Zimsec A Level History Questions And Answers Pdf Download \/\/TOP\\\\

[Lavinia Lyau]

Compliance with eSignature regulations is only a fraction of what signNow can offer to make form execution legitimate and secure. It also provides a lot of possibilities for smooth completion security smart. Let's quickly go through them so that you can stay certain that your zimsec o level geography questions and answers pdf remains protected as you fill it out.

We know how stressing filling in forms could be. Gain access to a HIPAA and GDPR compliant service for maximum efficiency. Use signNow to electronically sign and send Zimsec geography questions and answers pdf for collecting e-signatures.

zimsec a level history questions and answers pdf download

DOWNLOAD https://t.co/PbQiTcPVEZ

Are you looking for a one-size-fits-all solution to eSign o level geography questions and answers pdf? signNow combines ease of use, affordability and security in one online tool, all without forcing extra software on you. All you need is smooth internet connection and a device to work on.

After that, your geography o level questions and answers is ready. All you have to do is download it or send it via email. signNow makes eSigning easier and more convenient since it offers users numerous additional features like Add Fields, Merge Documents, Invite to Sign, etc. And because of its cross-platform nature, signNow can be used on any device, personal computer or mobile phone, irrespective of the OS.

Mobile devices like smartphones and tablets are in fact a ready business alternative to desktop and laptop computers. You can take them everywhere and even use them while on the go as long as you have a stable connection to the internet. Therefore, the signNow web application is a must-have for completing and signing o level geography questions and answers pdf on the go. In a matter of seconds, receive an electronic document with a legally-binding eSignature.

The whole procedure can last a few moments. As a result, you can download the signed geography o level questions and answers to your device or share it with other parties involved with a link or by email. Because of its multi-platform nature, signNow works on any device and any operating system. Select our eSignature tool and forget about the old times with efficiency, security and affordability.

If you own an iOS device like an iPhone or iPad, easily create electronic signatures for signing a o level geography questions and answers pdf in PDF format. signNow has paid close attention to iOS users and developed an application just for them. To find it, go to the AppStore and type signNow in the search field.

Despite iPhones being very popular among mobile users, the market share of Android gadgets is much bigger. Therefore, signNow offers a separate application for mobiles working on Android. Easily find the app in the Play Market and install it for eSigning your o level geography questions and answers pdf.

If you wish to share the geography o level questions and answers with other parties, you can send the file by email. With signNow, you are able to eSign as many documents in a day as you require at a reasonable price. Start automating your eSignature workflows right now.

Revision: A-Level History
These notes aim to give a brief description of what is required of people studying A Level history (specifically for Edexcel Unit 6, but parts are also valid for other exam boards and modules)..
Both (a) and (b) questions demand that we respond in an analytical fashion. That means that we develop an argument in response to the question set. The questions are framed in such a way as to allow analysis to take place.

ZIMSAKE Notes is a free ZIMSEC and Cambridge O level and A level revision notes platform. This platform provides free revision materials, notes, study packs, past papers, and question and answers for O Level and A level.

Our employee engagement framework is based on a hierarchy of employees' development needs, and each of our 12 employee engagement survey questions, or items, fits into one of the four levels within that hierarchy.

Teachers educate students of all ages in various subjects, such as science and language, but what is a historian able to do in the classroom? At the grade-school level, history teachers often share general knowledge of historical events with their students. High school teachers, on the other hand, have more liberty with the subject matter, meaning they can dig deeper into historical events. After completing a class, high school students should be able to determine what caused an event, how the event played out, and what the consequences were. Beyond the classroom, history teachers may lead community-level history projects as an extension of their classroom work. These projects could be anything from coordinating extracurricular historical reenactments within the community or organizing school events to honor important historical figures.

Remarks by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Washington, D.C.
White House News
February 4, 2008MR. HADLEY: Thank you, Jessica. James Gaither, thank you for yourleadership. It's a pleasure to be with you this evening.For nearly a century, fellows of the Carnegie Endowment for InternationalPeace have made contributions to our public debate on internationalaffairs. In the 21st century, your work will continue to be vital. Iappreciate your efforts to expand your presence in other parts of the world-- so that Carnegie can offer a truly global perspective on the choices infront of us.As you know, next week the President and Mrs. Bush will travel to Africa. It will be his second visit to the continent since 2001, and Mrs. Bush'sfifth visit.They will travel to Benin, Tanzania, Rwanda, Ghana and Liberia. The tripwill be an opportunity to demonstrate American commitment to the people ofthese countries and to Africa as a whole. The trip will highlight how theUnited States has partnered closely with the people of Africa to addressthe challenges of disease, poverty, and security -- and how together wehave made remarkable progress.There's now more hope in Africa, and theAmerican people can be proud that many of our innovative programs aremaking a real difference.Africa is also one part of the world where you can see in action thePresident's approach to development. And tonight, I'd like to describe theconcepts and the principles behind that approach, how his initiatives arehaving an impact, and why this approach deserves the support of bothpolitical parties here in Washington in the years ahead.We help the people of the developing world because America is acompassionate nation. When Americans see people in need, they want tohelp, because we believe as a nation that every individual deserves theopportunity to reach his or her potential. As the President said in hisState of the Union last week: building a freer, more hopeful, morecompassionate world reflects the calling of our conscience.Yet we also recognize that helping people in the developing world is verymuch in our national interest.People who are free, educated, healthy,empowered, and able to use their freedom to enhance their economicwell-being are less likely to support terror or attacks on others. If thisnew century has shown us anything, it is that our own prosperity, freedom,and security are increasingly intertwined with those of less developednations.President Bush believes that U.S. development assistance is central to ournation's national security and foreign policy - and his budgets havereflected that commitment. Since he took office, he has more than doubledU.S. development assistance, from about $10 billion in 2000 to about $23billion in 2006. That is the largest increase in development assistancesince the Marshall Plan.In his first four years in office, the President doubled our officialdevelopment assistance for Africa. At the G8 Summit in 2005, he promisedto double our assistance to Africa once again by 2010.And the President'sbudget request for fiscal year 2009 that was released today reflects thatcommitment. If approved by Congress and fully implemented, this budgetrequest will ensure that our nation keeps its promise to our internationalpartners and to the people of Africa.The President's approach to development grew out of the collective wisdomour nation has gained from decades of experience working with the peopleand nations of the developing world. In some nations, our developmentassistance seemed only to subsidize corrupt regimes, while the peoplecontinued stuck in poverty. Yet in other nations, our assistance did helpstrong economies and democracies emerge -- and helped make people moreprosperous. What accounted for the difference?The President's approach to development answers this question and reflectsthese lessons learned:The best way to enhance development is to invest inpeople -- their health, their education. So this is what we are doing,while encouraging governments in the developing world to make the choicesthat enable their people to achieve a better life.We are measuring success by the number of lives that change, not the numberof dollars that change hands. We are using our assistance to encourageinnovation and reform, not to subsidize governments that have failed toinvest in their people. We are helping nations to open their economies tofree markets and free trade, so they emerge over time from dependence uponforeign aid. And we are building relationships based on partnership, notpaternalism.Our President's budget commitment for development, combined with hisapproach to development, have allowed our nation to build partnerships tohelp developing nations fight many of their most pressing challenges.First, the United States is partnering with developing nations to fightterrible diseases. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief --proposed by the President but funded by the Congress and supported by theAmerican people -- is the largest international health initiative inhistory ever dedicated to a single disease. PEPFAR is based onpartnerships with local communities and indigenous organizations thatdeliver treatment and care for those suffering from the disease -- andprevent its spread. PEPFAR has helped bring life-saving treatment to morethan 1.4 million people around the world.The President has asked Congress to double the historic initial commitmentto the program with an additional $30 billion over the next five years. These new funds will help bring us closer to our goal of treating 2.5million people, preventing more than 12 million new infections, and caringfor more than 12 million people, including 5 million orphans and vulnerablechildren.The President's Malaria Initiative -- also with the support of the Congress-- is helping to fight a disease that claims the lives of 1 millionchildren under the age of five each year in Sub-Saharan Africa. This is afive-year, $1.2 billion effort. The key to beating this disease isfighting the mosquito, so the initiative provides insecticide-treated bednets and indoor spraying, as well as anti-malaria medicines. Through thisinitiative, U.S. tax dollars leverage private sector support, and more than6 million long-lasting insecticide-treated mosquito nets are beingdistributed through public-private partnerships.The President's Malaria Initiative has already reached an estimated 25million people in 15 African countries. Our goal is to reduce themortality rate of this disease over five years in those 15 countries by 50percent.The United States also leads the world in its support for the Global Fundto Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria -- making the Fund's foundingcontribution. And the United States has contributed approximately $2.5billion to date, far more than any other nation.Second, the United States is partnering with developing nations to providebasic education. Our Africa Education Initiative is providing $600 millionover eight years to increase access to quality basic education. By 2010,this effort will have distributed over 15 million textbooks, trained nearly1 million teachers, and provided 550,000 scholarships for young women.Last May, President Bush launched the International Education Initiative,and committed to provide an additional $425 million over five years to makeour international education programs more effective. U.S. resources arefocused on countries that demonstrate a strong commitment to education byinvesting their own resources in schools and teachers, operating withfinancial transparency, and adopting plans with international standards. This approach will help to provide an additional 4 million children withaccess to basic education in Ethiopia, Ghana, Honduras, Liberia, Mali, andYemen.Third, the United States is partnering with developing nations to fighthunger. Currently, more than half the world's food assistance comes fromthe United States. In 2007, our emergency food aid reached 23 millionpeople in 30 countries.Last week, the President proposed an initiative to supplement food aidgrown in the United States with crops repurchased from local and regionalfarmers. These purchases would help our nation respond to crisissituations, but also help break the cycle of famine in developing countriesby encouraging local agriculture rather than displacing it.Fourth, the United States is partnering with developing nations to lifttheir burden of debt. For decades, many governments had to spend hugeamounts of money just to make interest payments on their accumulatedindebtedness -- money they could have otherwise invested in their people. This debt limited the growth of developing economies and trapped millionsof people in poverty. So the President worked with our G8 partners to easethis debt burden. Three years ago at Gleneagles, Scotland, the G8 nationsagreed to support a multilateral debt relief agreement that will free poorcountries of up to $60 billion of debt.Last year, we built on this progress when the Inter-American DevelopmentBank approved another debt relief initiative for some of the poorestnations in the Western Hemisphere. This initiative will cancel $4.4billion owed by five countries: Bolivia, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, andNicaragua.Fifth, the United States is partnering with developing nations to builddemocratic and accountable institutions of government.To succeed in theglobal economy, nations need fair and transparent legal systems, freemarkets that unleash the creativity of their citizens, banking systems thatserve people at all income levels, and business climates that welcomeforeign investment and support local entrepreneurs.The United States is helping developing nations build these and other freeinstitutions through the Millennium Challenge Account.This program fundsprojects in nations that govern justly, fight corruption, invest in theeducation and health of their people, and promote economic freedom. Sinceits inception in 2004, the Millennium Challenge Corporation has approvedcompacts totalling over $5.5 billion with 16 partner countries.In Benin, the MCC compact helped reform national policy on microfinance,and help small farmers and entrepreneurs build their businesses. And inGhana, MCC projects will increase the production of high-value cash cropsin some of Ghana's poorest regions, and then help bring those products toregional and international markets.Sixth, the United States is partnering with developing nations by expandingtrade and opening markets. In the long run, the best way to lift peopleout of poverty is through trade and investment. Open markets ignitegrowth, increase transparency, and strengthen the rule of law.A recentWorld Bank study found that developing nations that lowered their tradebarriers in the 1990s grew three times faster than those that did not.The United States opened markets through international trade and investmentagreements. These agreements establish rules such as non-discrimination,respect for private property, transparent regulation, and independentdispute settlement. In 2000, the United States had free trade agreementswith three countries. Today, we have free trade agreements in force with14 countries, most of which are in the developing world. We are urgingCongress to approve the free trade agreements we have negotiated withColombia, Panama, and South Korea. And we are discussing bilateralinvestment treaties with several developing nations. These treaties wouldpromote greater U.S. investment in these countries, encourage economicreform, and strengthen government accountability.The United States is also seeking to open markets through the Doha Round oftrade negotiations. Doha represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity tohelp millions in the developing world rise above poverty and despair. Andthe President is committed to concluding an ambitious Doha Round agreementthis year.Finally, the United States is partnering with developing nations to addressregional conflicts and help bring peace. Peace and security are necessaryfoundations for development and democracy, because people who fear fortheir safety cannot easily access the global marketplace or participate inthe free institutions of democracy. So the United States is working withregional organizations and other nations to build capacity to respond tocrises and conflicts across the globe.In Liberia, the United States has helped a democracy emerge from a brutaldictatorship in less than five years. We worked with our partners at theUnited Nations to impose sanctions on the Charles Taylor regime. As hefled into exile, we provided logistics support to deploy a regionalpeacekeeping force to protect the innocent and establish order. Weassisted the transition government, and helped it hold free elections.Andwe strongly support the first elected female head of state in Africa'shistory -- President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf -- as she and the Liberiangovernment reform their security forces, strengthen democraticinstitutions, rebuild their infrastructure, and connect their people to theglobal economy.In Africa alone, the United States has helped end conflicts in SierraLeone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Angola, and Burundi. Wehelped end the north-south civil war in Sudan, and we are leadinginternational efforts to help stop the genocide in Darfur. We are workingwith the African Union and sub-regional organizations like the EconomicCommunity of West African States to enhance their peacekeepingcapabilities. The United States has committed to training 75,000peacekeepers worldwide, and we will meet that target. Some of thoseU.S.-trained peacekeepers are already on the ground in Darfur.And in thisway, African institutions can increasingly contribute to solving regionalconflicts.America's partnerships with developing nations are helping to make theworld a better place. We are helping to treat the sick and feed thehungry. We are helping to teach children and empower entrepreneurs. Weare helping to open markets and strengthen good government. We are helpingmore people live lives of dignity and hope. The American people can beproud of what their government is doing in their name in the developingworld.Our partnership model for development also offers the world an alternativeto two competing visions for the future of the developing world. Onevision is the donor-client dynamic of decades past -- a well-meaning butultimately flawed approach that kept too many people mired in poverty. Another alternative is the ideology of hatred that sees suffering as anopportunity to foment violence against the innocent and advance an agendaof oppression and despair.The President believes that America is now offering a third and morehopeful vision. He appreciates the bipartisan support in Congress for thisdevelopment strategy. In the coming years, such support will continue tobe vital for the future of the developing world and for the future of ourown country.Thank you very much. (Applause.)Q Thank you, Jessica. Thank you for your remarks, Mr. Hadley. I have aquestion about America's role in helping to stem the flow of arms, weapons,to developing African states, arms that, of course, fuel some of the civilconflicts there and make -- take lives and make developments more difficultto achieve.There is a United Kingdom, a British-led initiative for a global arms tradetreaty. There is a meeting that occurs on Monday, a group of expertsmeeting. It will be the first for this initiative. The goal is to pursueguidelines for the arms trade.My question is, will the United States beparticipating in that experts meeting that begins Monday? And if not, whynot?MR. HADLEY: The short answer is, I do not know whether we're participatingor not, and I will find out.Obviously, standards are useful. Seems to me a worthy undertaking. Theother thing, though, I think we have found is trying to build consensus inparticular circumstances to cut off the arms flow, and that's what we havepursued. But let me find out, and I will let Jessica know.MS. MATTHEWS: We'll reconnect. Anybody else?Yes.Q I wonder if you could talk briefly about some of the tough cases thatare not amenable to cooperation, but the Zimbabwes, the Somalias, the --now looks like Chad, Darfur and so on.MR. HADLEY: Zimbabwe is a heartbreak to watch what is happening to thatcountry. We have worked on that issue for seven years, and I don't thinkwe've made a whole lot of progress. And part of it is a reluctance to befrank, of a number of countries in the region, to recognize what ishappening in Zimbabwe draw the necessary conclusions and put pressure tomake change. And it has to do with the politics of the country, of thecontinent. It has to do with history in Zimbabwe. It has to do with thesymbol that Robert Mugabe represents to those who opposed colonialism, butis an issue where, in the end of the day, the region needs to step up and,in our view, there is a lot more that can and should be done.So it is not one of the success stories in the continent, and it is a realtragedy that we watch unfold.Chad is an interesting case, and one that I think the way -- what you wouldlike to achieve is pretty clear. This latest go-round occurred, in somesense -- what we have in Chad is a situation where Chad is backing rebelsoperating in Sudan, and Sudan is backing rebels operating in Chad. And ofcourse, the people of both countries are paying the price, because thedisruption puts people out of their homes and ensures that humanitarianassistance does not get through.So what the way forward needs to be is to get both of these governments torecognize that they have an obligation to their peoples to agree to end thesupport of these reciprocal rebel groups and allow the internationalcommunity in to ensure people can be resettled and humanitarian assistancecan get in place.One of the things that's unfortunate about the most recent, in support fromSudan of the rebels going into Chad, is it was just at the time when the EUwas stepping up to deploy a force that could have provided some stabilityin Chad and ensured that people were not further displaced and humanitarianassistance could be provided.And I don't know whether it was a preemptive move or not. We need to getback to that kind of framework. It's difficult, but it's a piece, ofcourse, of the broader saga in Darfur, and, again, another complicatedsituation, and the way forward is also pretty clear. The United Nationsforces needs to deploy. This is partly putting pressure on Bashir toaccept it, but it is also all of us pulling up our socks and getting theforce ready to deploy, and after a year plus of discussion, it is still notready to deploy.If we have one thing, I think, that is lacking on this and so many otherproblems, it is a lack of capacity among free democratic nations in theinternational community to deal with the kinds of transnational challengeswe face in the 21st century. There is a capacity deficit, and we see it inthe context of Darfur -- the length of time that has been required to tryand assemble and deploy a force. We've been at it for a year and a half,and there's still very little on the ground.This is the key to stabilizing the situation, to making it clear to theSudanese government that they need to negotiate with the rebels, andsimilarly putting pressure on the rebels, which have gone from three groupsto almost 20, to sit down, have a common position, and try and negotiate asolution, and, at the same time, with the U.N. force deployed, ensuringthat humanitarian assistance gets on the ground.The good news is -- it is genocide, there's no question -- killings aredown. But the humanitarian suffering is enormous. And again, I would sayone of the challenges that this administration has, one of the challengesthe next administration is going to have, is the capacity deficit, whetherit is peacekeeping forces, whether it is national institutions able tocontrol their own territory, and able to deal with a combination ofterrorists and narcotics purveyors that actually have more arms and moremoney than some of the governments in which they are operating. This isthe problem we've got.MS. MATTHEWS: Can I just -- I will get to you in a second, but just toquickly follow up on that. In the 1990s, this came up over and over, andthe proposal that was often made, there were the -- observation was thatthe United Nations has to reinvent the peacekeeping force, from the pencilsto the rifles and the doctrine and the leadership and the military capacityevery time from nothing. And Canada, the Netherlands, and many others hadurged that there be a standing planning capacity within the United Nationsso that you don't have to start at ground zero. Having watched what you'vewatched for seven years, do you see a reason for doing that?MR. HADLEY: I think the planning capacity, actually, is in some senseeasier. The issue is also, do you want a U.N. army basically deployed bythe Secretary General?And I think the concern about that has been wherewould it come, who would pay for it, and how effective would it be on theground.I think another piece of it -- in a way, that may be the easiest part.Thesecond piece of it, though, I think we have to think about is, what do wedo when the armies have done their job? And whether it's post-conflictsituations or failed states, where countries then need to transition from atemporary peace brought on by armed forces to a society that has -- canprovide security and a way forward for prosperity for their people.What is the problem we've had in places in like Afghanistan and Iraq andall these other places? It's moving in quickly to be able to build policeinstitutions, judicial systems, prosecutors, prosecutorial systems, gettinggovernments up and functioning at the national level and the local level. These are a set of skills that we do not develop, train, exercise anddeploy in the systematic way that we do our military forces.In some sense, the military piece is easier to solve. And when I talkabout under-capacity, this, to me, is the lesson of Bosnia and Afghanistanand Iraq. We treat each of these situation as a pick-up game rather --rather than having made the investment both in national authorities, inplaces like the EU, and in terms of the United Nations, to develop thiskind -- these kinds of capabilities, and to do it in an inter-knitted wayso in one of these crises, we can all come together, worked out with rulesof engagements, and have a task force that can help countries make thesekinds of transitions.This is just another piece of the capacity problem, which I think is thechallenge we have, because if you look at the family of democratic stateswho are natural allies in dealing with these situations, and look at thetransnational challenges they face, in many places of the world it's amismatch.Q Mr. Hadley, you've spoken about genocide in Darfur. And theleadership role which the U.S. has provided it in regard to Darfur has beenmuch applauded around the globe, especially in Africa.I want to ask youabout another genocide situation -- in the same valley of the Nile, innorthern Uganda -- longer, deeper, where at the height of it, 2 millionpeople were in 200 concentration camps; and as we speak, there's still 1.5million people in concentration camps.Some have been in these camps for21 years. Most of them been there for 11 years. People are dying in thecamps at the rate of 1,500 a week, which is three times the death rate inDarfur -- 1,000 children a week. HIV/AIDS, as you know, has been used inthese camps by the soldiers as a weapon of mass destruction. Could youtell us what the administration has done to end the genocide in northernUganda?MR. HADLEY: It's a long -- it's a long story, and I cannot do it justice. But I think one of the things people need to understand is we do a lot oftalking about the problem in Sudan and Darfur, and it is, historically, itkilled 2.5 million people. But in terms of the Lakes district, in terms ofCongo, the latest estimate that I have is now 5.4 million people died, inaddition to the suffering that you've described. It has been inheritor, insome sense, of the struggles that happened in Rwanda, and basically ourapproach has been to work with the governments in the region to try andaddress each one of these problems.We have now had a successful election in Congo. There are arrangementsthat are being worked out with neighboring states to try and to begin todisarm these groups. We have supported that effort with our diplomacy andother support.But I would say to you it's taken too long, and it's notdone yet. And we continue to work at it, and it is going to be with us fora while. It's one of the reasons the President is going to Rwanda.Q And the genocide in northern Uganda?MR. HADLEY: There are groups there whose tactics are unspeakable, and itis one of the reasons why we have been supporting the U.N. presence thathas occurred in some of those areas; why we have been training the forcesof the Congolese government and the like. More needs to be done. Moreneeds to be done.Q My question is exactly the opposite of that question, because it --you were talking earlier about working with the African leaders and all ofthe things that could evolve. First thing is, you've used the term"genocide" three times in regards to Darfur --MR. HADLEY: I did.Q How many African Presidents, how many African leaders use that term inregards to Darfur? And surely, as the gentleman pointed out there, theLord's Resistance Army in Uganda -- the Congo are, by scale, much, muchworse in terms of displacement and deaths. So isn't it a matter of what is"is" in this term?MR. HADLEY: A little bit. I think our government is the, so far as Iknow, the only government that has called it "genocide." And first youhave to recognize and name the problem before you can, obviously, dosomething about it.Q But I'm saying, Mr. Hadley, those Presidents are right there. Thosepeople are right there in the area. If they don't know, I mean -- theydon't call it genocide. You call it genocide.And I'm saying how can youwork with them towards some resolution when you're that far apart?MR. HADLEY: Well, there are maybe reasons why those leaders have beenunwilling to use the name genocide. But we have -- believe that it is theright thing to continue to work with them to address this problem. Thereis a U.N. -- there is an AU force that is on the ground. There are anumber of countries -- Rwanda in particular, but also Nigeria -- who havecontributed troops to that force. And that force is going to be the coreof the U.N. force that is hopefully going to be deployed, and we think willmake a difference, on the ground in Darfur. So the failure to agree on theterminology, I think, has not prevented us from working with other leadersin the region.But I want to mention one thing that is important: There are leaders andthere are leaders. And one of the things that is part of the MillenniumChallenge Account program I described is a recognition that while there isa minimum level of humanitarian assistance and development assistance thatshould be available throughout the continent, the real solution to problemsare only going to come from leaders that are prepared to do the things Idescribed: care about their people governed justly, fight corruption,invest in their people through education or health, are open to freemarkets, and are willing to step up and take responsibility for dealingwith some of the conflicts that afflict the continent.There are some leaders who've been up to that challenge. There have been anumber who have not. And our challenge is to work with those who have, tostrengthen them, strengthen their institutions, and over time give them thecapacity so that Africa can increasingly take a lead in dealing withAfrica's problems. That's what the Africans want. That's what we want.But it is an uneven record about people who've been prepared to step up andreally put their back into trying to find a solution. I don't have abetter answer for you than that.Q You've been talking about capacity and problems of institution inAfrica. The President is going to one country, which is Tanzania, nearanother country, which is Kenya, which was really stable, where people werehoping democracy was working -- but a lesson is learned: it is not stable. So what can the international community, or America, do, apart from justhelping in humanitarian assistance? What can be done, taking the Kenyaexample?MR. HADLEY: Sure. Our Senior State Department diplomat, Jendayi Frazer,has been on the ground several times there, working with the parties. Shehas also -- we have had -- you know, the AU head appeared; Kofi Annan isnow on the ground.The objective is the following: to put pressure on both leaders torecognize what their dispute is doing to that country, and to agree, if youwill, on a time out; an agreement between the two sides that will stabilizethe situation, call on their followers to not resort on violence, allowhumanitarian assistance in, and work together so that we can go to thepoint in the future where there will be a free and fair election underappropriate supervision.Many people believe that to go to elections now would not be a prescriptionfor bringing stability to the region. So for the moment, it has been verymuch hands-on diplomacy with the United States present on the ground, andalso putting pressure on other countries to step up and, again, use theirinfluence with the parties.I think we have a long way to go. Kofi Annan's mission announced over theweekend that they had agreed to talks on a set agenda -- that is a start. I think we are giving the parties a reasonable time to try and step up andsee what needs to be done. And at some point I think we're going to haveto start indicating where the responsibility lies for the failure of thesetwo camps to come together and develop a way forward.Interestingly enough, I'm told by experts, and who have watched thesituation on the ground, that the local civil society and media in Kenyahave been providing a very constructive role. I'd be interested -- andsome of you are aware of this -- the news media, for example, coordinatedamong themselves on a single message, which they all put on their editorialpages, telling the parties that the way forward, I was described, was whatthey needed to do for the good of the country.It's been very interestingto see the local institutions playing a role in that way.But it is a great tragedy. I mean, this is a country that we have alllooked to as a model. It has fallen on hard times, and it -- the countryand the people need their friends, and we are stepping up to try and playthat role.Q Mr. Hadley, would you entertain a question that's off the Africancontinent, over at Iran and the Persian Gulf?MR. HADLEY: Certainly.Q Okay, sir. The naval incident that almost blew sky-high several weeksago, and only by the restraint of the U.S. Navy was there -- only by therestraint of the U.S. Navy are we at peace with Iran, or are we? Do youthink it was the Revolutionary Guards taking their own direction? Or wasit the Iranian government? And what do you think was the point of thatprovocation on the part of Iran?MR. HADLEY: As is the case with so many things about Iran, we don't reallyknow. It appears that it was IRGC, rather than regular navy. It wascertainly a very provocative act. We have seen provocative acts by them inthe past; one resulted in the taking of UK citizens and sailors hostage.The President, when he was in that part of the world and his swing throughthe Middle East and the Gulf, met with the three-star admiral who wasdirecting those forces at the time. And I will tell you, it came very,very close to being an incident where the local commanders, in each case,on those ships would have opened fire on the very provocative action thatwas taken by those boats.Hard to know on Iran. It is -- the region is very split. Some peoplethink it is lucky that conflict was avoided. Some actually think that itwould have been better if the United States had taken action against theboat. It's a very interesting split opinion within the region.The President was very clear that this action is unacceptable; that ourlocal commanders have rules of engagement that allows them to defendthemselves; and if there is a return to something like this, theconsequences will be on Iran's head.MS. MATTHEWS: Steve, I want to thank you for a wonderful briefing on thePresident's trip. Wish you good traveling. And please join me in thankingSteve Hadley. (Applause.)END Printer-Friendly Version Email this page to a friend

• Afghanistan
• Africa
• Budget Management
• Defense
• Economy
• Education
• Energy
• Environment
• Global Diplomacy
• Health Care
• Homeland Security
• Immigration
• International Trade
• Iraq
• Judicial Nominations
• Middle East
• National Security
• Veterans

more issues News

• Current News
• Press Briefings
• Proclamations
• Executive Orders
• Radio
• Setting the Record Straight

more news January 2008 December 2007 October 2007 September 2007 July 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 News by Date

• February 2007
• January 2007
• December 2006
• November 2006
• October 2006
• September 2006
• August 2006
• July 2006
• June 2006
• May 2006
• April 2006
• March 2006
• February 2006
• January 2006
• December 2005
• November 2005
• October 2005
• September 2005
• August 2005
• July 2005
• June 2005
• May 2005
• April 2005
• March 2005
• February 2005
• January 2005
• December 2004
• November 2004
• October 2004
• September 2004
• August 2004
• July 2004
• June 2004
• May 2004
• April 2004
• March 2004
• February 2004
• January 2004
• December 2003
• November 2003
• October 2003
• September 2003
• August 2003
• July 2003
• June 2003
• May 2003
• April 2003
• March 2003
• February 2003
• January 2003
• December 2002
• November 2002
• October 2002
• September 2002
• August 2002
• July 2002
• June 2002
• May 2002
• April 2002
• March 2002
• February 2002
• January 2002
• December 2001
• November 2001
• October 2001
• September 2001
• August 2001
• July 2001
• June 2001
• May 2001
• April 2001
• March 2001
• February 2001
• January 2001

Appointments

• Nominations

Federal Facts

• Federal Statistics

West Wing

• History

f5d0e4f075