[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 25 (Thursday, February 11, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E207-E210]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           INSIGHTFUL COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS ON DIPLOMACY

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 11, 1999

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to 
enter the remarks of former Congressman Lee H. Hamilton, at the 
Conference on Preventive Diplomacy and Preventive Disease on January 
15, 1999, into the Congressional Record. As my colleague in Congress I 
had great respect for Mr. Hamilton, and I continue to hold him in high 
regard as the director of the Woodrow Wilson Program. I feel Mr. 
Hamilton has always offered insightful comments and observations on 
diplomacy, and it is my wish to share his comments with other members 
of Congress.

   Preventive Diplomacy/Preventive Defense--Conference on Preventive 
           Diplomacy and Preventive Defense January 15, 1999

                       (By Hon. Lee H. Hamilton)


                            I. Introduction

       It is a high privilege for me to participate in this timely 
     and noteworthy conference on Preventive Diplomacy and 
     Preventive Defense. I am especially delighted to join three 
     highly esteemed statesmen--Warren Christopher, David Hamburg, 
     and Bill Perry--at this conference. If I were to name a Hall 
     of Fame of distinguished public officials, based on my 34 
     years in elective office, I would name each of them to it. 
     Suffice it to say, they are among the preeminent public 
     officials of our generation.
       Most of what I say tonight about preventive diplomacy and 
     preventive defense, I have learned from them.
       They have made me believe that there are concrete steps we 
     can take to prevent or contain the spread of conflict.
       Similarly, the folks associated with the Carnegie 
     Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict and the Stanford-
     Harvard Preventive Defense Project merit our gratitude and 
     our praise for their important contributions to the cause of 
     conflict prevention.
       I commend their enterprise in arranging and staging this 
     conference. I can tell you what goes on here will have a 
     profound impact on policy makers and policy over time.


                            II. The problem

       I speak to you this evening about a great and worthy 
     mission--how to prevent conflict, both within nation-states, 
     and between them.
       This issue is important, perhaps even transcendent. Today, 
     there are more than two dozen deadly conflicts underway 
     around the world. These conflicts have caused over 9.3 
     million casualties since 1990, and increased the number of 
     refugees from 12 to 25 million.
       So conflict prevention is critical. No other issue facing 
     the world today more deserves your attention.
       What do you want to do for your children and grandchildren? 
     Many things, of course, but I hope among them will be a 
     legacy of having tried in your own way to bequeath to them a 
     less violent world, a world of concord, not conflict. Our 
     task is to try to develop practical steps and a renewed 
     commitment to preventive diplomacy and preventive defense. 
     What more important task engages our attention than this 
     great mission?
       Many of us had hoped that the end of the Cold War would 
     mean a more peaceful international order. We had thought that 
     much of the conflict in the world had its origins in

[[Page E208]]

     the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. 
     With the end of that rivalry, we had believed that the 
     prospects for peace were improved, and that countries could 
     be brought closer together. As it turns out, we were too 
     optimistic.
       We find ourselves still residents in a dangerous world. 
     Wherever we turn, there are unstable nations, disgruntled 
     groups, and terrorists. Sadly, warfare and strife have not 
     lessened. Human beings, it turns out, have a virtuoso 
     capacity for violence.
       We were, in short, unprepared for the fragmented, 
     disorderly world of the post-Cold War era.
       What we need now is a new strategy, a strategy similar to 
     the Marshall Plan after World War II, which sought to prevent 
     the conditions that would lead to another war--and it 
     succeeded.
       During the Cold War we succeeded again, with policies of 
     deterrence and containment.
       But today we live in a new world. It is a world where the 
     United States exercises an influence far beyond anything it 
     has ever had before. It is a world where we are indeed the 
     indispensable nation. But alas, it is also a world that still 
     has far too much conflict and violence.
       In such an era, what do we do? How do we lead? How can we 
     keep these good times of peace and unprecedented influence 
     going? What should our world strategy be? As I understand it, 
     that is what this conference is all about.
       All of us recognize that deterrence must not be abandoned. 
     After all, the North Koreans and the Iraqis are not going to 
     magically disappear. Bosnia, Haiti, and other conflicts are 
     still too much with us.
       But what about the really big challenges--a Russia on the 
     brink of chaos, possibly losing control of its nuclear 
     arsenal? A China that could grow hostile and uncooperative? A 
     planet overrunning with weapons of mass destruction? A world 
     where terrorism may be the number one threat to our national 
     security?
       We continue to need deterrence, and military forces able to 
     deter aggressors, and able to win wars quickly and 
     decisively. But we need more. We need a broad strategy, using 
     all the instruments of national power--political, economic, 
     and military--to prevent conflict, to influence the world 
     away from violence as a means of settling conflict, and to 
     deal with a parade of challenges that threaten our survival 
     and cause great disruption, pain and bloodshed.
       And so, we think tonight about preventive diplomacy and 
     preventive defense. What do we really mean by these phrases? 
     How practical are they? What capacities and tools do they 
     require? What are the barriers to effective conflict 
     prevention?
       Several features of conflict prevention impress me. We know 
     more about it than you might initially think.


                         A. Sources of conflict

       First, we know what causes conflict.
       The sources of the conflicts that have marred the 1990s are 
     diverse.
       Weak, internally divided states, in Yugoslavia, Indonesia, 
     Afghanistan, Colombia, Algeria, Tajikistan, Cambodia, the 
     Sudan. Unfortunately, the list goes on and on.
       Religious, political, or ethnic fanaticism and intolerance 
     of every stripe--in the Middle East, Northern Ireland, 
     Bosnia, the Indian subcontinent, and throughout Africa.
       Repression of racial, ethnic, or religious groups, in areas 
     as diverse as Guatemala, Kosovo, Kashmir, and East Timor.
       Other conflicts have economic causes. Gross disparities in 
     living standards, even economic growth and reform, so often 
     the building blocks of stability, can contribute to strife. 
     For example, growth has bypassed indigenous populations in 
     many parts of Latin America, and the resulting inequality has 
     contributed to armed revolt in Mexico and Peru.
       Competition for control of or access to resources. Scarce 
     supplies of oil and water continue to be a source of 
     contention--and bloodshed--in the Middle East. Population 
     pressures and the accompanying environmental degradation can 
     create a serious strain on limited resources as well. So can 
     refugees. Most of the world's 15 million refugees today are 
     the result of conflict, but massive refugee movements can 
     also spread instability and strife.
       Deep-seated historical animosities, as we see in the 
     Balkans, the Middle East, and elsewhere.
       Then there is the human element. We must always expect that 
     a Hitler, a Stalin, a Pol Pot, or some other charismatic, 
     inflammatory leader lurks just off stage, eager to take 
     advantage of the social stresses in society in ways that 
     almost guarantee new conflict.


       B. Importance of Conflict Prevention to the United States

       Second, we know how important conflict prevention is to the 
     United States. We know that if we succeed at it, we will not 
     have to expend blood and treasure tomorrow. We will pay fewer 
     taxes and risk the lives of our offspring less often.
       Whenever or whatever a crisis erupts, the international 
     community looks to the United States, as the world's 
     indispensable nation, for help in resolving it.
       You and I resist a U.S. role as the world's policeman. We 
     always want to know: What are the alternatives to sending in 
     the Marines?
       But unless a better system of conflict prevention is 
     developed, the burden on the United States in the coming 
     years to respond to instability and conflict will be 
     progressively greater, both financially and militarily.
       Americans often ask the question: Why should we care? It is 
     a fair question. We should care because sometimes our vital 
     national interests are at stake, as in the Persian Gulf, 
     because we care about human values and human life (as in 
     Somalia, where we could not tolerate those horrible pictures 
     of starving children); and because waiting will only make the 
     cost go up--in terms of death, the scale of relief efforts, 
     and the damage to international standards.
       In other words, Preventive action can save money--and 
     lives. It can also promote American interests--political, 
     diplomatic, security, and economic.


                     C. Role of American Leadership

       Third, we know that American leadership is essential to 
     make conflict prevention work.
       When we sit on the sidelines, the world is a more dangerous 
     place. No other country can take our place.
       Only when the United States acted did the killing stop in 
     Bosnia. U.S. leadership restored political stability in Haiti 
     and economic stability in Mexico. We pushed reform in Russia, 
     and achieved remarkable progress toward peace in the Middle 
     East. U.S. leadership helped broker a permanent extension of 
     the Non-proliferation Treaty, the removal of all nuclear 
     weapons from Ukraine, and a freeze on North Korea's nuclear 
     weapons facilities at Yongbyon.
       Leadership is inherent in our power and our values. We have 
     a talent for it. We cannot evade it.


                        We Can Predict Conflict

       Fourth, we can even predict conflict.
       Where there is no democracy, where there is alienation of 
     major groups in society, gross economic imbalances, exclusion 
     or discrimination of groups or historical grievances, the 
     risks of conflict are very high. Conflicts occur in states 
     which are undergoing major transition, or they spring from 
     strong perceptions of inequity, uneven distribution of the 
     good things in life, disputes over resources, repression, 
     corruption, or a decline in the legitimacy of government.


                 Responsibility for Conflict Prevention

       Fifth, we know that the primary responsibility for conflict 
     prevention within countries lies with the government and the 
     people of that country.
       The next responsibility lies with the international 
     community, with the region assuming greater responsibility, 
     and, when necessary, outside groups.
       Sovereignty always figures prominently here. Nations do not 
     take lightly to outside intervention. But even here things 
     are changing. Today the international community believes that 
     with sovereignty comes responsibility. When nations cannot 
     manage conflict, or do not show a respect for international 
     standards and commitments, the international community 
     sometimes steps in--as has been the case in Iraq.


                         Prevention of Conflict

       Sixth, we even know what must be done to prevent conflict.


                        1. A Change in Attitudes

       First, we must change attitudes.
       We must foster the belief that the prevention of conflict 
     is possible. We must not accept the view that violence is 
     inevitable.
       Of course, prevention will often fail. We must be 
     realistic. But the knowledge that we will not always succeed 
     in staving off conflict is not an argument for not trying.
       There are even reasons for cautious optimism. From time to 
     time the international community has intervened in a timely 
     and decisive fashion either to prevent conflict or to stop it 
     from spreading.
       It happened in Bosnia. In Haiti. In Sierra Leone. In the 
     Middle East. Even the UN intervention in Cambodia in the 
     early 1990s, as imperfect as the results have been, almost 
     surely prevented bloodshed and saved lives.
       Violence usually results from human decision, not blind 
     fate. Recognizing this reality is a necessary precondition 
     for preventing conflict.
       In addition, busy policy makers, even as they are consumed 
     with today's troubles, must learn to take time to look at 
     tomorrow's problems.
       A domestic challenge is illustrative. Today we spend one 
     percent of the American health care budget on prevention. And 
     yet the experts are virtually unanimous in their judgment 
     that we could save many lives and much money if we devoted a 
     greater percentage of our total health care costs to 
     prevention. The same is true of conflict prevention.
       I do not suggest it is easy to focus on a problem before it 
     becomes a crisis, or to build into the decision making 
     process a set of rewards and inducements that will encourage 
     the harried policy maker to look beyond today's problems.
       And so, we need to foster a sense of urgency, a new way of 
     thinking that gives precedence to the prevention, and not 
     simply the management, of conflict, to avoid disaster, rather 
     than dealing with the consequences after it hits.
       To do this requires that we get our facts straight, analyze 
     situations objectively, keep an open mind, learn for one 
     another, persist, and respect the importance and the 
     difficulty of the task we have set out for ourselves.

[[Page E209]]

                              2. Diplomacy

       We know what tools of diplomacy can work to prevent 
     conflict.
       In many cases, the traditional tools of diplomacy--
     dialogue, mediation, political and economic sticks and 
     carrots, diplomatic pressure from the regional and 
     international communities, sanctions--can, if utilized 
     skillfully, prevent or minimize conflict.
       Economic measures, with both inducements and punishments, 
     can be used to prevent conflict. Sustainable growth and the 
     removal of economic inequities in a country can do amazing 
     things toward the prevention of conflict. The absence of 
     growth is an early warning signal of potential violence. 
     Economic aid has to be directed toward achieving growth, and 
     aid should be conditioned on good governance.
       If people's basic needs are met, conflict can usually be 
     prevented.
       Economic aid can help correct the underlying causes of 
     conflict and provide incentives and hope for improvement. 
     Sanctions can serve as deterrents to unacceptable action.
       The promotion of the rule of law can help diffuse tensions 
     within a country and reduce the incidence of conflict.
       Countries lacking good governance and equitable legal 
     systems will be susceptible to internal violence. If, on the 
     other hand, a country has effective political, economic, and 
     legal mechanisms, tensions can be addressed before violence 
     erupts.
       The political conditions needed to prevent conflict are not 
     mysteries. They amount to good governance--managing 
     diversity, building the infrastructure of democratic 
     institutions, a robust civil society, and the active 
     participation of women (who are increasingly playing the role 
     we should expect from them--peacemakers), business leaders, 
     the media (which can inform and highlight and not distort), 
     and religious leaders, who can often play a positive role of 
     reconciliation.
       The aim of all this is to put in place a strong system of 
     values, reinforced by international norms. At the heart of 
     conflict prevention must be a strong system of justice, legal 
     systems available to all, that operate fairly and produce a 
     sense of justice.
       Dispute resolution mechanisms and the promotion of 
     confidence-building measures are other common diplomatic 
     tools that can prevent conflict.
       The establishment of confidence building measures in 
     central Europe in the 1970s and 1980s played a key role in 
     convincing the Soviet Union that it could safely call an end 
     to the cold war. CBMs build trust between countries. Openness 
     about military budgets, plans, and policies may be an unusual 
     concept in defense circles, but peace requires transparency 
     and trust.
       U.S. training and education programs for foreign military 
     establishments (IMET) bring nations together to learn how 
     military establishments function in a democracy. It is 
     striking to see officers from the former Soviet Union or from 
     Latin American countries learning about the primacy of 
     civilian authority, respect for human rights, the role of 
     law, and the role of a parliament. To watch American military 
     officers teach officers from newly democratic countries about 
     professional military establishments under civilian control 
     is prevention of conflict in action.
       It is good American policy to encourage contacts of our 
     military with the militaries of our allies and other nations 
     to help enlarge the community of free market democracies.
       Formal treaties and other accords can also help prevent 
     conflicts.
       Although it is still very much a work in progress, the Wye 
     River agreement may usher in a new era of reconciliation in 
     the Middle East.
       The U.S. must also lead the way for the worldwide 
     acceptance of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, bring 
     into force the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the 
     implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the 
     strengthening of the Biological Weapons Convention and the 
     Missile Technology Control Regime.
       We know we can reduce the risks of violence and conflict if 
     we prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, not 
     alone by dismantling Cold War nuclear arsenals, but also by 
     reducing danger through arms control treaties.
       Arms control treaties of various sorts--from the SALT and 
     START treaties to the biological and chemical weapons 
     conventions to the limitations on conventional weapons in 
     central Europe--have played a major role in reducing the 
     interstate tensions that foment violence.
       Do not overlook the potential to prevent conflict by 
     limitations on the transfer of small arms. After all, most 
     violence is inflicted by small, not large, weapons.
       Regional organizations--the Organization of American 
     States, the Organization of African Unity, the ASEAN Regional 
     Forum, and others--can play a part in preventing conflict as 
     well.
       These organizations should assume more responsibility for 
     economic development and integration, the promotion of good 
     governance, and the prevention of conflict within their 
     specific regions.
       The problems within a particular region should be handled 
     by states within that region, if possible. It is better, for 
     example, if Africans deal with African problems, and Latin 
     Americans with Latin American problems.
       Regional organizations should support confidence-building 
     measures to increase military transparency, communication, 
     and cooperation. They should develop the capability to apply 
     pressure, offer assistance, and deploy regional forces to 
     prevent conflict.
       Multilateral organizations, such as the United Nations, the 
     International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank, can help 
     prevent conflict.
       To help these international institutions be effective in 
     preventing conflict, the international community needs to 
     develop a better system of early warning and response. The 
     genocides of Bosnia, Cambodia, and Rwanda caught us unaware 
     and unprepared. Yet conflict seldom arises without warning. 
     Persons knowledgeable about countries are rarely surprised 
     when long-simmering problems escalate into full-scale 
     conflict.
       President Clinton recently announced the creation of a 
     Genocide Early Warning Center. This is an initiative to be 
     cheered and encouraged.
       But early warning must be followed by timely action. The 
     international community needs a capability for preventive 
     action. This means the ability to deploy civilian personnel--
     to mediate problems, to provide emergency economic relief, 
     and to address the long-term issues that give rise to 
     conflict.
       The United Nations can play a key role here. But this will 
     require that the nations which make up the UN give a higher 
     priority to conflict prevention. And this is unlikely to 
     occur unless the United States takes the lead.
       Most fundamentally, the international community, using 
     these and other multilateral institutions, must address the 
     underlying political and economic causes of conflict.
       That means the world community must support political 
     reform and the development of responsive and accountable 
     government. Helping to establish and promote institutions of 
     civil society such as political parties, trade unions, 
     independent media, and the rule of law provides important 
     safeguards for protecting human rights, fighting corruption, 
     and fending off political demagoguery.
       The United States should work with the international 
     community, especially the international financial 
     institutions, to support long-term development assistance to 
     achieve economic growth and promote economic opportunity and 
     equality. Working through institutions such as the World 
     Bank, the IMF, and the World Trade Organization, the U.S. 
     should support market reform and regional economic 
     integration to bolster growth.


                        3. Military intervention

       Military intervention is another tool in our prevention 
     arsenal.
       We know that traditional diplomacy sometimes fails to 
     prevent conflict, and that military intervention, if 
     skillfully employed, can prevent conflict.
       There are, of course, many problems in developing the 
     appropriate mechanisms for an international military 
     capability to intervene in areas of potential or actual 
     conflict. Answers to the difficult questions of ``when,'' 
     ``how,'' ``who,'' ``how long,'' and ``for what purposes'' are 
     often elusive.
       So the international community must improve its ability to 
     respond militarily to conflicts once they reach the crisis 
     stage.
       There is no inherent contradiction between the prevention 
     of violence and the use of military force. To the contrary, 
     the use of armed personnel has played a constructive role in 
     Haiti, Bosnia, Macedonia, Western Sahara, Cyprus, and 
     elsewhere.
       Military intervention can be either: 1) peacekeeping (after 
     violence occurs and an agreement has been reached by the 
     parties), or 2) preventative--as in Macedonia where American 
     troops and others were introduced to prevent the spread of 
     conflict from Bosnia.
       A multinational ``fire brigade'' is a well-tested idea with 
     a demonstrated record of success. Used with discretion, it 
     can be a highly effective tool for the prevention of 
     conflict.
       The UN coordinates efforts by governments to train military 
     forces and set aside necessary resources for future 
     peacekeeping missions. The U.S. should support these efforts, 
     so that the international community can act rapidly and 
     effectively if a military response is required.
       I have come to the view that the international community 
     needs some means of responding militarily to deteriorating 
     situations in order to prevent conflicts, some kind of 
     multinational, multi-functional rapid reaction standby 
     capability, probably within the U.N. I do not underestimate 
     the difficulties of this task, but I believe we must begin to 
     explore ways and means to achieve that capacity. If we do 
     not, the U.S. will be called on again and again as the power 
     with the most developed intervention capabilities.
       Sometimes the threat of the use of force can be an 
     effective deterrent-- though it may be a gamble and must be 
     managed with great skill.


                           4. Private sector

       The private sector can also play a key role in conflict 
     prevention.
       Just think for a moment about the helpful and talented 
     contributions made toward peace and the prevention of 
     violence by private groups from non-governmental 
     organizations such as the Carter Center, or human rights 
     groups around the world. From our religious and moral 
     leaders. From schools. From the scholarly and intellectual 
     communities. From the media. From the business

[[Page E210]]

     community. And from influential non-governmental opinion 
     leaders such as those here this evening.
       In recent years, this so-called Track II diplomacy has 
     flourished. These efforts should be further encouraged.
       Unless the private sector engages itself in the business of 
     conflict prevention and resolution, the task of moderating 
     strife and violence will become infinitely more difficult.


             III. Congress and Preventive Diplomacy/Defense

       Let me conclude with a few remarks about the role of the 
     U.S. Congress in matters of preventive diplomacy and 
     preventive defense.
       I have been struck by how little of the literature--at 
     least that which I have seen--mentions the American Congress. 
     And yet, if the United States is to take a leading part in 
     international efforts at conflict prevention, then the 
     Congress is going to have to be brought in as a full-fledged 
     partner in this effort.
       It seems to me that Congress might usefully take action in 
     three areas:
       First, Congress must support the infrastructure of 
     preventive action. This means that the Hill must be prepared 
     to provide adequate funding for the State Department and the 
     other agencies that promote American interest overseas. It 
     also requires that Congress be willing to pay for the 
     programs that are most likely to prevent conflict. This means 
     money for economic development, for programs promoting the 
     rule of law, for the creation and nourishment of the 
     political, economic, and legal institution through which 
     tensions can be addressed in ways short of conflict.
       Second, Congress must overcome its resistance to 
     participation in multinational organizations, both civilian 
     and military. When military force is called for, the 
     presidents and the secretaries of state and defense who 
     seek to persuade Congress to support preventive defense 
     must emphasize the U.S. national interest that dictates 
     such use of our armed forces.
       Members of Congress are above all hard-headed pragmatists. 
     Show them how a military intervention serves the national 
     interest and you are much closer to persuading them of the 
     wisdom of such action.
       Third, and perhaps most fundamentally, Members of Congress 
     are going to have to do better in adapting their mindsets to 
     changed circumstances.
       There are Members of Congress today who are unable to utter 
     the word ``China'' without preceding it with the adjective 
     ``communist'' or ``Red.'' This inability to move beyond old 
     Cold War views that have more to do with Stalinist Russia 
     than with the China of the late 1990s have frequently led to 
     congressional action that makes conflict with China more 
     rather than less likely.
       Unless Members of Congress are prepared to look at old 
     problems from a fresh perspective, the legislative branch is 
     unlikely to be of much assistance in fostering a new ethos of 
     preventive action.
       And without congressional participation, the United States 
     will not play the leading role in conflict resolution that 
     its strength and position in the global community demands.


                             IV. Conclusion

       Where does all this leave us?
       We know the odds. We cannot eliminate all war and violence, 
     any more than we can eliminate human folly.
       We know the United States cannot and should not be 
     responsible for addressing all the ills of the world.
       We know that devoting more resources and greater attention 
     to conflict prevention is a long-term investment that serves 
     the U.S. national interest. Conflict prevention saves lives, 
     saves money, and forestalls the human misery that lead to 
     conflict.
       We know that conflict prevention requires the participation 
     of the entire international community. No one leader, no one 
     country, no one institution can carry the load. Conflict 
     prevention responses must be tailored to fit each situation, 
     with a plan, close coordination of the tools of response from 
     among all the actors, internal and external, regional and 
     international, civilian and military, public and private, 
     official and non-official.
       The prevention of conflict is a great and worthy challenge.
       In our bones we know that it deserves a far higher priority 
     from U.S. policy makers and from international organization, 
     especially the U.N., than it has historically received. The 
     problem is not so much in our lack of knowledge of what to 
     do, but in our political will and commitment to do those 
     things we know can and have prevented conflict.
       As I close, let me express my concern that the U.S. 
     leadership needed to strengthen our conflict prevention 
     capabilities is being eroded by budget cuts from the U.S. 
     Congress and a general tendency among the American public to 
     draw back from international responsibilities. It is a 
     situation that demands political leadership of the highest 
     order from the President and the Congress.
       Every president, every Cabinet official, every member of 
     Congress should insist that conflict prevention constitute a 
     central component of U.S. diplomatic and defense strategy--
     and moreover, do a better job of educating the American 
     people about this.
       We soon complete the 20th Century. It is a century of 
     wars--the first in which world wars were fought. It is the 
     first century also in which men and women of good will, 
     drawing on the impact of world wars, have wrestled with the 
     idea of conflict prevention and world peace. We have glimpsed 
     that peace is possible because it is necessary. We have not 
     won the day, but we have begun the understanding of what 
     peace and conflict prevention can mean--quite simply it can 
     change the course of history and the life of man more than 
     anything we know or can do.
       We may not be able to rid the world of conflict. We can 
     make it more livable.
       What more important task do you have on your agenda?
       Thank you.

       

                          ____________________