thank you very much? >> with respect to sanctions, so far what we have seen is excellent coordination between the united states and europe. i think on both sides of the atlantic there was recognition that in the initial incursion into crimea we had to take very specific steps and we did, identifying individuals that were in part responsible for those actions. when the russian government made the decision to annex crimea after a referenda that nobody outside of russia, i think, could take seriously, we then heightened those sanctions, again in coordination. what we're now doing is coordinating around the potential for additional deeper sanctions should russia move

forward and engage in further incursions into ukraine. and we recognize that in order for russia to feel the brunt -- the impact of these sanctions, that it will have some impact on the global economy as well as on all of the countries that are represented here today. and we're mindful that that is going to be different not just between the united states and europe, but also among different countries inside of europe, some of whom are more dependent for example on energy from russia than others are. so we're taking all of this into account. i think energy is obviously a central focus of our efforts, and we have to consider very -- very strongly. this entire event i think has pointed to the need for europe to look at how it can further diversify its energy sources,

and the united states is blessed with some additional energy sources that have been developed in part because of new technologies, and we have already licensed, authorized the export of as much natural gas each day as europe uses each day, but it's going into the open market, it's not targeted directly -- it is going through private companies who get these licenses, and they make decisions on the world market about where that energy is going to be sold. the question is through our energy ministers, and at the highest levels, we're able to find ways in which we can accelerate this process of diversification, and this is something we're very much committed to. we think it would be good for europe and the united states. it's not something that can happen overnight, but what i think this entire crisis has pointed to is the need for us to

get moving now with a sense of urgency, and our energy ministers are committed to doing that. that was their assignment coming out of the g-7. we already do enormous trade and there's enormous direct investment between the united states and europe. we account for a big chunk of the world economy in our economic relations. that's not going to change. i think that, you know, our publics, both in europe and the united states have legitimate questions when it comes to trade deals as to whether or not it's going to benefit their countries over the long term, and can we make sure that part 1, victories

around consumer protection, or environmental protection are preserved as opposed to weakened, that is something that is of concern in the united states as it is here. here is what i can tell you as these negotiations proceed. i have fought my entire political career and as president to strengthen consumer protections. i have no intention of signing legislation that would weaken those protections. i fought out there my political career, and am fighting as we speak to strength environmental protections in the united states. and so i -- i think that there has been a lot of publicity and speculation about what might be, or could be, or is this provision potentially used by corporations to, you know, in some fashion weekend some of these protections or encroach on

sovereign decisions that are made -- and i just could caution everybody to wait and see what has been negotiated before they engage in all of these speculations. i think there has generally been suspicion in some quarters around trade. some of those suspicions are unjustified. some reflect old models of -- of trade agreements that have been updated, but what i can say for certain is that because of the trading relationship between the united states and europe, we have created millions of jobs on both sides of the atlantic, and growth and prosperity has advanced. there is a way of doing this right that will help us make sure that we remain at the cutting edge of innovation and growth and development. there are bad ways of doing trade agreements as well, and

ultimately all of these things will have to be subjected to scrutiny and the light of day, but no point in -- in getting excited about potential provisions and trade agreements that haven't been drafted yet. there will be plenty of time to criticize trade agreements when they are actually put before the public, but we'll be working to make sure environmental and consumer protections that are in place, that those are strengthened. and i shared with the presidents that part of the suspicion about trade is whether globalization is ben fitting everybody as opposed to just those at the top. and some small segments of our economies, or large corporations as opposed to small and medium-sized businesses. i think it's important for us as leaders to ensure that trade is helping folks at the bottom, and folks in the middle, and

brood-based prosperity, not just a few elites, and that's the test that i'm going to apply in whether or not it makes sense for us to move forward in a trade deal. i'm confident we can shape a trade deal that accomplishes those things. >> just on ukraine, and i guess that the president of the european commission will speak on the [ inaudible ]. on ukraine we coordinated our first years of sanctions, hitting individuals by travel bans and by asset freeze, and also on the political side, we suspended preparatory work for the g-8 meeting, and we are now organizing a g-7 meeting as mentioned already that will take place here in brussels, and then from the europe i don't know side. we said in the statement of the

european council that if further steps were taken by russia to destabilize the situation in ukraine, we will take economic sanctions, and we have prepared a brood range of sanctions in all areas. of course we have to court nate among our member states. they are not all in the same position as far as trade, energy, and financial services is concerned. so we have to coordinate with us and the united states. but let me say also that sanctions are not a punishment. sanctions are not a retaliation, sanctions are a positive incentive to seek a diplomatic, a political solution while respecting of course -- while respecting of course international -- international law. so sanctions are in itself -- are not an aim in itself, but we are working also

on the -- stabilizing the situation in ukraine, stabilizing politically, economically, and financially, because that is the best answer, to strengthen ukraine to make it a strong currency, instead of a weak currency, that's why we signed the agreement with ukraine. that's why we will provide macro financial help to ukraine if they agree on reforms with the international monetary fund, and why unilaterally we will remove customs duties. so there is a brood range of initiatives we are taking to stabilize the country of ukraine besides the actions that we can take as far as sanctions are concerned. >> still on this issue, i -- i believe that all of this talk about who is doing more on sancti sanctions, the united states or

europe, is really useless. first of all because we are united as shown, taking very important decisions like the cancellation of our european russian summit are now together, the cancellation of the g-8 summit in sochi and the organization of a g-7 summit here in brussels. it's true what you said that in fact european economy is much more linked to russia, and russia to the european union than the united states. and russias are much more looking to europe also because they are traveling more here and so on. that's precisely why one measure in europe that may appear not so ambitious as an american one has at least the same effect, because our trade with russia is comparable with what the united states has with japan, for instance. so we are preparing the necessary measures in a determined way, of course consulting with our american partners and friends.

what is important as i just said is that we make sure that an acceptable action will bare very serious consequences. and so far this has been a message that has been passed clearly to the russian leadership. and once again, the problem is not a competition between the united states and europe about sake shuns -- >> you are listening right now to the president of the european union. before he spoke you heard from the president of the european council, all of them speaking with president obama from brussels, belgium. mike viqueira has been traveling with the president. he is live in brussels belgium right now. mike, the president again continuing the theme that russia stands alone. if there were words that stood out from his speech it is that he continues to try to unite the rest of the world in saying that

russia will be punished for its invasion of crimea and subsequent annexation. >> yes, the word isolation keeps coming up. and we heard the leaders emphasize there is unity between the united states and eu in terms of sanctions that have been imposed at least thus far. and you just heard him say these are not punishments but inducements. the eu is united with the united states, nato is united, and moving the meeting from sochi to right behind me in brussels come this june, and the president spoke largely about the impact of the sanctions on russia. >> in order for russia to feel the brunt -- the impact of these sanctions that it will have some impact on the global economy as

well on all of the countries that are represented here today. >> and the president talking about the energy sanctions, recognizing that europe is much more vulnerable. interesting crediting the u.s. saying the u.s. has been blessed by what is known as frac-ing. >> even though that energy is being produced in record numbers in the united states, it is not necessarily being loaded on ships or kept in the united states. we're going to go back live now to brussels, as we listen to the new questions coming in. >> reporter: what more do you expect the united states to do to help the european union do to reduce its dependance on russian oil, and are you concerned that obstacles in congress will prevent you on achieving your goals on trade and also on

ukraine? thank you. >> well, i -- i'm looking forward to having my meeting with secretary general rasmussen, who -- whose term is expiring, and i have to say has provided outstanding leadership to nato on a whole range of issues. so let me take an opportunity now to compliment him on doing just an outstanding job. as i said yesterday at a press conference in the hague, our commitment to nato is the cornerstone, the most important element of u.s. national security, as well as european security, and at the core of nato is our article 5 commitments to collective defense. when i first came into office, one of the things that i said to

all of the nato members sitting around the table was that there's no junior nato members versus senior nato members. obviously there are big and small countries in nato, but when it comes to the commitment to collective defense, everybody is in the same footing. it does mean that we have to make sure that we have put together very real contingency plans for every one of these members, including those who came in out of central and eastern europe, and over the last several years we have worked up a number of these contingency plans. when we meet -- when the ministers meet in april, one of the things that i have suggested to the heads of state and government who are nato members,

is that we examine those plans to make sure they are updated; that we do more to ensure that a regular nato presence among some of these states that may feel vulnerable is executed. i think there are ways that we can do that that can be accommodated by our existing assets, but one of the things that i have also said in the past and will repeat again, and i think secretary general rasmussen agrees with me here, is that if we have got collective defense, it means that everybody has got to chip in, and i have had some concerns about a diminished level of defense spending amongst some of our partners the nato, not all, but many, the trend lines have been going down. that's understandable when you have an economic and financial

crisis and many countries are going through fiscal consolation, but the situation reminds us that our freedom isn't free. and we have got to be willing to pay for the assets, the personnel, the training that's required to make sure that we have a credible nato force and an effective deterrent force. so one of the things that i think medium and long-term we'll have to examine is whether everybody is chipping in. and -- and this can't just be a u.s. exercise, or british exercise, or one country's efforts, everybody is going to have to make sure that they are engaged and involved, and i think that that will help build more confidence among some of those border states. one last thing i just want to say about energy. i also mentioned this to the

presidents, i think it is useful for europe to look at its own energy assets as well as how the united states can supply additional energy assets, because i -- you know, the truth of the matter is, is that just as there's no easy, free, simple way to defending ourselves, there's no perfect, free ideal cheap energy sources. every possible energy source has some inconveniences or -- or down sides, and, you know, i think that europe collectively is going to need to examine in light of what has happened their energy policies to find are there additional ways that they

can diversify and accelerate energy independence. the united states as a source of energy is one possibility, and we have been blessed by some incredible resources, but we're also making choices, and -- and taking on some of the difficulties and challenges of energy development and europe is going to have to go through some of those same conversations as well. >> reporter: [ inaudible ]? >> well, you know, i think that -- neither ukraine or georgia are currently on a path to nato membership, and, you know, there has not been any immediate plans for expansion of nato remembership. i know that russia at least on background as suggested one of the reasons they have been concerned about ukraine is potential nato membership. on the other hand part of the

reason that ukraine has not formally applied for nato membership is because of its complex relationship with russia. i don't think that's going to change any time soon obviously. so as i said yesterday, we have a commitment that includes a military commitment to our nato members. for non-members we want to support those countries in ways that are in align with our principles and ideals. so we'll continue to support ukraine in its economy and sovereignty, but i think it would be unrealistic to think that, you know, the ukrainian people themselves have made a decision about that, much less the complex process that is

required in order to actually become a nato member. >> about energy -- >> you are listening to the world leaders right now, gathered in brussels, belgium. the president responding to questions about the united states energy policies, and how much of that energy can be shipped to european allies if there is a situation involving further sanctions, those sanctions of course hurting the european allies more than they would hurt the united states is what one reporter pointed out. jennifer glasse joining us now live from sevastopol. jennifer it dawned on me there is somewhat of a difference in the way the world views events, partially because the world doesn't see a lot of what is happening right now. in sevastopol right now, how many news outlets are there that

they can monitor what is happening, and are they free? >> russia moved very quickly to shut down most of the ukrainian outlets and most international outlets you can only get those on satellite. so everything that will be seen here -- most everything that will be sheeeen here, unless yo have the money to have a satellite channel, will come through that russian filter. and what we have heard about sanctions, they say we don't care, we welcome them. we're under russia's wing now, and we'll stand alone. people feel very strongly about what they did. they think the united states is acting in a double standard. they point towards kosovo as an example. president obama saying no one in

the world would take the referendum seriously. they took a vote here, and tuesday russia signed the agreement with the leaders here to make crimea a part of russia. so very, very quickly they take it very seriously here. they say it was correcting a s a -- historical wrong when they gave ukraine away. especially here in sevastopol which was really under moscow's control until the 1970s. they have always felt closer to russia than the rest of the world, and they say they will make it on their own if they have to because they are part of russ russia now. >> jennifer you have been on this story since day 1 when the street protesters were taking to the street of kiev back in november. at that moment in history, did anyone then expect that we would

be where we are right now with crimea now being part of russia, and ukraine trying to figure out what is next? >> no i don't think so. i certainly don't think that's what anyone thought. and of course it was ironic, as moscow signed the deal -- as president putin was signing the papers making crimea part of russia, in europe you had that interim agreement that started this all in november of last year. it was really the failure of then president viktor yanukovych to sign an agreement to come closer to europe. i don't think anyone ever thought that by starting the street demonstrations that really just steam rolled, that it would come to this. so now as you have european

leaders and the united states trying to help that interim ukrainian government which moscow does not recognize, we only had the first meeting when the interim foreign minister and the russian foreign minister two days ago, and we haven't heard what came of that. they said they moved in here to protect ethnic russians, just really breath-taking astonishing speed of events that have happened over the last few months. i don't think anyone thought that most of this now belongs to russia. it's military is in tatters, because many of the forces were here on the crimea peninsula. and a lot of the military industries are here as well, so a big blow to ukraine, already a financially weak country -- >> and i'm unfortunately going to have to cut you off, because we have lost your satellite

signal. but again, as far as the reset is concerned, remember in november when this crisis started in the united states, they were talking about the issue of obamacare. today the president talking about that freedom is not free. take a listen. >> telesituation in ukraine reminds us that our freedom isn't free, and we have got to be willing to pay for the assets, the personnel, the training, that's required to make sure that we have a credible nato force and an effective deterrent force. >> mike viqueira in brussels, belgium, i'm remembering that image of then secretary of state hilly rodham clinton with that reset button and sergei lavrov. >> yeah, and so are a lot of

people back in washington. i thought it was very interesting del at the end of the press conference, the president taking the opportunity and talking about nato security to near into some admonishment, saying some countries were not chipping in enough in terms of nato, and then talking about europe needing to pick up the pace on energy production, it's not all up to the united states. europe needs to diversify. he said we are making the tough choices on energy, you are talking about politics. a lot of republicans will jump on that and point to the keystone decision. >> mike viqueira for us following the president right now in brussels, belgium. our jennifer glasse in sevastopol in crimea, she has been following this story since day one. as we continue to follow the crisis in ukraine here from new york.

i'm del walters in new york. as always there is more news straight ahead.

>> it's christmas eve, and us soldiers are preparing for their last months in afghanistan. about forty thousand are still here - by the end of the year, there'll be just eight thousand. we traveled to afghanistan in the midst of this transition. but on the base we found a story that isn't being told. the people doing the day-to-day work here are mostly civilian contract workers - men from

india and nepal, who traveled to a war zone just for the promise of a good job. for many of them, that promise turned out to be a lie. they ended up deceived and indebted, victims of human traffickers who thrive on military contracts. fault lines examines the lives of these workers - and investigates how the american military has come to rely on an indentured workforce. camp marmal is the largest base in northern afghanistan. nato's mission here centers on training the afghan national army. >> the complexity, when we first

got here i started thinking about it. it almost becomes overwhelming. >> this is the us regional garrison commander, responsible for daily operations in the north. >> there's a lot of great contractors that come up here. local nationals, third country nationals, us expats. they're really good, they work together. >> what are the contractors doing? >> everything, everything you can think of. they work in the dining facilities. they help maintain the living facilities. what it does is that it allows the soldiers to concentrate on their primary mission, rather than having extra duties. we could not do our mission without them. they do a good job for us. >> two american companies manage the military's facilities in afghanistan: the fluor corporation, and dyncorp international. these companies are called 'prime contractors,' because the us government hired them directly. >> they all work together and do an outstanding job of serving us

really, really good food. >> fluor manages camp marmal, but most of the contract workers here work for smaller companies - subcontractors - which fluor hires to handle basic tasks - cooking, cleaning, and laundry. >> and there is sort of the enjoyment of watching you're food made right here in front of you. >> the people serving food here work for these subcontractors. >> i think you just made their day. that was very sweet. >> christmas dinner. on the face of it, it's a little odd. american and european troops being served by indians and nepalis - in afghanistan. the workers line up separately for indian food. when we requested to film here, the military had to ask permission from fluor. fluor denied our request. but i did chat with the workers in hindi and tamil when we ran into them on the base.

>> it wasn't long before i heard about a unique aspect of their employment. to get these jobs, they all had to pay fees to recruiting agents.

>> i asked several people if they would speak to me on camera about how they were recruited to afghanistan. most were hesitant, not wanting to jeopardize their jobs. but a few hours later, i got a message. one of the workers i met at the dining hall just contacted me. he wants to talk to us about his story. it isn't easy to talk openly on this base even though he's right here. so we're trying to find a place to meet. the worker asked us to conceal his identity and alter his voice. we'll call him "ravi". he told us to meet him at an empty part of the base, after he finished his shift.

>> ravi told us he was tricked into working in afghanistan for a salary that was less than half of what he was promised. it started when a friend back home introduced ravi to a recruiting agent, who told him that for a hefty fee, he could get a job in afghanistan working for dyncorp. he would fly to dubai, where he would connect with dyncorp and then travel to the base. >> but there was a catch. the job at dyncorp didn't actually exist. instead, the agent housed ravi in a work camp in dubai. after three weeks, the agent told him that for an additional fee, he could get ravi a job with a subcontractor - ecolog. >> so you were promised a job dyncorp for $1200. and then you got a job at ecolog for $500? >> yes.

>> how much money did you pay the agent? >> ravi had been recruited under fraudulent terms that compelled him to work for a year simply to pay of his debt. according to the us state department and the united nations, this is human trafficking - illegal under us and international law.

>> what percentage of workers paid fees to agents in order to get here?

>> we wanted to talk to more people who'd worked these jobs. but to do so, we had to go far outside the war, where they could speak more openly. we found them in the rural heartland of southern india, in the state of tamil nadu. >> the main issue when we talk about trafficking - we can call it as bonded labor - it all starts because they have to pay

an amount to get that job. >> sindhu kavinamannil used to work for a subcontractor in kuwait. now she advocates on behalf of migrant laborers. over the last eight years, she has interviewed hundreds of contract workers in iraq and afghanistan. >> debt will make you work anywhere. it doesn't matter if it's a war zone, doesn't matter if you're given a good food or good accommodation. these men are ready to sacrifice. >> govindnagaram is a village of six thousand people, several hours from the closest airport. locals estimate that eighty to ninety percent of men here have worked in iraq or afghanistan. >> if you have a regular job, you might get 5000 rupees - that's $100 dollars for a month. but what the agents promise, you will get $800 dollars for a month. even i will think of moving

there to get a job. >> we visited a small tea shop, and word spread that we were looking to talk to people who had worked on bases. it turned out this man serving tea himself had been recruited for a job in afghanistan - with supreme, a contractor that supplies food and fuel to nato. >> whether they made it to afghanistan or not, everyone here had a story about how they

had been cheated. this man, nagaraj, paid three thousand dollars to an agent for a job as a cook in afghanistan. but when he arrived at the base, he was told he would be working as a waiter for a much lower salary. >> at bagram, the largest us base in afghanistan, nagaraj worked for ecolog, the same company that ravi had told us about. ecolog is one of the most prominent subcontractors in afghanistan, working on both fluor and dyncorp contracts.

>> it's completely controlled on fear, the fear of losing the job and the fear of losing the job is because they are in debt back home. losing your job is like you're coming back to shame and debt, and what's my future after that? you're here, i own you and you work here or if you don't want to, you go back home. but what about the money you paid? you didn't pay me? you paid to the agent, i don't know about the money you paid. do you have a paper to show? >> being fired is especially daunting because most people borrowed money to pay their recruiter - at interest rates of 25 to 40 percent. >> ganesan subbaiah had to come up with two thousand five hundred dollars. at the time, he earned two dollars a day.

>> ganesan paid for a job in afghanistan with a subcontractor called prime projects international, or ppi. but ppi sent him to an american base in an entirely different country. >> rajesh kumar worked at camp dwyer in afghanistan, making seven hundred eighty dollars per month. but in a year's work there, he only earned about two thousands dollars. the rest - seventy five percent of his wages - went towards the

loan to pay the agent. >> rajesh was strung along by five successive agents, each of whom charged an additional fee. >> the department of defense requires contractors to ask workers whether they paid recruitment fees.

but it isn't hard to see why few people are comfortable telling the truth. >> did the contractors not know that their employees were trapped in debt? or did they condone these abuses because they benefitted in some way? to figure that out, we had to retrace the path of these workers - to the city nearly everyone had traveled through: dubai.

>> dubai is critical. you'll see most of the contractors have their headquarters incorporated in dubai. >> sam mccahon is a former army jag officer who served in iraq and afghanistan. for the last several years, he has campaigned to reform the military contracting system. >> and when it comes to dubai, people wonder why would someone take them across the ocean if there wasn't a contract. it gets into human trafficking. the trafficker gets paid when they leave india at the airport the trafficker gets his commission. it doesn't matter if they have a job over there. >> subcontractors like ppi and ecolog run their middle east operations out of dubai.

they keep labor camps here to house workers en route to military bases. and their recruiting agents have camps here too. >> away from the dazzling towers of dubai, a sprawling labor camp known as sonapur is home to hundreds of thousands of migrant workers from south asia. in hindi, sonapur means 'city of gold' - but in reality, it's more of a shanty town. it's this pool of labor that american subcontractors dip into to find workers for us military bases in afghanistan.

>> what would happen if someone tried to apply for a job directly with ecolog? >> the typical business model,

i'll call it, that's used by the gulf subcontractors is they will go to india, or nepal or philippines, or kenya, and they will link up with a recruiter. they work out first the above the board terms. and then there is the below the board agreement. which is the kickback. >> we needed to speak to someone intimately familiar with the arrangements between subcontractors and their agents. in afghanistan, ravi had given us the name of the recruiter in dubai who connected him to ecolog. to get this agent to talk to us openly, my producer and i posed as employees of a subcontractor, looking to hire indian workers. we set up a meeting with the agent near his office, and filmed it using two hidden cameras.

he told us his credentials. >> and if they have to stay in dubai, where will they stay? >> where is it, in the main city? >> i asked the agent about his contract with ecolog, and he told me something incredible. ecolog does not pay him any money directly. the money he makes comes entirely from the fees paid by job candidates. and, he explained, subcontractors take a cut from those fees.

>> so it would be a no-fee contract? >> this agent even offered to pay me money - if we hired workers from his camp: a hundred to two hundred dollars for each worker we could find a job for in afghanistan. >> workers are not only paying a recruiter, they are unknowingly paying their employer - the subcontractor - for the privilege of having a job. >> the men are traded and sold just like chattel. they are things. they are commodities to be used. so the only one who is not making money is the worker who is providing the labor. everyone else - the recruiter, the subcontractor, the prime contractor.

they are all making a lot of profit. but most of it is coming from this worker, who cannot afford it. >> and how much money are we talking about? >> now according to the government records, it shows that those subcontractors are making anywhere between 70-300% profits. >> subcontractors make these kind of profits by billing prime contractors at rates far higher than their actual costs. >> let's say i'm ppi, and i tell them i'll give you laborers to pick up your trash and clean your toilets, and i'm only going to charge you $6 dollars an hour, that seems fair and reasonable. i get the award because i say $6 an hour. i know i'm only going to pay the worker $1.65 an hour. so most of the difference between $1.65 and $6 is my profit. about 90% of that amount is profit. >> prime contractors like fluor could hire workers directly for less. but the way the system is set

up, they actually have an incentive to use subcontractors that overcharge. that's because the government has agreed to reimburse prime contractors for all of their costs, and then pay them a percentage of that total as a fixed profit. >> so the economic advantage is to incur as many costs as you can legitimately do so. the prime contractors make millions of dollars in additional profits, by subcontracting it out. >> so the us government is subsidizing human trafficking? >> no, we're paying for it directly. this is the only form of human trafficking where the taxpayer directly pays the human trafficker. >> so fluor and dyncorp know that you're supplying to ecolog? >> when we reached out to fluor, the company said it holds subcontractors in afghanistan to

a quote 'zero tolerance policy regarding trafficking in persons.' ecolog told us it's against company policy for any employee to pay a recruitment fee. and that all of its policies are fully aligned with us government requirements. the department of defense has not responded to repeated requests for comment. in the last few years, the pentagon, congress and the obama administration have all issued rules designed to stop trafficking on military contracts. but those rules have never been enforced. >> even though this is against us law, there have been no criminal prosecutions, there have been no civil actions, there have not even been one contractor that was suspended from getting additional government contracts. even though everyone, including the government, has been aware that they are engaged in human trafficking. >> today there are nearly forty thousand third country nationals

working on bases operated by us central command - in afghanistan, iraq, and elsewhere. but even as the united states winds down its wars, these workers remain critical to american facilities around the world. >> the problem doesn't go away because we are still going to have needs of support both for department of defense and department of state. now they're starting to use third country nationals for base support operations in djibouti and other parts of africa as well.

welcome to al jazeera america. i'm del walters. these are the stories we're following for you. president obama saying the diplomacy is the answer to the crisis is ukraine, warning russia of new sanctions. plus waiting for word, families in washington state hoping for the best as rescue efforts resume? that deadly man slide.