Presidents. Those in which Presidents are unable to attend for various reasons have designated either Vice Presidents or Prime Ministers, and in a few cases foreign ministers have accepted on their behalf and they will be allowed to participate in the summit deliberations.

MR. RHODES: And I'd just add we also included the African Union. And the way in which we approach the summit is to view Africa in the way in which Africa views itself in terms of its political organization. In other words, we didn’t simply do a Sub-Saharan African summit. We invited all of Africa, with the exception of certain countries that are either not in good standing with the AU or are of particular concern to the United States, such as Zimbabwe and Sudan.

Q Hi, I just want to ask this question specifically to the National Security Advisor. I heard you guys talk about peace and security, and then I also heard you guys talk about security within the African continent. Now, we have seen the development of al Qaeda in the Maghreb, and also the Tuareg rebels in Mali, and also the activities of Boko Haram in Nigeria. And mostly, these are terrorist groups that are working with networks like al Qaeda, and they are expanding and causing conflict in areas like Kenya, and al-Shabaab. Now, I want to ask, specifically when President Obama meets with these African leaders, part of the agenda -- are you guys going to discuss new counterterrorism policies that would involve African countries networking and partnering with the United States?

Because already small countries like The Gambia have been -- I mean, in the international community, countries like Senegal have (inaudible) The Gambia when it comes to arms dealing with Iran and also -- and unrest in the sub-region. So would this be part of the agenda of this (inaudible) peace and security not just in Africa but also the security of -- the national security of the United States? I would like to ask your senior government officials about that.

MR. RHODES: Sure. I’ll say a couple of things and see if my colleagues want to add to that. First of all, we are very focused on the threat of terrorism in Africa. We see it as particularly acute in the areas that you mentioned -- North Africa, Somalia with al-Shabaab, and of course Boko Haram in Nigeria. Those aren’t the only areas, but those have been particular areas of focus.

When the President at West Point announced a new focus on building a network of counterterrorism partners, he was very specific to say that this would come from South Asia to the Sahel. And we have pursued a $5 billion Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund, for instance, to support those efforts. And that includes, for instance, what the United States is doing to facilitate the French-led effort in Mali to push back against extremists who have sought to control portions of Mali. It certainly speaks to our cooperation with countries like Morocco and Algeria and other North African partners who share our counterterrorism challenge. And it very much speaks to the threat of al-Shabaab. And the President lifted that up as an example where we’ve had cooperation where the United States brings resources to bear to support AMISOM -- has aimed to push back against al-Shabaab within Somalia, and to support the development of a government there. And we’ve had some -- but at the same time, the United States also, frankly, does pursue its own counterterrorism operations as necessary to support that AMISOM-led effort and to push back against al-Shabaab.

That’s the type of example that we want to build on, where you have regional partners bringing these resources to bear, with the support of the United States that can provide intelligence, it can provide certain unique capabilities that we can bring to bear, and it can also provide a political context where we’re not just dealing with the threat, but we’re also seeking to develop democratic institutions and development that can serve as a counterweight to terrorism -- that that’s our long-term approach in a place like Somalia. And we certainly would want to work with countries like Kenya and Uganda to support counterterrorism efforts in the neighborhood.

So I think this context will be a part of the peace and security discussion, just as we’ll also be discussing the issues related to peacekeeping and some of the challenges that you see in places like the Central African Republic.

I’d just note -- because you mentioned Nigeria -- there are -- we have been looking at ways that we can increase our cooperation with Nigeria. We have a team on the ground there that is supporting their efforts against Boko Haram and seeking to find the girls that were kidnapped earlier this year.

But I don’t know if, Linda or Gayle, do you have anything you’d want to add to that?

MS. THOMAS-GREENFIELD: I would just add that this was an issue that was brought to our attention by African leaders almost to a number that they are equally concerned about the rise in terrorism across the continent, that they see a nexus between activities in different regions, and that they want to build their capacity to respond, they want to be able to share information and cooperate with each other to address those issues. So we will spend quite a bit of time discussing those issues and looking at how we move together in the future to address terrorism.

MS. SMITH: I’d just add one small thing to this in terms of some of what we’ve heard from the leaders in consultation. Terrorism obviously a big concern to them, but also a host of other transnational threats. And many of these come down to the same vulnerabilities in terms of security, borders, information, so on and so forth.

So, in addition, the drug trade, trafficking, so on and so forth, are also on their minds. I think the only thing I would add in terms of how we might approach it is how do we think about this, again, systematically, strategically, and in a sustainable way, so we get back to that core issue of building their capacity and supporting their efforts to address these challenges on the ground.

Q Hi, this is Marilyn Geewax. I’m just wondering -- the big news, of course, this week has been about Ebola and Africa. And I just wondered if it will have any impact in any way that is -- maybe some Presidents won’t be able to come or flights have some troubles getting in. Is there any impact at all from this story about Ebola?

MS. THOMAS-GREENFIELD: You want to take that, Gayle?

MS. SMITH: Let me take a first cut, Linda, and turn to you. Obviously, this has been a great concern. We have been engaged with and in the region in working on this issue since March, when the first cases appeared. Obviously, there has been a decline in a couple of countries so that there’s greater attention on it. We are closely engaged with the leaders and the governments of the three countries most affected. The Assistant Secretary may want to say more on that.

We’re doing several things. One is ramping up our efforts to support a regional effort to deal with this outbreak and support, again, three governments who are doing a lot of things to contend with a real threat. Mind you, these are countries that have emerged -- particularly Sierra Leone and Liberia -- from years of war. And so this is an uphill challenge for them. We’re also taking the necessary steps domestically to protect the American people. We have no plans to change the agenda of the summit, but we will obviously adapt as needed and in consultation with our partners, depending on their requirements.

And, Linda, let me turn to you if you’d like to add anything.

MS. SMITH: Yes. I would just add I’ve been in conversation with all three heads of state in the region over the past two days to, one, confirm to them that we want to support their efforts and to commend them for their leadership and offer our condolences for the deaths of their citizens, but at the same time, to find out from them what additional assistance we might provide. We’ve provided a range of support and assistance to respond to the outbreak, we’ve provided personal protective equipment, essential supplies, public health messaging efforts, and a great deal of technical expertise.

You may have heard CDC today describing some of the activities that we are providing. We did hear from both President Sirleaf and President Koroma that because of their involvement and engagement in the crisis in their countries, that they were reconsidering whether they should come to the summit. And while we would be terribly disappointed not to have them here, we also understand the importance of them being in their countries and showing leadership at this critical time.

Q Thank you very much. I just have two quick questions. Number one, I wanted to directly put the issue of why (inaudible) President Obama will not be holding any one-on-one meetings with any of the leaders that are coming. And then secondly, are we going to get a list of the numbers of the Presidents that will be coming to the meeting? Thank you

MR. RHODES: Sure, I can take that. On your first question, given the fact that we have nearly 50 leaders coming, frankly, we just wouldn’t be able to do bilats with everybody, and so the simplest thing is for the President to devote his time to engaging broadly with all the leaders. That way we’re not singling out individuals at the expense of the other leaders. So that way the President can commit his time to broad engagement.

I will say that the President will have a chance to interact individually with each leader. That’s part of the purpose of having the dinner where he’ll be able to personally receive each leader attending the dinner. And so he will certainly speak with and interact with every leader who is coming here to the summit. And I think that speaks to his commitment to engage Africa.

Keep in mind, too, that no U.S. President has ever done a summit like this with every African leader. I think that speaks to the deep respect he has for engaging Africa as an equal partner. Of course, he had the opportunity to meet bilaterally, for instance, with President Jonathan in the past. He will certainly be able to have bilateral meetings in the future with a range of important African leaders, including the President of Nigeria.

On your second question, we will certainly -- as we get the list finalized in terms of African attendees -- that is the type of thing that will be available. We can’t provide it now. As Linda noted, of course, for instance, there have been changes in two of the countries affected by the Ebola virus, but as we get the list finalized we will be able to make that available for people.

Q Thank you for doing the call. Let me try again as a variation of a previous question. Weren’t you disappointed, though, because a lot of leaders from North Africa decided to send lower representation to the summit? And how do you respond to many of them that they sort of insinuate that the focus, the U.S. focus is on the Sub-Saharan countries rather than North Africa?

MR. RHODES: Well, I’d say a couple things. First of all, we made a conscious choice to integrate North Africa into the summit and not simply view it as an opportunity to engage Sub-Saharan Africa. We wanted to engage the entire continent. That -- the African Union approach. And, of course, we’re including the African Union in the summit as well, which sends I think an important signal about the importance that we place on our relationship with the African Union as a key international and regional organization.

With respect to the North African countries, we, frankly, have an opportunity to engage on a bilateral basis very regularly with a number of those countries. So, for instance, if you look at a country like Egypt, there is no shortage of U.S. time and attention and resources that are devoted to the U.S.-Egyptian relationship. Secretary Kerry, of course, was just in Egypt for several days. So we’re confident that we are able to work very closely across the board on the range of issues we have, for instance, with Egypt. And if you look at Morocco, for instance, the President was able to welcome the King here just recently. So we’ve had that head of state engagement.

I would actually, frankly, note that we’re very pleased to have the opportunity to receive a Libyan delegation. In the context of the recent drawdown of our embassy operations, it’s important for us to find ways to be able to engage Libyan leaders and, in addition to our diplomats who are staying in the region in Malta, to continue to engage Libyan counterparts. The summit will be a good opportunity for us to continue our support for efforts to bring about an end to some of the violence that we’ve seen in recent days in Libya and to find out ways that the international community can invest in institutions that can be more durable for the Libyan people going forward.

So we’ll have that opportunity to engage those who attend from North Africa even as we have an agenda here that is very much focused on the continent and focused on our development initiatives and focused on our investments across all of Africa. So, again, we have an agenda that is not limited in focus to some of the issues that the United States works on a very regular basis with North Africa, but we do see North Africa as a key part of our broader approach to the continent.

Q On the issue of security, I was just wondering, since Africa, kind of a hotspot for more of a -- continent -- some parts of a continent is a hotspot for various persons who are trying to become a terrorist or breed terrorism, what countries on the continent are you looking to foster some kind of, what do you call it -- I just forgot the word -- what is it when you send the person back? That you’re asking to send the terrorist back? I just forgot -- I just lost -- but you know what I’m talking about. When a criminal is extradited -- I’m sorry, you’re trying to extradite the person.

MR. RHODES: I see. Well, thanks, April. It’s always good to hear your voice, and we appreciate your focus on these African issues and certainly your engagement with the President on the recent trip he made to Africa.

Look, we are concerned about efforts by terrorist groups to gain a foothold in Africa. I think what we’ve seen is, in addition to groups like al-Shabaab that gain a foothold in a place like Somalia, we see international terrorist networks sometimes seek to take advantage of ungoverned spaces so that they can get a safe haven. And so that’s what we saw in Mali where some extremist groups, including those affiliated with al Qaeda, took advantage of an ongoing conflict between the government and the Tuaregs to gain territory and hold it.

And what we’re doing is several things. On the specific question you ask about are we concerned about people traveling to Africa, out focus there has been, for instance, on dissuading those in, for instance, the Somali-American community from being recruited from overseas by al-Shabaab. And I have nothing but admiration for the extraordinary work that’s been done by the diaspora, including the Somali-American community, in rejecting some of the extremist propaganda that we see online and distributed in communities here. And so we work to forge community-based solutions with the diaspora to prevent the young people from being corrupted and recruited from abroad by a group like al-Shabaab.

So that’s one instance in which we are working not just to deal with the threat of terrorism in Africa, but to ensure that there’s not an effort to reach into the United States and our diaspora communities who are very much a part of the solution to these challenges.

On extradition, that has not been a -- I wouldn’t term that as a focal point beyond the Gitmo piece. So if that’s -- to take that as a specific jumping-off point, we have transferred some detainees to North African countries, for instance. Algeria, for instance, recently received some detainees who had been cleared for transfer. I believe there are other cases where -- like Sudan, where individuals that served their time and have been released.

When we transfer detainees from Gitmo to any country, we do a review to assure that our national security interests can be protected in the context of that transfer. We consult with the government that is going to be receiving those individuals. So that would certainly be the case in a situation like Algeria.

But that’s a very narrow part of our counterterrorism agenda. The bigger part of our agenda is to work with African countries to build their counterterrorism capabilities, to find where the United States may have unique capacity not just to conduct counterterrorism operations, but to facilitate international and regional counterterrorism activities. And so in France, with Mali, for instance, we can help facilitate French efforts with some of our intelligence and some of our logistical support. We’ve similarly worked closely with AMISOM and Somalia to strengthen their capabilities.

But then we’re looking at how do we get at the broader issue of countering violent extremism in Africa so that these groups, like Boko Haram, like al-Shabaab, like al-Qaeda, are not able to prey on young people with disinformation and intimidation; that we’re getting information out with African partners that puts forward a better vision of the future. And I think nothing puts that on greater display than the types of young leaders that we’ve been engaged with through our Young African Leaders Initiative, who frankly represent the much more (inaudible) future available to young people across Africa.

So it’s a multi-dimensional approach, but it’s one that’s focused on building African capacity and supporting it with unique American capabilities.

I think we’ve got time for one more question.

Q Hi there, thanks for briefing. I’ve got two questions. First one is on who is coming and who is not coming. What is the actual diplomatic process by which certain heads of state don’t get invited or don’t show? I’m thinking about Mugabe and al-Bashir. And if some are excluded, how come Uhuru Kenyatta -- the ICC and (inaudible) is coming? Second question -- internal African crises. Are you expecting or hoping to see any kind of political process on some of the worst issues facing the continent? I’m thinking South Sudan, CAR, Somalia, or Congo. Thanks.

MR. RHODES: So on your first question, we were guided by, in part, how the African Union approaches its relations with member states. But then again, we also have individual countries that we have unique challenges with, too. So just to take a few examples, the Central African Republic is currently suspended from the African Union, so that falls into the category of a country that we made a decision based on the determination of their current association with the African Union. If you look at Sudan, given not just the ICC case, which is of course of deep concern, but the pattern of behavior out of President Bashir and the way in which the United States has approached those issues, including -- well, including the ICC piece, we did not feel it appropriate to invite President Bashir.

MS. THOMAS-GREENFIELD: And then I would just add to that the lack of cooperation with the ICC.

MR. RHODES: Yes, absolutely. And then Zimbabwe -- President Mugabe, the specially designated national -- he’s subject to U.S. sanctions given what he has done to undermine democratic processes and institutions in Zimbabwe. And so given our grave concern and our sanctions, we did not see it appropriate to invite President Mugabe.

So these are individual leaders who are either not in good standing with the AU or are specifically designated for U.S. sanctions who would not be invited.

Now, President Kenyatta, of course we’ve expressed some concerns around the ICC. Kenya has a process by which they’re working to address those concerns, and we’ve been supportive of those efforts. And we also have obviously a very deep and significant relationship with Kenya on not just security issues but on issues associated with trade and development. And they have been a key regional partner, so they will be a part of these discussions.

But Gayle or Linda may want to address both those questions.

MS. THOMAS-GREENFIELD: I think you covered it all.

MS. SMITH: And just the one thing I would add on your second question -- yes, we think the summit will provide a number of opportunities to work on some of the cases of chronic conflict or some of the challenges on the continent. We’ll be able to speak to some of those as the week unfolds next week, but certainly on issues like South Sudan, we seize every opportunity; we’ve got to try to move the ball forward. We’ll be doing so next week as well.

MR. RHODES: Let me just mention, just because you asked specifically, the five countries not invited -- I mentioned CAR, Sudan, and Zimbabwe -- or the five leaders not invited. Eritrea was not invited. The U.N. continues to sanction Eritrea for its efforts to destabilize Somalia, but also Eritrea has not accepted diplomatic relations with the United States, rejecting our offer of an ambassador. Some people have also asked about Western Sahara; the United States and the U.N. do not recognize the Western Sahara as a country. So CAR, Eritrea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and then the unique case of Western Sahara -- those are the -- those leaders not attending.

Well, thanks, everybody, for getting on the call. I think we’ll wrap it up there. And we’ll be able to be in touch on these issues going forward.

MS. MEEHAN: Thanks, everyone, and just a reminder that this call was on the record. Thanks very much.

END
7:05 P.M. EDT

The President Delivers a Statement

Press Conference by the President

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

Weekly Wrap Up: Jobs, a VP #TBT, Iced Tea, and BBQ

53 Straight Months of Job Growth

Statement by the Press Secretary on H.R. 1528, S. 517

West Wing Week 08/01/14 or, “A Walk Down Main St.”

West Wing Week 08/01/14 or, “A Walk Down Main St."

Readout of the President’s Call with President Putin of Russia

Answering the Public's Call

On-the-Record Conference Call on the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit

The President Speaks at Dinner to Celebrate Special Olympics