You are viewing:

ArchivedContent

Information released online from January 20, 2009 to January 20, 2017.
Note: Content in this archive site is not updated, and links may not function. External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.

printable banner

U.S. Department of State - Great Seal

U.S. Department of State

Diplomacy in Action

The Election and Impact on Foreign Policy

Daniel Serwer, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University
Washington, DC
November 8, 2016




 
THE WASHINGTON FOREIGN PRESS CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C.

MODERATOR: All right, guys. Welcome to our final briefing for the evening. I assume our colleagues will come in as we get started here. For forward planning, we’re going to close up at 8 o’clock this evening, so after this you’ll have a little bit of time to file and eat, but we’ll close up about 8 o’clock.

We’re very pleased to have Professor Daniel Serwer with us from SAIS at Johns Hopkins speaking about the foreign policy implications of this election. As before, his opinions are his own and not the U.S. Government’s. We very much appreciate him making time for us this evening, and welcome, Professor.

MR SERWER: This seems excessively formal for our small crowd. You don’t want to come closer? Good, a few more friends coming in. Come close, come close. You can’t imagine how alienating it is to speak to people who are all the way back there. But it is a pleasure to be here tonight. As my country is finishing what I think has been a very ugly presidential campaign and decides on its 45th president, I won’t pretend to be neutral – caveat emptor. I have supported Hillary Clinton with words, with money, and with knocking on doors in West Philadelphia.

But in these opening remarks I’d like to focus not on the candidates but on the process, which is a rather complicated one. And I’m sure you’ve all studied it, but I know I have to go over it again and again, so I’m going to do it to you.

The key to understanding the American presidential process is this: It’s organized by and the outcome is determined by the states, not by the federal government. One consequence is that there’s very little uniformity. You’ll see that tonight the states will close their polls at very different times starting in just a few minutes at 7 p.m. with, among others, Vermont and Kentucky, for example.

The initial results will likely favor Trump because the states reporting out will be Trump-secure states. But swing states like North Carolina and Ohio close at 7:30, and at 8 p.m. lots of Clinton states close their polls. States count their votes at very different paces. Some states are very small and find it easy, some states are pretty big and find it hard.

At 8, I think the key things to watch are Florida and Pennsylvania. At 9, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Clinton would be in big trouble if she doesn’t win in the upper tier of the Midwest.

Through all of this, you’ll be getting lots of exit polling from swing states, those that might go one way or the other. Exit polls, in my view – but I didn’t hear whether Zogby said anything about it; he knows better than I do – exit polls, in my view, are not very reliable. Sampling errors can be significant and many states – in the many states like the District of Columbia, a lot of us have already voted. I voted several – a couple of weeks ago.

Not only are the rules and procedures decided by the states, but the vote in each state is what determines the states’ votes in the Electoral College. It meets not on Washington, D.C. but in each state capital on December 19th. It took me a long time to learn this - that the Electoral College doesn’t actually meet in one place.

Each state has a number of electoral votes equal to its number of senators and representative total, because each state has two senators no matter how small, no matter how few people they have. This process favors less populous states. But the District of Columbia, which doesn’t have two senators, still gets three electoral votes, which is the number it would have if it did have two senators. And the District of Columbia is a lock for the Democrats. I would guess that more than 90 percent of the vote will be for Clinton in the District this year.

As a result of this Electoral College process, an election can be close in the popular vote. The polling suggests Trump and Clinton are only 3 or 4 points apart. But the Electoral College difference can be large. As a result, an election – if Trump were to get fewer than 200 electoral votes and Clinton the remaining 338-plus, that would be considered a landslide even if the popular vote is close. It’s also possible we need to remind ourselves that you can lose the popular vote and still win in the Electoral College, which happened for the last time in the year 2000. That night I went to bed absolutely convinced that Gore had won the presidency; there was no doubt about it at all, and I woke up the next morning, the Florida controversy was already raging and the election was eventually decided in the Supreme Court. And here I come back to my original point. These things are really – the states play a very strong role here because what the Supreme Court did – the Supreme Court is a federal court – what it did was to confirm the decision of the Florida authorities that Bush had won in Florida. So the states have a very important role. The lesson, of course, is you shouldn’t go to bed too early tonight. The last three elections, the outcome wasn’t determined before 11 p.m., and I suppose that might happen again tonight. Who knows?

What this would all mean for foreign policy? First, I think an uncontested and clear outcome is highly desirable. The world does not need another month of uncertainty about who will be the 45th president. Mr. Zogby earlier suggested that even if Trump were to concede graciously that his supporters wouldn’t. Well, frankly, I don’t care either way on this whether Clinton or Trump concedes graciously. There’s nothing more than traditionally important about a concession speech. Gore was particularly gracious towards Bush. I wouldn’t expect Trump to be gracious towards Clinton. I couldn’t predict what Clinton would say to Trump.

Second, there are dramatic differences between Trump, who prides himself on unpredictability, and Clinton, who has a long track record well within the post-9/11 foreign policy consensus. Trump really is erratic, inconsistent, and hyperbolic. He wants to put America first, which is defined not only as ignoring others, blocking immigrants, and doubting America’s alliances, but also destroying the existing international trading system and somehow pursuing his bromance with Vladimir Putin.

Clinton is committed, studious, internationalist – all perhaps to a fault. She once pursued a reset with Putin that failed. She wants to maintain the stability of the international system and restore American authority – something President Obama surrendered in retrenching from, in particular, from the Middle East. The point here is that we really have a very sharp difference on foreign policy, even if it’s difficult to define exactly what Trump’s basic foreign policy parameters are.

A word or two about what this all means in some important parts of the world: In the Middle East, in Europe, including the Baltics and Ukraine, Clinton is far more likely to push back on Russian aggressiveness than Trump. In Asia, Trump has sometimes talked tough about China’s trade policy and suggested that South Korea and Japan might want to get their own nuclear weapons. Clinton would certainly not like that idea, but she might also be tough on China about trade. She’d want to continue building up American alliances in Asia, especially, I think, with India and Vietnam.

Both Clinton and Trump oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but Clinton would likely want to renegotiate parts of it and proceed. Whether this Congress would go along with that isn’t clear, while Trump would want to scrap the TPP completely.

But look, presidents don’t always get to decide what issues they deal with. I would expect Moscow and Beijing and perhaps others to take an early opportunity to test the new president, whoever it is. Could we have an incident involving China and the South China Sea? A North Korean launch of a missile that could reach the United States? A new push by Russian-supported insurgents in the Ukraine? An incident with Iranian ships or missiles in the Gulf? A massive cyber attack? All those things are well within the realm of possibility. When the Council on Foreign Relations report on the top 30 possible contingencies that might require U.S. action comes out towards the end of the year, or maybe the end of this month for all I know, I’m pretty sure things like that will be on the list.

Clinton understands the capabilities and limits of American power, as well as the need for allied support. Trump does not. He makes bravado – he mistakes bravado for strength and unpredictability for leverage. Most of the world, I think, understands this and prefers Clinton. Moscow may not be entirely alone in favoring Trump, but it’s certainly pretty lonely. Those of us who enjoy foreign policy for a living – Republicans as well as Democrats like me – will likewise be almost universally relieved if she, not he, becomes president. I’m allowed to say that, State Department people aren’t. But the evening is young. Let’s enjoy it with some questions.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MODERATOR: Your name and your outlet.

QUESTION: Julian Basile from Valor Economico, Brazilian economic newspaper. How do you think that they are going to act in Latin America? And second question: Who do you think Hillary is going to call for her cabinet in terms of foreign policy advisors? And the same question about Trump.

MR SERWER: So far as Latin America is concerned, I think with Clinton you’ll get a continuation of Obama’s policy, essentially of encouraging economic and – economic development and political liberalization in Latin America, but also not paying a lot of attention to Latin America, because things are going okay there. I mentioned earlier that I served in Brazil as an American diplomat. I left 32 years ago. Brazil is – despite the big headlines of today, Brazil is in much better shape than it was 32 years ago. It’s wealthier, it’s freer, it’s a lot of good things. And I think the foreign policy elite generally in Washington likes to see that happening and it’s happening in a number of countries in this hemisphere. And I think Clinton would certainly extend the policy of opening towards Cuba as well.

Trump on Latin America, it’s anybody’s guess. I don’t know that he’s mentioned Latin America, except that Mexico is going to build the wall, which clearly it’s not going to do.

So far as foreign policy appointments is concerned, I can predict the population of the United States 20 years from now better than I can predict who will be secretary of state or who will be secretary of defense, because decisions by a single person are difficult to predict when decisions by large numbers of people are relatively easy, especially decisions about demographic futures.

That said, with Clinton, clearly Michele Flournoy, Wendy Sherman, Kurt Campbell, I’m thinking of all the surrogates – Jake Sullivan, whom – who have appeared at Clinton events, these are people very close to Clinton and some of them, at least, will get jobs that they want.

With Trump it’s much harder. There’s been this recent rumor about Newt Gingrich. I had a heard a rumor about John Bolton as secretary of state. I don’t know the answer there. One thing I can tell you, though, that General Flynn has not been out of uniform long enough; there’s a requirement that he be out for seven years before becoming secretary of defense, so that which is sometimes rumored is not true, because there’s a legal bar. I think it’s very difficult to predict. When he named his economic advisors, they were people nobody had heard of, frankly.

Please.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. My name is Ben Bangoura, AllConakry.com. In the heat of the campaign, Trump accused Clinton, Obama alike, of participating in an expansion of international terrorists. And in the case of Hillary Clinton, we have seen some action that she did where she was a secretary of state – the overthrow of Qadhafi, for instance in Libya, which allow Jihadists the control over that region and there was a lot of separation of arms, the government in Mali as a result of that overthrow was in jeopardy, peace in Syria. How many more action can we expect when she becomes president?

MR SERWER: Again, predicting decisions by a single person is difficult. I think Hillary Clinton will be cautious about overseas intervention. I think she’s learned the lesson also of Libya, but in my view, the lesson that should be learned – I’m never quite sure when President Obama talks about it, what – he admits that he made a mistake, but he doesn’t admit that the intervention was a mistake. He admits that the – that not following up, not establishing law and order in Libya was the mistake, or at least that’s what he implies.

And I think that’s what Clinton will conclude too – that sometimes America has to intervene, sometimes it wants to intervene – that was a want intervention in Libya in order to protect people in Benghazi. But you can’t just intervene. You have to provide for governance afterwards.

So Mosul, for example, today, is – it will fall. It will fall – I can’t predict when, but it might fall before the end of the year. The critical question about Mosul isn’t whether it will fall. That I can predict. It’s how it will be governed after it falls and that’s where the Jihadists come in. Jihadists didn’t come to Libya because Qadhafi fell. They came to Libya because it was a vacuum of governance after Qadhafi fell. I’ve been in Libya twice since the revolution in September 2011, July 2012, and I walked unguarded day and night in Benghazi and in Tripoli. And my biggest – the biggest threat to my welfare was that Libyans liked to hug Americans during that period because they were so grateful for what had been done. So we missed that golden hour of installing some kind of decent governance.

Think about Syria. If we intervene in Syria, it’s – can’t be just to get rid of Assad. It has to be to provide for governance after Assad. And that would make any president hesitate given the conditions there.

Let me go all the way in the back. I’ll get to you, I’ll get there.

QUESTION: I’m Qingyun Cao from China Central Television. In this election, China has been mentioned more than 30 times during the election. And I’d like to know, if Clinton or Trump get elected, how will it affect the future U.S.-China political and economic relations? Thank you.

MR SERWER: The U.S. and China are deeply entwined with each other, mainly by economic interests. And I anticipate that the Americans will do everything they can to try to keep the U.S.-China relationship on a peaceful and, as much as possible, cooperative basis. So we’ve seen that now with the global warming Paris convention. We see it in some other areas as well. There are also points of friction on trade, sometimes on investment, sometimes on the South China Sea or on the East China Sea. China is rising, and the Americans know that. They don’t want to resist that. China rising means a bigger market for American products. It means investment in the U.S. It means lots of things besides competition. And I think smart heads in Washington want to try to keep that relationship peaceful and in the benefit of both sides.

Let’s – we’ll get there.

QUESTION: Thank you. My name is Tamarat and I’m an editor for Business Weekly in Addis Ababa. And let me ask you the opposite of the earlier question. Africa has not mentioned even once during this election – during this campaign. Were you surprised with that observation? And how do you see in whatever – whichever person wins the next election, how will you see Africa having a place in the U.S. foreign policy circle? Thank you.

MR SERWER: Well, of course, Africa hasn’t been mentioned only if you think Libya is not part of Africa. But Libya has been mentioned. Look, not being mentioned in an American presidential campaign may be the healthiest thing I know about for a part of the world. We mentioned only the problem parts of the world in American election campaigns. Africa isn’t quite as – progressing quite as rapidly and quite as dramatically as a good part of Latin America has, but it’s done pretty well. Growth has been good in Africa. There are democratic regimes in a number of countries that are surviving peaceful transitions of power. These things are good. But they’re not going to get mentioned in an American election campaign, because that’s – we don’t focus on the good things. We focus on criticizing the other guy for all the bad things they did.

So yeah, Africa has been out of the election campaign. But you know President Obama showed significant interest in Africa. I think Hillary Clinton would as well. I’m just at a loss about Trump. I just don’t know. I mean, has he ever mentioned Africa? I don’t know.

QUESTION: Konrad Kramar from the Austrian national daily Kurier. After all this buddy talk about Trump and Putin, if Trump might go into the White House, he would have a lot of Republican hawks – which I also talk to – who would push him towards a much more aggressive stance towards Russia. So the idea of Trump schmoozing with Putin seems a bit odd if you take into account what the Republicans think about the position towards Russia.

MR SERWER: Look, what Republicans think hasn’t made much difference to Donald Trump through the entire campaign. He doesn’t think of himself as a conventional Republican candidate. He’s made that quite clear. And a lot of the people you’re talking about, or at least some of them, are likely voting for Hillary Clinton precisely for this reason. I sit in, at Johns Hopkins SAIS in a building full of Republicans. Not one of them will vote for Trump. They’re all part of the foreign policy consensus in Washington; some of them are much more hawkish than I might be. But they won’t vote for Trump.

Look, it’s anybody’s guess how he’ll actually behave towards Putin. But he has shown really gigantic reluctance to criticize the Russians. I mean, he asked them to hack emails; they hacked emails. And he’s happy with that. That’s a real change in attitude on the part of an American leader. Please.

QUESTION: Thank you. Azid Benjamin (ph) from Radio Sawa. How do you see the next administration dealing with the rise of political Islam in the Middle East, the rise of Islamism in our old allies like Turkey, and the reaction, the resistance from our allies in the region like Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and so on?

MR SERWER: Political Islam presents a real quandary for the Americans. We believe in democracy, but there are certainly variants of political Islam that are not democratic. Even if they come to power in democratic ways, some of them have proved not very democratic, and I’d include Erdogan in that definition.

This reminds me of the situation between the Americans and – well, even the Americans in Christian democracy after World War II, but certainly the relationship between the Americans and the communists after World War II. But generally – this is forgotten, but Christian democracy, especially in Italy, was regarded as a great danger once upon a time, because it would have the authority of the pope behind it. It wouldn’t respect democratic rules. That turned out to be complete nonsense, but there was concern about it. Certainly the attitude towards even European communists during the Cold War was that they would never respect democratic rules. And somewhat the same concern exists today, but maybe with more basis about some variants of political Islam.

So what you see the Americans doing so far, especially in Egypt, is they’re really collaborating very closely with Sisi, who is not behaving democratically in Egypt. They’ve cooperated closely with Erdogan, and have been hesitant to criticize. I think they are – what shall I say? They’re frightened of what political Islam – what directions it might take. The Islamic State gives them a good target. There was nothing acceptable about the Islamic State. Al-Qaida gives them a good target; there’s nothing acceptable about al-Qaida.

But these variants that in – that move in an Islamist direction, but are not terrorist groups are not – but may be more autocratic in orientation, as certainly Erdogan has become, that gives everyone pause, I think. And I don’t know that there’s going to be a general policy toward political Islam. I think you see political Islam behaving very decently in Tunisia, so you respond to that circumstance. You see it behaving badly in Turkey, you’re going to have to respond to that. You see it behaving sometimes this way, sometimes that way in Jordan, you have to react to specific circumstances, not to some global idea of political Islam.

QUESTION: Ugis Libetis, Latvian Radio. Pivot to Asia, not very successful; restart with Russia, not very successful; Latin America, not very interesting; Africa doing good, not very interesting; Middle East --

MR SERWER: Disastrous.

QUESTION: -- somehow struggling, disastrous, what should the United States do? What could be the next pivot for America in the global regions? Who are the closest partners now when Europe is doomed a bit?

MR SERWER: The closest partners are Europe, period. Always have been, always will be. There’s no question in my mind about that. And I don’t think anybody in Republican or Democratic administrations has a lot of doubt about that even though Rumsfeld once preferred old Europe to new Europe. But it’s still Europe. Look, no, he preferred New Europe to Old Europe – still Europe.

No, America’s most reliable partners around the world are in NATO, they’re in the European Union, and you’re right that when we survey the world, there are a lot of things that don’t look great. But look, the threats to American national security today are minor compared to the threat we faced for the entire period of the Cold War. For 40 year – more than 40 years, we faced a real existential threat. We shouldn’t blow up terrorism into an existential threat. It’s not. But the partners – the best partners have always been in Europe and my guess is they’ll – they always will be.

Please. We got to get – oh, yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you so much, Jehan AlHuasaini from Al Hayat newspaper. For the peace process in the Middle East, President Obama – the administration of President Obama, the first in Cairo University, he talk about the two-state solution and he will not allow for settlement. And now, Palestinian, there is no hope, there is no talks, there is double standard. What’s your expectation for the new administration?

MR SERWER: I don’t expect any new administration to launch a major new initiative on Israel-Palestine. Nobody thinks the conditions exist for success. And several people have tried, every American president has tried and failed. After a while, you learn your lesson.

That said, there are things that can be done in Israel-Palestine that will improve the eventual likelihood of a two-state solution. One of those would be to stop the Israeli settlements, but that’s a bridge too far. I mean, the Israelis have stymied every effort by the Americans to do that. I think improving economic conditions in Palestine is important. I think getting Palestine on to a more democratic track is important. There are lots of things that can be done to improve relations between Arabs and Jews in – both within Israel and between Israelis and those in the West Bank, Gaza being sort of out of bounds for the moment. So I think what you can expect to see, even from a president who’s very concerned and very committed to the two-state solution, is a more indirect approach to creating the conditions under which it might be possible rather than going directly at it or reviving the peace process or something like that.

By the way, Trump, of course, he said little about this, but he did say we have to have an agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians that brings – satisfies both to some degree. Let’s make a deal, basically. Frankly, that was pretty close to Bernie Sanders’ position, but Hillary Clinton is not there yet. She is much more wedded to a traditional American backing of the Israelis.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR SERWER: Let’s go up here.

QUESTION: Thank you. I’m from Turkish media, a daily newspaper – Ruma Shahin (ph), my name is. Turkey’s AKP media strongly supports Donald Trump. And do you think Donald Trump would be a better option for the interests of Erdogan? Do you believe so? And if Clinton wins, what’s going to happen? What would you say about their relations?

MR SERWER: Around the world in general, you can tell who’s a – an aspiring autocrat from who likes Trump, as birds of a feather flock together. Look, it’s anybody’s guess what the relationship between Trump and Erdogan would be. So far as I know, they’ve never met. There is no history of Trump with Turkey that I know of.

So far as Clinton is concerned, Clinton clearly will continue to want American access to bases in Turkey, will continue to want to develop a good relationship insofar as possible, but they’ll also press Erdogan on the human rights questions, especially with respect to the Kurds. I mean, she’s not going to divorce herself from a long history of speaking out for human rights. She may moderate it here and there, she may reduce its volume now and again, but she’s – she is who she is. She won’t change that dramatically.

Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you. David Nicaraza (ph), Georgian television station, also with Washington, D.C. bureau. Do you have anything to say about candidates’ position on NATO enlargement? As you remember at the NATO summit in Bucharest, alliance offered Georgia and Ukraine, they – alliance announce that Georgia and Ukraine will become NATO members, but countries are still trying to get closer to alliance to get membership action plan. What do you think how the next administration position will affect this? Thank you.

MR SERWER: Look, the – a Clinton administration will clearly want to keep the door to NATO open. I don’t think it will press rapidly for Ukrainian or Georgian membership, but it will want to keep the door open, which means more cooperation with Ukraine and Georgia. Trump has threatened to disband the alliance, then he backed that up and said no, no, now the alliance is okay, because it’s willing to fight terrorism. Well, it was always willing to fight terrorism. Whom did we go to Afghanistan with? We went with the NATO alliance.

QUESTION: What about NATO (inaudible)?

MR SERWER: But I don’t want to hide from you that I think generally in Washington, there are doubts about Georgian and Ukrainian membership in NATO, and there are doubts among both Democrats and Republicans. Some people regard Georgia as simply a bridge too far. It’s too far out of the NATO area.

For Ukraine, there are important voices in Washington, including Kissinger and others, who say, look, we should cut a deal here and tell the Russians that Ukraine won’t come into NATO and maybe they’ll let us bring Ukraine a little bit closer to the EU. That wouldn’t be my personal view, but I think you should understand that there is significant opinion in Washington that thinks that Georgian and Ukrainian membership in NATO wasn’t a good idea to begin with and might likely never happen.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up? Sorry. What do you think – which candidate will have tougher policy towards Russia’s aggression in the region? As you know, Russia is occupying the – threatening neighboring states. Thank you.

MR SERWER: Well, you can expect Clinton to continue more or less what Obama is doing, which is pushing back, but pushing back in ways that make it very clear he doesn’t want to go to war with Russia. I don’t think there’s any significant number of people in Washington who do want to go to war with Russia.

With Trump, he prides himself on unpredictability, so how can I predict him? (Laughter.)

MODERATOR: Can we do one more question?

MR SERWER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Carien du Plessis, freelance journalist from South Africa. Actually, I think Trump actually said something about Africa – I don’t know if it was during his campaign, but he was talking about South Africa as being a crime capital, but I don’t know. Maybe he thought we were an inner city or something. But I have a question about Hillary Clinton’s –

MR SERWER: Welcome to our world. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: (Laughter.) Yeah, no, I heard him talk about the inner cities. (Laughter.) I have a question about Hillary Clinton’s policy in Africa. We saw George Bush, he pursued quite a successful – the big programs in Africa. He pursued quite a successful program against HIV/AIDS. It had quite a lot of measurable success and praise. Barack Obama had Power Africa, that was one of his big programs, which I think so far has had, I don’t know, debatable success; it’s not – maybe it’s still too early to say. But I’m just wondering, do you think Hillary Clinton will continue with that or will the next eight years or next four years at least, will there be another program? Yeah, what do you think – yeah, what do you think is her passion in Africa?

MR SERWER: Well, I wouldn’t have guessed it would be electricity, but I think she may in fact continue with that. It’s too early to tell; I mean, electrical networks aren’t built in a few years, they’re built over decades. But I think you can also expect her to be particularly concerned about the role of the girls and women in Africa. She may even take up some of the issues that she took up as secretary of state: genital mutilation, for example, or something like that. But issues like that for Obama, for Clinton, are never going to be the front burner issues. They’re the things people like to do, want to do, think are good to do, but just don’t get the kind of high-level constant attention that maybe in a better world they would.

MODERATOR: Folks, we’ll thank Professor Serwer for his time and let him get onto his one-on-ones he has scheduled.

MR SERWER: Let’s do one more. We --

MODERATOR: Let’s do one more? All right.

QUESTION: Hi. I couldn’t find a mike – thank you. Thank you, professor. My name is Samia Bellounis. I’m with the Algerian press. You’re here to brief us on the international policies. What would both president if Hillary Clinton wins or Donald Trump wins, what would they bring to Africa? Thank you.

MR SERWER: Well, I think I answered that in part, at least, for Hillary Clinton. She would bring some concern about women and girls, she’d bring some – and I would say that’s true of North Africa, as well as Sub-Saharan Africa. With Trump, I mean, he’s a big-time hotel developer; maybe he’ll develop big-time hotels. (Laughter.) It’s not the worst thing that happens to countries, though I’m not fond of visiting countries that built too many Trump-like hotels. But look, it’s just very difficult to tell. The man has never mentioned Africa so far as I know, so how am I going to know what he might do in Africa? What I think we do know is that there would be enormous pressure in a Trump administration to cut way back on international assistance. That I think is quite clear.

QUESTION: Thank you, professor.

MODERATOR: All right. We’ll thank the professor again. Thank you all for your interest. Anybody that signed up for one-on-ones, go around the back, please, and we’ll get that going. Thank you.