 Welcome back to Think Tech, I'm Jay Fidels, here in a given Monday, and we have the honor of being with Nikolas Susman-Haran again. He is from Bogota, Colombia, but it's much more than that, we'll talk about that today. Welcome back to the show, Nikolas. Thank you, Jay, so glad to be here again, and kind greetings to all the audience. Thank you. So I wanted to, you know, when we met last time, I didn't know enough to ask you, and I found out since, about the very interesting background your family has in Colombia. Can you talk about how your family got from Europe to Colombia, and when, and how, and the remarkable events that took place? Sure, sure, Jay. Yeah, this is very important, and this is a story that I believe I should be telling more, because it is important to know the motivations that someone has to do what he or she does, right? And this is my story about international justice and transitional justice, at least apart. So yeah, my family is German, Susman is not a very Colombian, last name, it is a German last name. And the story of how a German professor arrived to Colombia is quite interesting. My grandfather was a professor, as I just told, he was a philologist, and during the 30s and the 20th century, the Germans supported Colombia, greatly developing a lot of industries and fields, brewery, aviation, education, and so on. And he was Jewish. We're not Jewish now, he converted due to this history partly, but he was Jewish at the time, and he could foresee what was happening in Germany since the 30s. He didn't flee Germany during the war, he did it before, but the thing with this regimes is that you can see from a time before that things begin getting badly, badly, badly, badly, and it's not like from a sudden that things get bad and I trust it is all committed, but it is a process. He could see the process, he came here with his family, he was married to another woman who's not my grandmother, but they left Germany and decided to stay here because things were getting bad. He decided to cut all contact with Germany once the war began and he knew the things that were happening. He decided to forget about Germany. He resigned to his nationality. It was also taken away by the Nazi government. He decided not to speak German anymore to his family, nor my father or his siblings, no German. And then, well, that's our story and that motivates me to do that. Then later after the Berlin Wall fell, the government as a form of preparation partly decided to offer families who had left Germany or lost their nationality or that type of things, a possibility to get the passport again. So we did and we started building up the history, partially that has allowed many of my cousins and even me to study in Europe and some of them leave now there. And I have a cousin who is doing the reconstruction of our family history and we found out that most of our family particularly my great-grandmother and the sister of my grandfather died in Auschwitz. So that is the history and that is part of what moves me to do these things partially so they won't happen again and also to pay some sort of homage to the memory of my family and to say that people should keep working on this and raising alerts to avoid these things from happening. Hmm, you take it very seriously then. And you went to law school, did you know about this at the time you went to law school? Did it also motivate you to go to law school? Well, I knew this happened. I wasn't that invested into international criminal law, transitional justice, but I felt close to my German heritage that that is endowed it. And I always had a close feeling for the suffering of people and for the atrocities. Sadly, our history with atrocity didn't finish there. I also, and that's the other part of my interest, grew up in a country that was in conflict. And even if atrocities didn't happen next to me because I'm privileged, I lived in a big city, I grew up there, I was protected, I come from a privileged family. You could see things that were happening, things that all the groups were doing including the government. So those two things also moved me to go into law school and see what would happen. What I knew is that I was not going to do private law, that I was not interested in that. I wanted to do something with the people, to help the people. And then I found in transitional justice and criminal justice, a path to maybe makes my history with what I liked and that's how I am here. Has it met your expectations, Nicholas? You had the idea that you wanted to do it. It felt right historically. It felt right in a view of your life circumstances. Has it met your expectations so far? Well, it's hard to say, because when you go into law and when you lived in a country as Columbia, you know that the system is challenging, that you didn't have the resources that not all the people have the education you would like them to have because the opportunities are scarce to do things how it should be. So that has helped me to moderate a bit my expectations, but I knew it was a hard path. And it has been, it demands studying, it demands working, it demands climbing an uphill and those type of things. So in that sense, it's not that my expectations have not been achieved, they have and they really like what I do and I'm passionate about it. Actually that challenge motivates me a bit, but it is also a bit disappointing and sometimes underwhelming to see that these things that are very important that if you ask anyone on the street, hey, are you against genocide? Are you against crime against humanity? Are you against racism? Everyone would say yes, but when you go to see the institutions and the mechanisms set in place for that things to happen, or even if you ask for funding or an increasing taxes to devote to those things, then the opinion of the people changes. And that's what's surprising because everyone agrees from a theoretical and abstract perspective, but when you get to the ground, the challenges are very big and not everyone is committed to do what it's required to do the work that needs to be done. So my expectations have not been unmet, but the challenges I expected to encounter have been there. Will you stay in Colombia to implement the career you've chosen? Well, I don't know right now, that this pandemic has changed a lot of things, and also it offered me to know other contexts. Actually my history with Project Expert Adjusted as we talked last time was more of a coincidence than that's something planned and that has allowed me to find the opportunities of Sudan, of South Sudan, of Ethiopia and many other countries and people who live different situations from mine and from the one I grew up in, but that allow me to find some coincidence and to talk about similar experience and also to see that a lot of things are there to help. But something that has caught my attention is that it's actually in some way easier to deal with the problem somewhere else because here you get frustrated, you're biased, you have a lot of political opinions and that can affect your professional exercise. So maybe I would like to contribute to my country, but I would not be limited to that. You know what strikes me that if you study atrocities or whatever you study in a foreign country and you study it intently, you study it drill down, you find everything you can find, you apply all your skills to learning about that place at a distance, at a distance. You may achieve the same level or at least close, a close level of understanding about that place even though you're not there. I mean, it's like I was telling you before the show began. So you and I have spent time on Zoom and I've spent time with a lot of people on Zoom in the past year that I haven't seen in a year. I've never met you. And yet I feel that this is the way it works now. Our relationship, Nicholas, is on Zoom and I have to live with the possibility that I may never ever meet you hand to hand, never be able to shake your hand and never be in the same room with you. But I can deal with that. I kind of made peace with that possibility. And it's the same thing with South Sudan. You can study it, you can learn it, you can talk to the people there on the telephone, on Zoom or whatever. You can learn everything. You can fill your mind with the place and it's like being there. In fact, in some ways, as you say, it could be a more rational analytical experience. You do it at distance. What's your thought? Well, I agree partially. I think that that is true and I think that's the reality and I think it has folk does in relating to each other as individuals. Sometimes professional life can take that part out of it. More when you are in person and things are rushing, I think the pandemic forced everyone to rethink about your relationships and the only thing we have when we relate through Zoom is interacting as individuals, as persons not as lawyer and interviewer or when we talk with the people in South Sudan as trainer and trainees because there's no way to find engagement that way. When you're in the same room, engagement to some extent is provided by the space, but when you're at the distance, you have to go to your people skills, to go to the things that are common to find engagement. So I think that's important. I think you can learn a lot from your experiences and from studying other places, but the key aspect is not only to learn from what you read, but to learn from what you listen. And in all of these processes, what I found that is more important is listen to the people. They are the ones there. They are the ones suffering. They are the ones who know maybe how things might be fixed and then you bring up your toolkit because I think that what law is a toolkit and the more you study, the more tools you're gonna have in your box and then you offer them a set of tools that they can use depending on the problem. That that's what I believe. You know, you talk about the tools of law and you talk about the dynamic, the global dynamic and our mission today is to talk about how those tools can be used to change and improve that dynamic and to move the dynamic away from violence into a kind of mediated world where people can learn about each other and hit along without violence. And one of the points of frustration for me and I'm wondering about you is that it's a moving target and that we live in a world, we could spend all day trying to analyze why but the reality is we live in a world where these atrocities keep on happening and they pop up here and there. I was writing a piece during the break here today about gun violence. It's getting worse. And the ability, the will of the government to stop it is getting worse. And so if I'm interested in stopping gun violence and I am, I don't know where to begin because it's a moving target. And I wonder if the same thing happens with respect to human rights and the atrocities we see. Is that also a moving target? Regardless of what you or Project Expedite Justice or the various international criminal court organizations that you work with, no matter what you do, fact is that around the world, this keeps on happening. And you may or may not have an increasing effect. Maybe you can just hold it off maybe or maybe you can't. How do you see that process? How do you see yourself in that process? Well, I agree. I agree that we have a moving target because things keep happening. And the thing with transitional justice is that even if you want to solve the root causes of the conflicts, you cannot do it in a temporary process because the object of transitional justice is that you have historical situations with massive violence, massive numbers of violations, massive numbers of victims, massive numbers of perpetrators. And what you want to do is to try to process is to try to process that quickly and in a good way that could bring some healing in order to move on. But when you do that, even if you try to address the causes, you're not going to solve them. In that way, you're trying to extinguish the fire, try to bring some healing, some relief to the victims, try to calm down the waters so everyone may be contact to each other and then they can go back to the root causes even in the problems that, in the processes that aim to address those root causes. For example, the recent peace agreement that Columbia signed, it supposedly addresses the root causes and to some extent it does. It speaks about land, which has been a key issue in Columbia. It speaks about the issue of drug dealing, which has been a big issue in Columbia. It speaks about the victims, it speaks about justice. And that is true. But the thing is that transitional justice always looks to the past in order to set the conditions for the future, right? But the time keeps going on and the phenomena keep going on, right? So I think there should be a reflection that this process of transitional justice are not the magic wand to solve the root causes from the past or the problems of the present that come from the past, right? So those type of solutions have to come from elsewhere and they think it not only happens with transitional justice, but with various fields of the law, for example, criminal justice, people believe, okay, you send the person to jail and you solve the issue, that is not true. Actually, being a criminal lawyer, I actually doubt how highly of the effectiveness of criminal law to solve social issues. I think public policy, good government and education, those types of things are going to solve the problem. What criminal justice is doing is just containing the problem and addressing it in a more or less civilized way so people don't take a guns and start killing each other. But I think that there's nothing else that criminal justice can do. But people do believe that criminal justice is the key to solving the issues and it is not. It's good government, it's good policy, it's good citizenship, those type of things. In that sense, I believe it is a moving target, but I think that the right gun to hit that target is not criminal justice or transitional justice. I have two reactions to what you were saying. Number one is on the Supreme Court Courthouse in Foley Square in Manhattan. The Supreme Court in New York is like the general jurisdiction for it. There's a carving on the stone over the doorway, huge big doorway carving on the edifice, so to speak. It says, the firmest pillar of government is public confidence in the administration of justice. And it goes to what you were saying actually, Nicholas, if you want to avoid people fighting with each other, give them confidence, give them a better life, make them confident that the government cares about them and they will care about themselves, they will care about each other. And once you lose that confidence in the government, then you're lost because then you don't have the government can't. And this is a problem we've seen during the Trump years. It's, but it's a problem everywhere, I think, where people do not have confidence in the government. So if you're looking for a place to start to heal the wounds, so to speak, make people come together and respect each other, you have to give them confidence in the government. Regrettably, we have many governments that you cannot be confident in. That's one thought that I have about that. And what he has lost about that, isn't it about leadership, isn't it about getting people not to agree to a certain social compact, to be, it's almost biblical what I'm saying. Be kind to your neighbor, respect your neighbor and he or she will respect you. It's that simple, but you've got to get people to buy into that and they don't, that's the problem. So I'm concerned that in these times in which we live, you find more and more people going south on that. They don't buy into that. They don't have any confidence in the government and they do remarkably terrible things against the 10 commandments. If there's a standard there, they do things that are violent and murderous and we see that happening. It's a flaw in the species, if you will. So where do you start here? How do you solve these problems which are so enormous, so ubiquitous and so threatening to all of us? Right. Well, I understand, I think you see it everywhere and that is a sad problem. But I didn't think the way to solve it is leadership. I think when you make things dependent on an individual or a group of individuals, you have two risks. The first one is to mystify them and then when they leave because they gotta leave eventually even if they die because they don't want to lose power, then you don't know what to do, that's a first problem. The second problem is that leaders as human beings fail. They make mistakes and once they make mistakes, if they are mystical, you lose trust in them and that is a problem and that is a problem. I think therefore the solution should come from the system. And there's a system and the key of the system is that everyone can participate. Everyone has a voice that is listened, not only that has a voice, but a voice that is listened by other people and a way in which that voice actually helps to find solutions to the problems, right? And also this should come from a place where people are free to speak, but freedom not in the sense of do what you want, but freedom in the sense that you're free from necessity. As we discussed last time, I'm a philosopher as well and we discuss a lot about liberty. That is one of the things we do a lot. And I really thought that I understood better necessity from this context of impacted communities, of communities that have been excluded in that sense, that freedom is not the law saying you do what you want, but actually putting in place a system where those people are free from necessity so they can speak, so they can talk where they can actually trust the government and they do not have to go into harmful ways to provide from themselves. I'm not justifying crime as a way to provide for yourself. I will never do. But you understand that you cannot trust your neighbor if you and your neighbor are fighting for what to eat or if you and your neighbor are competing because your neighbor is taking away something he doesn't need and that you need to eat. And that is the problem with their current systems, I believe. And that's why I believe that we need redistribution so people can actually be free and can be heard. The problem is that that competitive logic is not compatible with what I'm saying, but that's what I believe is the root cause of exclusion is the root cause of a lot of crime. Not all crime, you're always gonna have bad individuals, people who are actually evil and want to harm others. But if you take necessity out from people, if you provide them healthcare, if you provide them food, if you provide them the conditions to actually provide for themselves, a lot of crime will diminish. Well, that was my second point that I wanted to mention to you. We're on the same path here. A few years ago, there was a, I think it was a 60 minutes segment. I enjoy 60 minutes a lot. I'm sure you see that in Columbia too. And it was a segment about the comparison of the American criminal justice system with the European criminal justice system. And particularly with, interestingly enough, Germany, now, today, and Germany has lots of issues and certainly it has historical issues, but Germany today, you can do a felony crime and go to prison, except you're not in prison. You can be a murderer and yet they will allow you to walk the streets and do your job for the criminal justice system and then go back to the prison in the evening. You're trusted, you're trusted. And the trust is rewarded because it becomes a two-way street. And the rehabilitation of the criminal is a lot quicker if he is trusted or sheet. In the United States, it doesn't work that way. We don't trust our conflicts. We lock them up and we punish them in this kind of 19th century punitive model. And that's why we have so many people in jail. And of course, there's a racist element to that too, as we keep on seeing. But I think there's a lesson there, it's what you're talking about. If you trust people, you will be rewarded and they will be better people. They will see the higher angels, hopefully, not always, but hopefully. And in that way, you hit the critical mass of the citizenry of the population. They'll want to participate in the social fabric. We'll want to care about their neighbors and be respectful of humanity. I think that's what you're saying. How close am I? Yeah, no, I agree. I agree and I see it because I see it in Colombia as well. The solution of lawmakers to any problem, let's say you have an outrageous crime, the solution for them is raise the penalties. Just push it up, push it up, push it up, push it up. That it's not going to solve anything. It has been studied a lot. The Swedish Committee on the Prevention of Crime did it a lot of years ago and said that more than about eight years in prison have a lasting effect on people's capacity to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society. And let's imagine it that way. Imagine a young man, 18 years old, he decides to rob a market or a convenience store just to get some money for eating or for providing for his family or just because the social context forces him to that because he doesn't have opportunities. He's 18, he goes to prison at 18, he leaves at 26 with one jail entry. The amount of development that a person has from 18 to 26 years old is enormous, enormous, enormous. And if you lock it up and you don't give him opportunities, he's gonna lose that. Additionally, he has a jail entry. If you don't teach him what to do and you don't have programs to get them back into society, the only thing he can do if he cannot get a job if he cannot study is going back to what he knows, committing crimes and to the contacts he made inside the jail that in many cases are other criminal structures that are actually in place trying to recruit young men or women to go back into the criminal market, right? So that is a problem. And that's why rehabilitation needs to be true. And you think that our systems need to be serious about human dignity. And that's something that the US, the German, the Colombian system share, is that we believe in people. But when you believe in people, you cannot jail them for 40 years. You cannot jail them for life imprisonment and tell them you will revise them eventually and perhaps they can leave or not because they just give up. They just give up. Yeah, that is a crime. They become radicalized. I mean, this is the story of Osama Bin Laden and many other radicals in the Middle East. They started out in prison for something innocent but in prison they were radicalized. They left prison and did radical things. This is a common story. Yeah, absolutely. It was the wrong thing to put them in prison. It was the wrong thing to be inhumane to them. But the question is, if you take this to another level, the level of brutality by governments, the level of brutality by public officials, public officials being brutal to their own people, where do you start? Which side of the blanket do you start pulling up in order to achieve some kind of balance to achieve some sort of humanity, some dignity and avoid atrocities? How do you approach that? When you're going into a given community, you know there have been atrocities, violations of human rights. You know those things are continuing. It's not so much the past, although the past is part of the future. I mean, it's just the way to look at things. How do you approach that using the same kit bag, the inventory of toolkit, toolkit items that you have from law school or from your philosophy, whatever it may be, in order to dampen the aggression? Right, so I think I go back to my previous answer that we should not make these things about the individuals as a government, because if you make it about individuals, when you remove the individual, you think the problem is solved and the truth is that it is not. And that the people who get to government usually after this processes were also part of the system in some way, benefited from the system in some way, in order to be held accountable in some way, perhaps not for ordering the crimes that their predecessors committed, but to mend what it was being done, to acknowledge responsibility, to see how we allowed things to get to this point. Actually, a couple of weeks ago, I was watching the movie of the Nuremberg Trials and that's what you see there. They were judging the judges of Germany and one of the judges said, you know, I never knew that was gonna get this bad, like the main judge that was the center of the movie, the main convict and they said, you know, I did it because I love my country. I did it because I didn't think that things were going to be that bad. I played along because this isn't that and you're always going to find people with that sort of motivations, apparently noble motivations to do what they do. And the thing is that they set up a system that allows these things to happen and they become acceptable and the chief judge of the tribunal tells him, you know, this was bad and you are liable enough since the first time you allowed this to happen. And you think that has to make us think. What role do we play in this system? What role do leaders that come after these processes play in the system and how they're going to change it? And we see it everywhere. We can do the example with the new president of the United States. Yes, he was not responsible for Trump measures, but what are you going to do about it? Because if he arrived there is because the system allowed him to get there. What are you going to do? If you just change the way in which you handle the system, nothing guarantees that in four years, eight years, you're going to have that person again. So there's a problem with the system, not with the individual, anything that states need to acknowledge that, that those individuals are liable enough, but the system is also liable enough to allow those things to happen. It is a bad selection process at the end. And you should fix that. Well, I think part of it is what I'm going to call it amnesia. To me, it's a sine curve. So you have moments where people are moral. They've learned it the hard way. A war generally teaches them the hard way. And they don't want to have that experience again. Too many people get killed, too many hard lessons. So you come out of a war and you're in a high moral plane and everything for a while is on a high moral plane. But people forget. It's this amnesia. The next generation doesn't remember the problems. They don't remember the brutality. And so they're more likely to repeat. What's the old statement, he who forgets history is doomed to repeat it? And I think that's a generational thing. He who forgets what happened in the last part of the sine curve is more likely to repeat it. And so I think that's a condition, a human condition. And the most important thing you can teach is history. The most important thing you can teach is what happened in the previous generation and the other leg of the sine curve so that you know enough not to repeat that. And if you can inculcate that knowledge into a given population, so everyone, every man, woman, and child in that population understands what happened last time in the sine curve, they'd be less likely to repeat it now. So that's a question of education, isn't it? I agree. I agree. But I would just add one thing, and that there are communities that do not forget. And they do not forget because they are the ones that are hardly hit every time this part of the curve happens, underprivileged communities. Those are the voices you need to hear. Those are the communities you need to include there because they are the ones who are going to tell you when things are getting bad. And you think that's where you need to fix the process. I think if there's one takeaway I would like to emphasize from this is always listen to impacted communities, always listen to excluded voices because they don't forget because the scars of what happened to them are so severe that they will not forget. They will not forget and they will let you know things are getting bad. We cannot allow this to happen again. And they actually can pinpoint the exact point where things can get bad. And maybe some reforms that could work to avoid the system to throw the same results again. It's not a failure-proof system. But you need to listen to those communities because they are the ones who know, because they are the ones who do not forget. I know that's the point you wanted to leave with our viewers today, but I want to go one step further. OK, here you are. You're a lawyer, and you have learned directly about injustice, brutality, atrocities, violations of human rights. You're educated yourself and working in that area, trying to improve the human condition and the prospect of humanity going forward. And accepting the notion that people have to be educated about what happened. And you have to listen to those who are most likely to have remembered it, who have suffered it. How do you do this? How do you spend your time? How do you leverage those ideas so that they have some effect going forward? What do you do? Right, so I would say two things. The first one is try to listen. I haven't impacted. Well, my ancestors were impacted, and my fellow Colombians were impacted, but I have to acknowledge that I'm privileged. And when you're privileged, the first thing you have to do is listen. The second thing is use your privilege and platform to highlight the voices of these communities, to say they are the ones who know. I have the tools, but they are the ones who have to say how to use it. And the third thing is that even if I'm privileged, I also come from a reality that is not as privileged as other realities. So I try to speak up and take my voice from Colombia in this case and from the survivors in the cases of my family and speak because of that. Because we need to bring more impacted voices into the debate because I cannot say that we need to center communities and then withdraw my opinion and my voice from the public sphere. I say that as Colombian, I can contribute to Americans, to Europeans, to other people and also to try to push for other voices like Sudanese, Ethiopian voices, or other survivors' voices into the public sphere. I think that's what we should do. So you spoke of a platform, you spoke of somebody who tries to leverage, to express, to expand the notion to reach more people, to tell the story, to reach more people. How do you do that? What is the platform? Is it the media? Is it social media? Is it writing articles? Is it appearing on television? Is it all those things? And if it is, what's most important for you going forward to try to have an impact on this and try to spread the word that it's not a good idea to relive the past and that we have to learn and we have to hold people accountable so that the lesson filters through the entire community. What's the platform? What do you use? What do you prefer? Yeah, I think that it needs to be anything you have, like all the things you said. I'm using this as a platform to spread these ideas, actually. You gave me the opportunity. I could speak about other things or about how much I know or about other things I do, but I try to speak about what needs to be listened so that's a possibility. Or for media, instead of giving voices to privilege people, what happens if you invite someone from the community? You want to speak about gun violence or you want to speak about racism in the criminal justice system. Maybe just one time, don't invite the expert, invite someone from the community and ask them. There was a very interesting activity done, I think it was last year, the year before in Columbia. And is that as we spoke last time, social leaders are being killed and targeted in Columbia because they play a big role in the implementation of the peace agreement. And they weren't heard or seen enough. So called up news editorials and so on decided one day or one week to give that space to a social leader to speak, to write, to say what they need to say. And I think that's important. These communities have difficulties trying to be included and they do speak up and they do a lot of things, but they have a limit when they achieve those platforms because the system is set up to keep them excluded. It's not that someone is evilly trying to exclude them, it's just how things are and we have become used to that. So we need to take positive steps to acknowledge that and maybe open those spaces for them because their EVS are there, their voices are there, they're at the door, we need to let them in so they can speak. Some of them have been victims and will have died. I go back to what I was telling you before about my own thoughts on gun control. Many have died. I mean, 20,000 people have been killed in the past year. A senseless violence that has to be people who shouldn't have guns in the first place. And we have done virtually nothing in that period and in several years, we've allowed it to become worse. 70% of the people in this country in the United States would like to seek gun control and yet the government is unable to do anything. Where do we begin on that? Because it is completely irrational and it only leads to a really bad place. It leads to violence in the streets, in the schools and throughout our institutions, even in our capital. Where do we begin on making people understand just exactly how dangerous it is to reject the views of 70% of the population and allow the wrong people to have guns? Well, I think it's hard. I think it's hard and I don't have the answer because it's something that, again, is deeply rooted in the culture, right? It's not a rational decision. I believe in grassroots movements. I believe in including communities. I think that, I've repeated on this point, but it has been shown that it's not that the voices that support, for example, gun violence or radical politicians are the voices that win. Is the problem is that they are the voices who are counted and we see it with what happened in Georgia in the last election. The problem was not that Georgia was a Republican state. The problem was that some voices in Georgia were not included and when you include those voices, if you make sure to make the law or the means accessible to them to provide them the tools to speak up, then the numbers are gonna start changing. I think that's the key part and maybe that could be a solution to this. It's not a one size fits all approach. I think each context should be different, but what you need to do is find a way to give the tools to the people who have not been using them because they have been excluded from those opportunities. I think that's the thing. I refuse to believe that there are more people who believe in gun violence or considered that it is safer to have guns than not to have them at all. I refuse to believe that that is not rational. If you speak to your friends, if I speak to my friends, most of the people you speak to are gonna agree with you, but then they are not included in the decision mechanisms. So what you need to do is to include those voices that are not being counted because that's where you do it. And I think that good people make a mistake. We're overly confident in democracy. That's the problem. And we believe that the system is going to work and we relax and we perhaps don't vote or we don't make sure that all who believe like us go to vote, the other people know that their visions are radical and they know that the vote make a difference and they do vote a lot and discipline. If we make this voting a disciplined thing and we understand that democracy is fragile and that it actually depends and has an effect. If we don't do things, we maybe could start doing it. So the voices that matter, I believe, the voices that make a difference, the voices that care for people are counted in and maybe you could start turning the direction and establish a dialogue with the other people, which I think it's important. You cannot set up a democracy on exclusion, but you need to have control over the system to start opening conversations because those conversations are not going to be open from the other side. That is the problem. It's not that they don't matter. The problem is that they don't want to listen, but maybe from this side, there's more opportunities for conciliation. We haven't even begun our conversation, Nicholas. Nicholas Sussman Heran in Bogota, Bogota, Colombia. Thank you so much for participating with me again and I hope we can do this again and again to explore all these ideas. Thank you so much, Nicholas. Thank you, Jay. Always a pleasure. As we say, aloha.