 So we're back. We're live. It's the one o'clock clock on a given Thursday. I'm Jay Fidel. This is Cinque Tech and more specifically Global Connections. And we are joined by Carlos Juarez, who is, he looks like he's in Mexico, but is he? Yes, back in Mexico, Cholula Puebla, in the state of Puebla. So just east of Mexico City, delighted to join you again. And, you know, as we continue our ongoing dialogue, here we are connected globally, instantly. And I want to, you know, talk as we have on the broad theme of U.S.-China relations. There's a lot going on. It's a strange time. Of course, built on that now, the most recent news of now we've got a full team of the Biden-Harris that is moving forward with the very soon election 80 some days away. And even maybe what are the possible implications of that for U.S.-China relations. But also, as I come to you from Mexico, from sort of a foreign international comparative perspective, you know, how does the world see these changing dynamics, the role of China? And I can assure you today, Jay, not only at Africa, where we know China has deep tentacles, but throughout Latin America, there's a very deep connection that has been expanding tremendously in the last 10, 15 years. Meanwhile, where's the United States in Latin America? Missing the boat, basically, and under, certainly under Trump, a very assertive, aggressive, you know, even mean-spirited policy toward the region, the rapists and murderers and all the caravans of immigrants. I guess the point is that we are seeing changing dynamics around the world. And, you know, it remains to be seen, you know, how it's going to play out. There are a lot of curious puzzles. So let me turn to you and just, you know, welcome you back. And how are things going there in your part of the world in Hawaii? Well, we have more than 300 cases today. And the country has more than 1500 deaths today. So the spikes are going up. And Trump isn't talking about that. He's talking about it. He had a press conference today, which, God, I can't watch it for very long. And I begin to lose my lunch or breakfast as the case may be. But he was talking, his new thing about the voting is that it's not just fraud in this country that he's worried about in male voting. It's all of the other countries out there that can use fraud to, you know, undermine our male voting. So now he's got a little different song there. He's singing. He's trying it every way he can, screw up the election. And he's got that fellow Louis DeJoy, his postmaster, who terminated 23 senior management people in the post office and is dismantling their sorting machines for a new, quote, pilot project, end quote. And he's slowing the vote, the mail down. And therefore, by the time we get to election day, the post office will be a wreck. Now nobody knows what to do to fix it. I hope that somebody files a lawsuit. But right now the election looks like in jeopardy. There are several things. One is the Putin, what do you call it, the active measures, you know, the internet research agency. Two is all the work that the Republicans have done to suppress voting around the country, especially with minorities. The scare tactics they use on the Latinos to scare them away from the polls. They've come to believe that they'll be arrested if they go and vote or register or even sign up for the census. And of course, there's the gerrymandering that has gone on has unfairly redistricted a good part of the country, thanks to the Republicans. There's this voting issue with the mail ballots and COVID scaring people. And I'm sure I forgot a couple of things. He is devoted to screwing up the election. It's cheating at every level. It's quite remarkable. Let me just tell you that from the perspective, let's say a global international perspective, Latin America in particular has always had a healthy dose of skepticism about the U.S., its role, its intentions. But I would say that with Trump, you also have, of course, the conspiracy theories and the tendency for hyperbole. All this to say that there's always been a lot of skepticism here. And even though people may say, well, the polls right now are showing Biden with a tremendous win, many remain very skeptical. Anything could happen. And the things you're describing, I just want to say, people here do not roll their eyes or they're not surprised by efforts of leaders to do something like that. Now, as it happens, Mexico has had a steady and relatively stable political system alternating every six years. The political party system has come under tremendous separate issue, has been destroyed, if you will. But my real point here is that in the U.S., most elections have always been, they've never had the system at stake. In other words, it's usually not been questioned about whether there's a legitimate fraud and all that. And today, we really have uncertainty about how it's going to play out. And the fact that there are efforts, some of them explicit, some of them underneath, some of them foreign, some of them internal, some at the state and local level to really affect the outcome of this. So anything can go. And that makes it hard for us as we think about the future, talk about U.S.-China relations, where I think it's going, well, who knows. Well, nevertheless, we can envision a scenario under Trump that we would have continuity of the same chaos disruption, no clear strategy, just a sort of knee-jerk reaction. Should there be a transition to a Biden heiress? I mean, there would certainly be a quick effort to try to restore relations. They would not be able to go back right away to where they were, but certainly a little bit more sane, a little bit more strategic and planning. Beyond that, I think we also have to just recognize the Chinese and their worldview. They have a long vision. They have patience. They are watching the U.S. crumble and dysfunction and being able to just step back and be like the responsible stakeholder, sort of like the grown-up just watching this. And needless to say, with a very big, bold, strategic vision, this infrastructure program that we've seen referenced to a time and again, the One Belt, One Road Initiative, which has direct connections to Latin America now, increasingly. Mostly it's the Eurasia and into the Middle East and Africa, but Latin America too. And Jay, let me just to continue this real quick before we get farther up. I have some data I wanted to just share with the real quick snapshot. I have a, maybe that we can show the first item I have up there. I think it's a picture that illustrates China and its growing clout in Latin America. And today, we talk about the U.S. relatively neglecting the region, you know, for many years now, particularly post-911. And today, the U.S. very limited foreign aid, for example, that it provides to the region. Colombia, the biggest recipient, 1.2 billion U.S. dollars. Most other countries, hundreds of millions, less than a billion. By contrast, China and their state government is investing heavily in the infrastructure and in the economic development of Latin America, 62 billion in Venezuela, 42 billion in Brazil, 18 billion in Argentina. These are pretty significant, you know, examples of, I guess, I don't know, connection influence. Obviously, China is there not for altruistic reasons, not for development assistance, but looking for natural resources, looking for the fuel of their, you know, industrial growth and production. So they're going in there very strategically, with big suitcases full of cash, literally, and buying access to what they need. They are today the largest foreign investor in Bolivia, in Peru, minerals, etc. Meanwhile, the U.S., again, missing the boat to a region that traditionally, and for centuries, has been the background of the U.S., Latin America, the Monroe Doctrine, etc. So China today is a key player. It's interesting to see how that's going to play out. And it's not to say that it's all going to be good because even in parts of Southeast Asia, the infrastructure development under this one boat, one road has been controversial in many places, what they're doing, and maybe the impact on the environment. The debt traps, the debt traps. Debt traps exactly, whether they're sustainable. And there are similar concerns for Latin America, because these countries, just like in Africa, when the Chinese arrived literally flooded with cash, you know, you're just sitting there, well, yes, build a hospital, build a school, build a road, build a new port facility. It becomes very tantalizing. But it's also a very crass form of capitalism, of state-led capitalism, very aggressive. And the Chinese have come under a fair amount of criticism, particularly in Africa, for their treatment of local communities, of even their own forms of discrimination. Almost, you could say, a new form of imperialism, a very curious variation, you could say, or certainly a variation of capitalism, state-led. Well, are they learning by the criticism? Are they getting better at soft power? Are they laying down tracks for sustainability? You know, that, like, everything, it's hard to say, hard to measure. I'm sure that there's a learning that's gone on. They've been doing it now a long time. They've had to learn and lick their wounds. But it's also, it's just such a massive scale. And, you know, the movement, even of workers, especially in Africa, where they literally just bring plain loads of their own workers to do everything, it's, you know, it's a messy and ugly. And they're not coming with the plan of, you know, like past imperial powers, you know, the British, or even, you know, other European powers. It's pretty strictly, you know, come in, get what you need, and, you know, and take it. But curious to see. Carlos is another side to it that's worth mentioning. I participated in a program about a year ago on One Belt One Road. And what I learned there, it's not only the Chinese that are, you know, developing a global infrastructure and a connection between multiple connections between China and Europe. And they're as far west as Spain already, with their various projects. It's that they, it's not limited to Chinese money. It's not limited to Chinese contractors, although they do have some and there is a certain amount of corruption involved. But they are, they are inviting investors to come in with them outside of China. I don't think the US is one of them, but there are various private and public investors that are investing in One Belt One Road. And there are various private and public contracting and building organizations that are participating in building these projects. So, you know, it's both sides of the equation. This is really smart. So it's not just limited to them doing their thing. They're trying to build a world influence around this notion. Yeah. And listen, let me, let me not forget to mention this. Latin America over the last decade has experienced a very substantial corruption scandal built around a company based in Brazil, Odebrecht. And it has tapped and affected governments all over the region, you know, Ecuador, Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Peru. Today, there are a lot of former heads of state and ministers in jail for corruption. And basically this company, Infrastructure Development Big Project, coming in and basically buying, you know, corruption openly, millions, hundreds of millions of dollars. And so these scandals are coming out in these past few years are going to continue. And I only mentioned that because, you know, as China is embarking on this, it runs that same risk because it has a way of coming in literally with cash to somehow buy its access and money talks. And especially in developing countries that are, you know, strapped for cash have, you know, a need to balance their budgets, the attraction of, you know, of, you know, the money that they infuse. It can be in the form of loans. It can be in the form of, you know, building some infrastructure. It creates a different form of dependency. So it's a complex issue. But all this, we just have to just go, it's a fascinating dynamic. China is today emerging as a global player like never before. And yet its interests are not so much, I want to say, global in the sense of maybe spreading its, I don't know, its direct power, hard power, even the soft power. I think it, I want to say, I think it's driven more by just their crass economic needs. Because things like Chinese culture, I mean, it's powerful and important in certain areas, strictly Asia, but it's not going to spread in the same way that English culture or English language, Americanization has done in other places or previous, you know, times, maybe the British and their influence in the empire. So interesting dynamics. And maybe a quick thought shifting for now about the most recent news, the new team of Kamala Harris and Joe Biden and what it means. Obviously, again, we don't know what's going to play out, whether the election will go well or not, whether Trump wins or loses. If he loses, should he go? We don't know all that. But just from the perspective of, okay, different scenarios, if there were a transition, I think the world would welcome it and the US would be in a position to try to rebuild some of its image and rebuild broken relations and, you know, institutional commitments. Because under Trump, we have seen that he's broken the traditional allies, Europe, Canada, Mexico. He's coddled up mostly to authoritarian dictatorships. And so that that's kind of a shift from traditional American foreign policy. Will we see a transition back to that? Well, I want to add something to that that I don't think people talk enough about. That is, you know, I've spoken just serendipitously to two or three people who have visited the State Department over the best three or most four years. And it's crickets. There's nobody there. He has decimated the State Department. They don't have the talent they had before. They lost touch with all the policymaking and policies they established before. Right wrong. The fact is that we had a certain amount of talent who understood the world, who understood the nature of foreign policy. Now Trump does foreign policy out of his hip pocket. There's really nobody. Pompeo is not a foreign policy person. He just takes Trump's instructions. So the result is we don't have a State Department, not an operating one. We don't have a Secretary of State, not a not a cogent thinker or a policy person. And at the end of the day, Trump is making all this policy by himself. Now when you say that, you also have to add that he doesn't know how to make policy. He just operates on whim. So the result is, you know, and I think people give him much too much credit. He gets up there and he says, oh, I've thought about the, you know, the trade tariffs and all that. And I've thought about how we're going to beat up on China, which is more to the point of this show. He hasn't thought about it. He's just operating on whim. My favorite one is TikTok. TikTok was responsible for the, you know, some huge, number hundreds of thousands of people signing up in jest for his Tulsa route. Okay. And he was really furious. And I said, he's going to get even with them. So he's getting even with them. That has nothing to do with foreign policy or China. Is this Trump is just, you know, flexing his muscle and being mean? And I think that's the way he operates on foreign policy. Well, there's no coherency. There's no plan. There's no vision. And we know he's not one that studies, that knows the history of the context. Moreover, what he calls negotiation and, you know, diplomacy, the art of diplomacy is ultimately negotiation, but it's negotiation where you must advance the interest of your state as you define them. But you also have to understand the other side's interest and find some way, usually the compromise to mean halfway diplomacy, the art of diplomacy is not quite the same as a real estate developer that's trying to, you know, sort of, I don't know, crash their way through. Maybe there's some diplomacy in real estate, but in general, the real estate world is a much more just straightforward predatory behavior. Predatory. There you go. Diplomacy is about compromise. And it's about both sides winning as best they can. It's about finding common interest, even with people you disagree with. It's okay, China, we have issues here and there, but we have other common challenges. And even something like this pandemic, guess what? We're all better off cooperating, coordinating, being on the same page. Otherwise, you don't have trust, you don't have legitimacy, everything falls apart. And most certainly, foreign policy, a very complex set of issues, delicate, you know, many layers, many puzzles, it requires experts. And as you described, we've had really a pretty decimating, you know, experience. And in the recent past, one of our, even our local boys there, former student of mine, Patrick Bronco is a former diplomat on his way now into the State House of Representatives. He just won the primary there for Kailua. But as a good example, and several others I know, former students who are in the service, it is a real challenge today to explain, to defend, to, you know, represent the United States. And they do it, many professionals, they know that they will be there beyond Trump, assuming he leaves one day. And yet, it is definitely been probably, and it began before Trump, it's very important to underscore that. Ronan Farrow, journalist, published a book a few years ago, on really the decline of American diplomacy. Trump has accelerated it, no question about it. But we've seen a real decay of that. And at the end of the day, you need expertise. We know that this is an individual president who doesn't respect expertise, he doesn't like knowledgeable people. And so you can't run foreign policy and the complexities it involves in the stakes that are there, whether it's nuclear proliferation, whether it's, you know, trade and the implications for the economy. You need people who have knowledge and expertise. And today we are lacking, I think some of that in US foreign policy. So we'll see. Let's hope that there may be a change down the road. I think if you looked at it very carefully, you look at the ebb and flow, the day to day, you know, transactional events between the United States and China, you would find out there was no policy. You would find out there was no conversation. You would find out that he sends tweets. That's how he does foreign policy by tweets. And nobody else consults with him. He just does what comes to mind. And the result, of course, is what we have now. And I think we should spend a little time identifying what do we have now? We have a shattered policy with China. And although they're not reacting in a violent way, they're certainly taking every opportunity to enhance, you know, their own influence in the vacuum. And I really, I think that, A, we've given them that opportunity, and B, we've done so many foolish things that they're really in charge of the relationship. If you see it as a competition, they've won the competition. It's not too much more that you have to say. They've won. And we are second best. And the question I put to you, Carlos, is how do you reverse this? Because if Biden is elected, knock wood, you know, he's going to have to be concerned about foreign policy for the first time in four years, we need to have foreign policy. How do you fix that? Because it's not just a matter of filling up the State Department with experts. Now they have to start their work. They have to go out and connect with their opposites all over the world and apologize. This is not so easy. Yeah. Well, look, there's no quick answer to that. And looking at the relationship between the US and China, very complex, very interdependent. There are many issues that we will always disagree with, whether it on the left be human rights issues and maybe the treatment of minority groups, the recent developments in Hong Kong, and the new security laws there. Others that, and in the US, we just have all these various interests, different, the China lobby that supports obviously a very pro-Chinese government and pro-investment, et cetera, and just very powerful interests at all levels. And none of those are going to change. Yet we need leadership that's going to engage China and find ways to harness what we can do in common and share. And for example, on the economy, I mean, there's a mutual interdependence and we benefit from it. We don't benefit from trade wars and playing games where you don't really have a very clear strategy. I think you nailed it there. And I think Trump is basically driven more by impulse and by revenge and reaction and not by a coherent strategy. What do we want? What's in our interest? What's in their interest? It's not there. And so it creates distrust in the early... Let me throw a theory at you because I think one of the most notable things that has happened in the last many years is the phenomenon in Hong Kong. The national security law, the arrest of Jimmy Lai and his newspaper staff three or four days ago. This is shattering and he has broken the umbrella movement. He has broken the universities, the move for democracy. Xi Jinping has really made Hong Kong into a different place all within a few weeks, actually. And it's going to be very hard for Hong Kong to recover. Hong Kong may never recover. But I offer you this theory, this observation. See if you agree with me. Trump is unable to determine policy. He's unable to make a nuanced response. He's unable to leverage whatever influence the United States has in other countries with other countries. And so when Xi Jinping decided to make that move on Hong Kong, it was with due regard for the fact that Trump is inept, incompetent, unable, incapable. And so he could move in. He could take an opportunity advantage of that. He could advance his interest way down the line, much faster than he has before. Take charge of the situation because he knew that Trump doesn't have the ability to respond or stop him or even go to the world media and do something about it. Do you agree? I do. And I think what you're describing is the Chinese are playing a chess game. They're strategic. They're calculating. They're understanding the U.S. its weaknesses. It's, you know, it's, it's, well, it's incompetent. And they're taking advantage of it. No question about it. And again, they are thinking strategically. They're thinking longer term. They're thinking also, in some ways, taking advantage, let's say, of an opportunity. Also in different ways, kind of being under the radar when they can. I mean, it's hard to when, not to, or it's hard to be under the radar when you're taking some of the more recent aggressive moves. But what I'm saying is beyond that, they're trying to kind of stay above the fray and not engage. Meanwhile, Trump with no coherent strategy, you know, he'll just on a whim, decide one day it's important and then it goes off his radar the next day. There's just, there's no coherency, no continuity. And I just go back to the Chinese, obviously they have long been characterized by that sort of long term horizon and time concept. The other is the important concept for a Chinese culture of Guangxi, that you develop personal ties. Now, Trump tried to do that at the beginning and hosted Xi and they had a few meetings to break the ice. But at the end of the day, Trump is hollow. He doesn't have substance there. He doesn't have, you know, a clear idea. And the result. And a Chinese, a Chinese diplomat would see that immediately. Yes. And the result is that it's not there. Empty compliments is irrelevant and an opportunity more than a sincere expression. And so it's hard to do this, but you can imagine from the Chinese foreign ministry perspective, it's like, well, let's just ride out Trump or let's not engage him or let's, you know, you can't predict him. You can't take him seriously. You can't trust him because he'll agree to this in the next day that so they pull back and just rather than engage, almost just patiently write it out and go about doing their business, almost knowing that there's no repercussion. So I think that's clear. Carlos, you want to see, do you think that Xi Jinping wants to see Trump win in November? And there's two ways to look at that. He would like to see somebody, this is out of Mao's book, you know, he would like to see somebody fall on his own sword. He would like to see Trump destroy himself, which he's doing. So he probably has a benefit to see him win. And on the other hand, Biden, maybe a harder case, a harder problem for Xi Jinping. He may not have the same opportunities that way. On the other hand, Trump has been so mean to China, that's something to be said for getting rid of him and having another better president that China can engage with and make real deals with. So which do you think is applicable for now or for Xi Jinping? You know, part of me is inclined to think I'm just thinking out loud quickly that they would probably lean towards having the more the predictability and stability and engagement of a Biden presidency. They can almost predict it and know what it would be. And you know, they're not fools. With Trump, it is the uncertainty, the unpredictability, the frustration, the angst, the embarrassment, the lack of trust. And I get, I'm just thinking out loud, but I have to think from just a strictly rational point of view. And maybe, again, from the point of view of Chinese values and the importance of harmony and stability and peace and mutual, you know, respect and reciprocity, that Trump is not delivering that, not offering that. Trump is, you know, an aberration. And so, again, that's just a quick thought that, again, they're not going to be open about it. They're going to keep under the radar, and they're going to be preparing and planning for any alternative or outcome. But What about the other possibility, Carlos? This is a harder scenario to deal with. Suppose Trump wins and we get four more years of win type policy. What happens in our relationship with China? I know it's calling for speculation. I know that. But I wonder what your thoughts are. Where does it go? He's already, in my view, he's already destroyed the positive side of our relationship with China. And now it's a competition. It's an attempt to, you know, see the other guy fall on his sword. And it's all kinds of bad will he's generating almost every day. But what about if he wins? Then we have a new kettle of fish because he's a lot better. There's just no limitation of what he can do. And for that matter, Xi Jinping would conduct himself differently too. What do you think? Yeah, and that's a good puzzle, a very good question. I don't know, you know, there's a part of me that wants to say, you know, that in some respects, and this is true, I think of, I'm looking at it also from Latin America, you know, there's, you know, Mexico in particular, tough relations with China, I mean, with the US right now with Trump, and certainly a desire for change. But there's almost a, how should I say, almost a fatalism about it. Like, well, if he does win, if he does pull it off, you know, there's another part too, where I think China might do the same as Latin America is doing, begin to look elsewhere and realize that US and especially on the Trump is losing its influence, its credibility, its power, and we need to put our energies in cultivating other areas, other regional powers, other global interests, because the US cannot be counted on, cannot, we cannot predict the behavior. And other than that, you're just managing, you know, hoping, opening your Twitter every day, hoping, you know, to manage it day by day, but without any coherent strategy. What do you have, you see what I say? One scenario for you, Carlos, I'd like to think up these scenarios and pose them to you. You know, Trump is determined to win this election by hook or crook, mostly crook. And it has an escaped observation that Trump may try to create a false emergency. And he actually seems to be leading up to a false emergency in a contention with China, that they're, you know, they're spying on us. They're stealing our intellectual property. There are any number of bad things they're doing. And he, and he heightens the tension that way. And Xi Jinping has been very patient about that. But I suggest to you in this scenario, that as you get closer to election day, and the more Trump needs to either heighten the stakes among his base, or even create a scenario where he wants to, you know, defer the election, postpone the election. He just, he needs a really good emergency and an argument with China. Some, some, who knows, some, some fisticuffs in the South China Sea, what have you. And, and, and he could do that. You know, Trump could generate that even, even if Xi Jinping did not. So I guess my question to you is, what happens to our relationship with China, if Trump uses them as the object of a false emergency in order to, you know, do, do strategies, do manipulations on, on the election in November? It's a, it's a potential mess. I mean, I would imagine that China is not going to sit by quietly and just let it happen. They would try to expose it to somehow, you know, turn it against the U.S. Now, how well they can do that, how much they can control the narrative that, that remains to be seen. I have my doubts. I think the interesting thing to see what, you know, what the global community, you know, as a watchdog can do is their pressure is there, because certainly the Europeans are going to be very skeptical and critical and looking at it, you know, from the vantage point of a democracy and decay, a democracy that's falling apart. Normally we do that looking in Eastern Europe and Belarus today with their crazy dictator or, you know, the Middle East where, you know, or even Latin America where institutions are weak. The United States traditionally does not have elections where the whole system is at stake or where the outcome is in question. This is new, new terrain for us. But in many other places it has been, even here in Mexico, they had an election last time that was very clear, overwhelming, but that same individual, the current president, Amlo, he lost two previous elections and he probably won the first one, but it was stolen from him 2006. And then 2012 he lost it probably legitimately, but he screamed, you know, fraud, et cetera. Well, he came back the third time and won. But what I'm getting at here is that fraud and, and, and, you know, tricks is common in a lot of places, especially less democratic systems, authoritarian systems. We don't see it in the U.S. So we're facing some new terrain. And, you know, even what we might call our news today, so polarized, obviously, you could imagine, you know, very different narratives happening on Fox News and other outlets. And then Americans, I think, just already skeptical, already, you know, ill-informed, I want to say, because sadly I want to say most Americans are not engaged in fully informed at all. They took a survey when Kamala Harris was, you know, designated, brought in as a vice presidential candidate. It took a survey and one of the elements on the survey was a category, I don't know who she is. 20% of the, this was a national poll, 20% of those poll did not know who Kamala Harris is. Yeah. Well, even today, you could walk out on any street corner in the USA and ask people, who's the vice president? And probably seven out of 10 have no clue who Mike Pence is. You and I, you know, we're talking heads and political junkies. And some of our viewers are, but the larger population of the U.S. out there disengaged off, you know, ill-informed, you know, almost like they don't really care. And, you know, so, yeah, and even the question for many of the pundits, you know, she's been exciting to see as what it represents, but does it really make a difference? Is she going to bring in new voters or is she going to rally more on the other side? Who knows? But gosh, we, you know, there's going to be interesting to see how this plays out. And I think the world is, you know, probably here, this will be curious whether there will be some sort of international observers to look at the U.S. election, as we typically have in other places that are, let's say, more problematic in developing democracies, transition democracies. You know, it's very common to have an international observer mission from the European Union, from the United Nations. Will there be some looking at the U.S. election that can be a spotlight, a watchdog, and hold accountable and show if there is some dirty tricks? Yeah. Oh, I think that's a really good point. You know, one of the reasons that I was happy to see Kamala Harris designated as the nice presidential candidate was because I thought she would meet him, I mean, Trump, that he would make a false statement, an outrageous claim, and, you know, she would meet him. Biden hasn't done that. If Trump does it every day in the Rose Garden or otherwise or by tweet, then you really want to see somebody disagree with it, somebody, you know, offer another thought. And I'm hoping that's exactly what she and maybe Biden too, with her, will do. But you know, you've offered another possibility here. I think it's very valuable thought. Is there a people in the world, take Angela Merkel, for example. You know, who know what kind of a person Trump is, what kind of leader he is. But, you know, she's going to be very respectful. She's not going to, you know, offer her opinions in public. She's not going to argue with him about things he does. Maybe it's time that world leaders came around and said, wait a minute, the emperor has no clothes. Yeah, very good point. And, you know, it'll be interesting. And yet my sense is that because of her own low key style, she's not likely to be as vocal about it. Maybe Macron will say some statement, but I think more to the point, the European Union legitimately and possibly will look to be sending some observers whether they get, and because in some ways, you know, they kind of go on their own. I mean, the US, our elections are not something that is managed by the federal government. Every state is responsible for carrying out the elections and the rules and observation. So, as you well know, we don't have a centralized system. Every state does it differently, quite literally. But my real point here is that international election observers, I'm going back to this. I'm just, you know, again, I hadn't thought too much about this, but in light of the calling into question and concerns about possible fraud and even Trump, you know, railing a lot about this, and the, you know, will there be, will there be some questioning of the outcome? Will there be places where it won't be clear, you know, that remains to be seen, because all of this could change, and suddenly it could be an outcome that is just so decisive and overwhelming that nobody can contest it. But there still remains the fact, what if he loses and doesn't want to leave the house? Who's responsible for that? Is it the Secret Service? Is it the National Park Service? Is it the DC Police, the FBI? We haven't been on this terrain before, buddy. Or is it nobody? You can't segue it with so much. Anyway, we're out of time, Carlos. Thank you so much. I really appreciate these conversations and discussions and the wisdom from you. And we live in such interesting times. It does provoke important discussions. Thank you so much. Thank you, and we'll be in touch again. Aloha.