 The relevance of ITC technologies was not that big. Our energy sector was close to the world, and we have now opened up energy for competition. The discovery of shale gas, shale oil in the US was not there. So modernizing NAFTA is a big part of this effort. Now, at the same time, the high complexity of this negotiation is how to deal with new concepts of trade coming out of Washington. Now, regardless of what the audience here thinks about trade deficits, one reality is that President Trump believes that trade deficits are bad intrinsically. We understand that at the end of the day, a trade balance is nothing else than the Josie Miro image of what you do in public policy, in public finance and monetary policy at the end. But they do believe that they are not good for the economy, which we may disagree. But we don't have time to teach new lessons of economics to anybody. We have to deal with the reality. And how can you negotiate an agreement to land in a safe place, this new red negotiated NAFTA, where the narrative will be a positive narrative for the three countries. We believe that we can help the US to rebalance trade. But under the perspective of expanding trade, not imposing tariffs, not creating new management controls like quotas. So the idea is how to be creative enough to strengthen value change in North America that will bring back some of creative industries in the new century and increase into original trade in North America. Now, starting from there, we may find some solutions that will work for all of us. The same happened with the new challenge to arbitrage or dispute settlement systems trade agreements. We believe that that's exactly the glue that keeps agreements together. And there is going to be a very complex and tough discussion. So for what you're saying, I don't think NAFTA is at risk at this moment. The risk is never absent. But you have to be ready to live with a NAFTA without the US. If you are negotiating this agreement- And NAFTA too, then. No, no, what happened everybody seems, NAFTA is at risk of ending, no, no. NAFTA will continue between Canada and Mexico because at the end of the day, what is important is that you send the message of your belief in free trade. The US is the one that will decide to be in or out. Obviously, it's the main player and it's highly relevant for the US to remain in the agreement. Time has been an ally in this negotiation. Why? Because at least this administration has had a very steep learning curve NAFTA has been good even for President Trump supporters. One of the strongest lobby that has been keeping the voice loud in favor of NAFTA is the agricultural sector because they are the ones, Mexico is the market number one for their exports. So time has been also helping in this process. That sounds like a trade war. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Retaliate. A trade war is when you get the gun out and shoot. All right, very not. The gun is not out. It's just loud. So Mr. Savala, as I said, you have quite the experience in Peru in the public sector. And honestly, we've seen these threats coming from out of Washington on tariffs, on steel and aluminum that actually don't affect Mexico for the time being. They don't affect Mexico. But is this a matter of concerning Peru? Yes, it's concerning. Actually, I think it's a threat for Peru and for other countries. Actually, many countries already said that this could imply in the future a trade war. We expect no, but not everything about trade is about news in the recent weeks. We also have, on the other hand, 11 countries, including Mexico, signed the TPP. CP TPP. CP TPP. The Trans-Pacific Partnership. 11 countries represent 13% of the GDP of the world. And it was clear of all the countries, Australia, Japan, Mexico, they reaffirm that trade is quite important for the countries. And trade looks and involves sustainable development for the countries and for the people. In the case of Peru, China is today our biggest trade partner. But it's not only about trade. What is important in terms of when you have a relation with these kind of countries is that also is the investment. Today, China is also the biggest investor in Peru, creating jobs. That's why, for Peru, it's a concern what the decision from the US about still an aluminum. So you're talking about China. And I was mentioning the speech of Mr. Xi a couple of years ago in Davos. And we're seeing China aggressively investing not only in Latin America, Europe. They had this deal in Greece with the port of Peru. They've had other investments in real estate throughout Europe and other continents. And as you were saying, Peru saw 2.5% expansion in gross domestic product. That is more than Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, and Mexico. So is this growth linked to the China investment in Peru? Of course. And for Peru, 2.5% is not enough. Actually, we are looking for 4%. But China is quite an important player in Peru. 10 years ago, when we were discussing about this free trade agreement with China, there were a lot of concerns, damping concerns. If we have to impose some barriers, if that will affect jobs, and so on. 10 years after the treatment, I will say that it was very benefit for Peru. In terms of trade for consumers, we have competition. And also, in terms of promoting new investments. And Chinese investment are coming for mining, for oil, but also for other industries. I think at the end was benefit. But it's not only about China. The Peruvian model that was very successful in the last 25 years as a main pillar, is to open the economy to China, to US, to European Union. We really believe that it's not only for Peru, for the world, and for the people was very important, the free trade agreements and the openness. That's why today is a concern what happened in US. The Mr. raised the topic that I think is very important besides China, the United States, European Union, and investment in Europe. And it's digital trade. And digital goods have not been covered by the World Trade Organization. Mr. Melendez Ortiz, I know you know the World Trade Organization very good. Because you've negotiated from Colombia there. And I wanted to ask you, is there a possibility that we will see a new World Trade Organization that will cover digital goods in the coming months? Yeah, that's an excellent question. And let me just place it in the context of what we just heard before. Which is that we actually don't have rules that govern the frameworks that govern or overt both e-commerce and digitally enabled trade in the world. And not at the multilateral level. I just said we didn't have until, as the minister said, that these 11 countries now sign the CPTPP. And there you have the first framework agreement on the key issues really that should be dealt with, like, for instance, localization of data, border data flows, cross-border data flows. And a number of other issues that are critical to govern over digital. As the minister said, those were technologies that were not in place when the WTO was created. The WTO, you have to keep in place, in mind, that was really thought out about 40 years ago. Put into being almost 30 years ago. And even though it is a very robust rule-based system, against which all these other preferential trade arrangements and all these other regional agreements really are possible, it's not yet been able to update its rule book. So your question is, is it possible to do it? Well, in Buenos Aires in December, we had the ministerial conference of the WTO, which is what happens every two years, to sort of redefine terms of negotiations. There were about seven issues that came out with the big momentum towards some outcomes. There is a difficulty to bring all the members of the WTO into these new agreements, but as a set of almost 80 countries agree on what is called a joint statement on e-commerce and declare their intention to start working towards a multilateral framework on e-commerce. So there is hope. There is work in Geneva, and the World Economic Forum and ICTSD, my organization actually, have been doing the ideational work behind what is needed in that kind of negotiation for the past six years. And so we think that there is hope to bring this forward. I mean, if you think about it, as you said, digital goods are not covered by these treaties. China is actually, and going back to the issue of China, it's exploring free trade zones for digital goods within Asia, something that can be quite the model for other areas and other world leaders. Now we're going to go to the private sector, and we're talking about technology. And I have to say MasterCard has been at the forefront of digital payments. These things that we now do so easily, online payments, touchless payments. You've been investing in this type of technology. I would say that MasterCard, more than the payment sector, is actually in the technology sector. So linking the question with the question that we just had answered here. Is technology helping trade nowadays? Is technology something that is making barriers to trade impossible? Because this may well be the issue, right? So we are definitely a technology company that connects a lot of consumers to organizations and actually allow people to transact, if you will. I think this is tremendously important in the sense of saying nowadays it's very easy for a small company to establish themselves, use the cloud and the digital economy that we are. But it becomes very difficult for a small company to trade cross-border. And cross-border trade is on the rise. It's more than $10 billion of cross-border trade. And SMEs is under indexed on that. And that's what we are working and trying to work with WTO and other organizations to make sure that interoperability is there. So the electronic payment services providers have the same standards that will allow a small company that is selling cross-border to be able to pay and receive easily using all the technology that is available and that is available drastically for people. And for that, it's tremendously important the free flow of data. I think there's concerns about the discussion on localization of data, et cetera, et cetera. I think we have to take care of the privacy issues and so on and so forth, but allow for the interoperability to exist. And we've been working with a lot of partners. One of the partners has been the IDB, especially in Latin America where the cross-border trade for SMEs is very low compared to the rest of the world. And trying to kind of, together with some partners like Maersk, GHL, and the IDB, to connect America's platform to payment services. So the 100,000 companies that are connected to that platform can trade. So that's kind of what we are highly involved in and putting the technology to enable people to not just transact digital goods, but actually physical goods as well. I mean, if you think about it, like how you pay is very important to how you trade. Absolutely. And there's something that I find very interesting. Your main competitor or the habit that you're fighting the most is cash payments. And actually, I learned the other day that 70% of payments in Latin America are still cash. So what are the reasons for that and what are you doing to actually fight this habit because it's a habit, right? Well, at the end of the day, cash is, we consider cash our biggest competitor. So we are fighting cash, trying to make sure that financial inclusion happens so people can use electronic payments. We believe that electronic payments is a way to include financially people. There's habits, there's informal economies, if you will. We are working with governments, regulators, partners to be able to make sure that we make pervasive electronic payments because it's also on the digital economy or the forced industrial revolution, if you will. If you don't have an electronic means of payment, you're out. You cannot buy any digital good. You cannot educate yourself. So it's not necessarily related to the cross-border trade, but it's somehow related because cash most of the time is not used for cross-border online payments, but actually we can use electronic payment systems to actually make that much smoother and faster for SMEs and large companies. Could argue that trade has its own international system in place. And I'm saying this because Brian Newman is representing Pepsi here and Pepsi is in more countries than the United Nations, if I'm not wrong. Which is interesting. I mean, it's as expansive a company as you can have and for you, the other side of trade, the supply chain is very important. How you actually empower communities, investing communities in order to have a supply that can reach as Pepsi does like the whole world. So is this supply chain at risk for a trade war or more barriers to trade? I think free trade, one can advocate, is very positive for you and your employees. So is there any concern there? Thanks, David. Yeah, I spent the last couple of years leading our global supply chain, which we're in over 200 countries as you alluded to. And we've tried very hard to localize our supply chain. Food at the end of the day is a local business. So to the extent we're a farmer, we try and grow our potatoes there all the way through the manufacturing into the shelf. That said, the other business I ran recently was the e-commerce business. A lot of the growth we see in our industry is cross-border trading, whether it's between Europe and Asia, Latin America. We need to think very carefully about how we support the movement of goods across borders because at the end of the day, the consumer is king and you don't wanna increase the price of the consumer. You wanna deliver a safe, quality, trusted product to them. So we think a lot about localizing the supply chain, but we see a lot of the growth coming in the cross-border transaction. So in that regard, we'd support the free movement of goods. That's very interesting. How local communities can benefit from trade in a way in which you can do an investment we've seen it in Peru, as you were saying, and how they may be the last people affected by this, but they can be affected in a way that job costs, as opposed to what we were saying, like protection of jobs in the United States can bring destruction of jobs in other countries. Let me ask you something. Not only in other countries, in your own country. In your own country too, as you point out, yes, in the agricultural sector in the United States. Let me just throw a question before we actually open the floor to discussion from the audience here and online. So we've seen the perspective from the public sector, the private sector. What are the main enemies of trade nowadays after you've seen? The main enemies of trade. Well, basically I will say that the main enemies of trade is the wrong belief of politicians or government leaders that the only instrument for development is only free market policies. I do believe that free trade is essential for growth that is not sufficient for inclusion and development. We are facing the challenges we're facing today because we were unable in the last two decades to take care of the displace. Technology, privatization, free markets have a consequence on part of the population that you have to have a viable public policy alternatives to make these changes politically sustainable. So if we do not take responsibility for the right public policies to give sustainability to the new direction and the new waves of technology, we are basically weakening over base support for these public policies. So at the end of the day in the US, it is not Trump that is challenging the policies. It's a part of the US population that believes that isolation and closing the doors for trade is in their best benefit because politicians were not able to sustain a good story to be told in the last 20 years and to really take care of the displace base that has been affected by modernization and technology. So the biggest challenge is the inability of politicians to really defend and uphold the new tendencies and the positive change for humanity. That is a great point. How some governments have failed to protect those who were affected by the trade movements that they were actually funded by technology. And I think, I don't know what you think from the private sector as technology advances and technology not only in the payment sector, but like in production, in distribution, it's impossible to stop. I mean, you can just put a patch, right? But I mean, trade goes with the market, right? I think technology could be a real enabler. If you think about blockchain in areas like that, if I wear the supply chain lens, how do you facilitate and ease the movement of goods across borders? We have to embrace those kinds of technologies and figure out how goods can move across the border, leveraging blockchain for traceability of the goods, food safety, et cetera. So there's real opportunity. Blockchain is like, this year was the year of blockchain at Davos and everybody is talking about it. And I think it's helping journalism, for instance. So it's very interesting. Yes, please. No, on that question, I think that you ask, what is the biggest enemy to trade? And I'd say that we have been going through a very interesting momentum, if you like, up to 2016 of consolidation of, if you like, an upgrading of frameworks that would facilitate trade and investment, that we will deal with digital technologies, we will deal with other issues that have not been dealt with at the multilateral level, particularly, so questions related to investment, to competition, to state-owned enterprises, et cetera. And then you had the 2016 occurrence, both Brexit, particularly the Trump election. And then the change, particularly of the style, there's a change in form and in substance that comes from the US confronting that momentum. And I think I remain very optimistic that we're moving forward. The biggest enemy, I think, in that context today is these misconceptions about trade. So misconceptions related to the question of technology and jobs, misconceptions related to the issues that trade deficits are bad and trade surpluses are good. Misconceptions about the question of how, if you stop imports of manufacturing goods, you're going to generate manufacturing jobs at home. All these sort of misconceptions, that's the biggest enemy today. But again, I think that the optimism, for me, comes from the opportunity to actually address those misconceptions at a very high cost. But this is what we have been seeing in the past two years. And I think it's a little harder if anyone has been at the center of trying to really fight off the misconceptions by moving the trade agenda and the globalization agenda forward, modernizing those frameworks, starting with the NAFTA. But if you see the momentum all around the world, from Europe to China to Japan to Africa, Latin America, Asia, what you have actually is a surge in integration. There's much more appetite for more trade, rather than less, at the same time that we're engaging this debate on those misconceptions. If you think about it, and we'll keep going back to the United States, and I think it makes sense because, you know, main investor, main trade partner from many countries, if you go to Ohio or to the Midwest, you'll see those who have suffered from trade. But if you go to the West Coast, even to the East Coast, if you go to Miami nowadays, you see a lot of people who benefited from the trade flow. So the political system or the government or the election system in the United States is such that with two million votes less by the arrangements, Trump won on an anti-trade message. And, you know, I think the case can be made that maybe that's not a majority sentiment in the United States, and there are a lot of people who, with technology, benefited from that. Mr. Sabala, I think you had a point to make here. No, I will add, politicians is always a barrier. For example, to invoke a national security issue for trade restriction is... Which we have to point that Donald Trump said that the tariffs on steel and aluminum actually can be applied going to a WTO chapter that actually says that you can actually apply them in justifying national security, which I don't know what that means, but... Yeah, but you have to be very careful because the president himself had made public comments that these tariffs are also in contrast with European tariffs on cars, on American cars, on US cars. And he also made a comment that it will be an incentive for the NAFTA partners to finish the negotiations quickly. So the more you make diversifying support for this action, the weaker legally you can defend this in any panel at WTO. Because then you are departing from the national security argument. And even in the US court system, you will weaken your capacity to defend the policy movement. Once you use it, I mean, why not keep using it, right? No, and think about food exports. Again, saying this is a national security. But I will say in terms of politician, and I will say another barrier is sometimes public servants in customs, in terms of the regulatory issues in every country. We were discussing with Mr. Guajardo yesterday in a different panel about Pacific Alliance. And we were discussing that it was very successful, but if you look that agreement in terms of trade, it's like nothing special in terms of numbers. And when you go deep analyzing why, you look that customs still have a rear in Mexico, Peru, Colombia, and Chile, also regulatory issues. And what we're discussing is the harmonization of those policies are taking many time. And also it's very costly. We have to find better ways to harmonize not only tariffs, harmonize all the rest of regulation to promote trade. What do you think about regulation, Mr. Calda? Of course we are pro-free trade in general, if you will. But as I was listening, I was thinking, I think nowadays more and more products and services have come together. It's data, it's not anymore just exporting an agricultural product. So the more we can work on opening up these barriers and make sure that people can trade and have interoperability. It has standards on electronic payment systems because there's not anymore a product per se. Product comes with a lot of intelligence attached to it. And that requires the use of data. That requires the exchange of data. That requires a lot of, so the free flow of data, the kind of, yes, of course, respecting all the crypto things that you need to encrypting all the data and so on and so forth, it makes a lot of sense. But I kind of look into, I use an example, if you will. I have a daughter that lives in Spain, she's an artist, she works on illustration and she sells stuff all over the world. That's trade, yeah, it's a small trade, but it's trade. So in the last 10 years, digital flows have increased 45 times. Absolutely. The nature of trade has changed drastically. And the problem is that the rules are 20th century rules. And the problem is that WTO is kidnapped by the Doha believers that don't want to engage in any new item unless the Doha issues are solved. So we're stuck in Doha because the governance system of WTO is not working. Well, actually this brings me to one of the questions that I wanted us to take from Twitter, for like those who are following us online. We have two hashtags, LA18 and Global Trade. Before I go to the question, we took a poll, non-scientific of course, on Twitter saying like, how much would a Trump trade war affect your economy through the World Economic Forum Twitter account? So 20% said not at all, 27% said somewhat, 49% said a lot, and 4% said other. So I think it's interesting like how people are really concerned, Twitter followers at least. How many of them were from the US? Oh, we don't know that, but. So the first question, and I think to any of you, anybody that wants to jump in, are we gonna see a redefined World Trade Organization or are we gonna see a different World Trade Organization? I mean, changing the rules or creating a new one? What do you think? I believe that in the short term, there is not a hope that we'll be able to transform WTO. The alternative is moving in this group of friends around WTO, where 70 countries, 75 countries are moving in digital trade, SMEs. So it is an alternative that does not, is not incorporated within the whole system, and also regional agreements, trilateral, plurilateral, that will continue to set the new standards for international trade. Do you agree, Mr. Melendez Ortiz? Yeah, I think that there's, so there are dynamics both within the WTO and in the context of the WTO and outside. And I think that they will play together, as I was saying, I'm an optimist thinking that we're going to regain the momentum that we were going through before 2016. And so let's take the question of digital trade again. So there are 69 regional trade agreements or provincial trade agreements that contain either provisions or chapters related to e-commerce and deal with some of the most sort of obvious issues, e-payments, things like this. There is now the CPTPP that deals with the in-depth issues of e-commerce. So you're moving the benchmark and you're incorporating a very large number of countries in what would be trade and investment architecture for the 21st century, which is where the WTO needs to get. Then you have this movement within the WTO of the countries that are willing to move forward and put behind all the constraints of the negotiations, tactics, et cetera. That includes the US, and this is the interesting part. So for instance, this joint statement in Buenos Aires on e-commerce was subscribed by the US. And so you have the US, but you have also the Chinese and you also have the Mexicans and you have the Pakistanis. And so you have countries of all the levels of development with the willingness to move forward. That tells you that there should be a way, really, to find convergence between, again, what is happening in the margins, in the context of the preferential trade agreements, and the WTO. And that includes, I think, the other questions that you asked before, which have to do with inclusion. So all these new agreements, the CPTPP, the Canadian EU CETA agreement, the Japan EU, all the new generation agreements that are many and are in the making, they include chapters on sustainability issues, from labor-related issues to environmental issues to, again, the digital economy. So we're really leading through this very strange period where you have the economic nationalism and combined with mercantilism coming out of Washington and then a really progressive, very sort of bullish agenda on integration in the framework. And that's why I think I remain an optimist. I think we're going to get there. I want a quick word on steel. I think on steel, we're very quick to talk about a war. And I think I am with the minister on this. There's no war yet. There are a lot of noise drums that are being played. We don't know whether these are tactics and they already have served as negotiating tactics, just announcing the measures and so on, or whether the measures are going to really materialize. We will know soon. We'll know next week. And then the form of the measures, the detail like everything else in trade, would really then define whether we will get into a scenario the words of which would be of retaliation and counter-retaliation outside of the WTO. It's a threat, maybe negotiation tactics. Exactly. It's interesting what you said and I'll open up for questions here, but from the journalist point of view, we still have some rules from the times when journalism would just sprint, when we control the distribution in markets that were isolated. Now, we at El País publishing like Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, Brazil, and like you cannot have just one regulation in one country to do this, like technology is taking away distribution, but at the same time empowering you to reach hundreds of millions of readers. And for us, that's amazing, but also like we need a new framework also from the journalism point of view. So I think we have a question here. If you can identify yourself and then. Sure, Daniel Revilla from Lloyds. The question is for the Minister of Ricardo. You mentioned the NAFTA negotiations. Unfortunately, there is a front runner in the Mexican elections now that has basically said he's not interested in those type of agreements as much as the rest probably. And so my question for you is in the time frames that you are managing, would you be able to agree on NAFTA before the next government comes in? Is that what you're considering? The elections are. July 1st. July 1st? Yeah, but probably, are you following daily news in Mexico? And that's why probably you are not updated. No, one of the amazing things is that the three leading parties had mentioned that they will like to continue with the same negotiating team. 24 years ago when I was part of the NAFTA negotiating team, the left party in Mexico was opposed to the agreement. 24 years later, they are supporting and they are requesting from us to defend the agreement. So there has been a dramatic change. Now seems that everybody wants to keep NAFTA alive in Mexico, including this candidate that you are referring to. Now, obviously the terms, in terms of timing, I will tell you that there is a window for, the three countries are going to have elections. But the two constraining ones is the US midterm election in November and the Mexican presidential and congressional election in July. So that puts you in a time frame where you either get this NAFTA negotiation solved by the latest April because that will be timingly to be considered by this Senate in Mexico and the actual US Congress before they change next January. If you don't finish in April, then the timeline for all the requirements will force you to be considered by the new Senate. Now, in the US, the probability that the US Congress will be changed from Republican to Democrat as we saw in the Pennsylvania election is not a small one. So the whole nature of the balance of the agreement will change because there's Democrats that are more inclined to, against ISDS or investment protection, they are very strongly about international power of unions. So then the balance of the agreement to have any probability to be voted in the US Congress is going to change. So to make it very concrete, you either get it before the end of April or then it doesn't matter, you can go to the end of the year. I have another question online. I'm gonna be alternating them and I think the representatives of the private sector can wait in a little bit and using the hashtag LA18. Just a brief question, but I think you can actually tell us what your experience there is. Is it nowadays easier or more difficult to make business in Latin America? That's a good question. I would say in general is getting better, right? So I think a lot of countries are reducing the barriers and kind of integrating and in general is better, but I would say there's a lot of opportunity to kind of speed up, put more streamlined processes and less, if you will, bureaucracy to get business done all over. I don't know your... I think from a glass half perspective, it's improving. We had some natural disasters in the past 12 months. We had to move a lot of goods across borders, certainly from our business, from Mexico in and out, et cetera. And so it's actually, I think the public sector and the private sector working together to facilitate trade. All right, any more questions around here? Please. Well, I'm Swama from Dog Chemical and I would like to come back to your point, minister, in the sense of how we negotiate at multilateral or multilateral level international trade. I mean, we may agree that we do need to speed up the changing process, but maybe above that, the way we negotiate multilateral level, it's not open to the changes we see in society. So how probably private sector could play a major role in that and how we could redefine the arena for that, I would like to hear. Minister, and then I would like to hear Mr. Savala and Mr. Melendez. Yeah, no, I think that it is easier to have the influence of civil society and the stakeholders in bilateral or regional agreements because of the direct responsibility. For instance, in Mexico, we do not make any moves on the negotiation unless we consult with our stakeholders. And our consultation is so strong that sometimes US industries is basically trying to ask us to defend some basic principles. But in the multilateral arena, it's even more difficult and it's very tough to really get it to respond, to civil society interests because to begin with the diversity of countries representing the WTO is so widespread that I don't see, for instance, some of the countries even worrying about what their civil society thinks about it. And I would not mention those countries. But at the end of the day, it is tougher in the multilateral arena than in the plurilateral or bilateral regional negotiations. Mr. Sabala. I will agree. Social stakeholders as a general, our part of the negotiation is a must for a country, for the officials to know and ask the stakeholders of what's think about the agreement. I will say that of course in terms of bilaterals are easier than multilaterals. But coming again to the last question, I believe that it will be difficult to have agreements, for example, in digital, in the World Trade Organization. But I think again, the CPTPP is a great example for the first time ever, include in a multilateral agreement, digital trade, digital economy. It's not a way to stop the digital economy. The country has to speed up and include regulations. I hope no regulation at all. But if they have to think about the digital economy in the future, if they want to continue developing the countries. Mr. Minister, multilateral, bilateral, like a framework agreement, what do you think is gonna benefit more trade flows? I think that there's no doubt that multilateral rules are absolutely essential for the world economy to work as it needs to work in the 21st century. Now, as I was saying before, we're still within a system. That system is a system of norms and principles and institutions, the multilateral level, from where countries have selectively chosen to then go out and integrate in a deeper manner in these regional and preferential trade arrangements. But it's all part of a whole system. That system needs, again, to be consolidated, comes into better coherence. Now, the participation of stakeholders, it's a question of the two level game. They have to participate at the national level and they have to participate at the international level. We have today means to address questions like information asymmetry. Like the kind of issues that made it very difficult for stakeholders to participate before. And we, and I think in the most recent agreements, both the Europeans and the Canadians and the Pacific agreement, we have seen that there is a much better integration of concerns of stakeholders. So again, I'm very positive about this. You have to, different countries have different means of carrying out these consultations. But if you look at the European context, for instance, that it is a very complex structure to ensure that there is a taking into account of a stakeholder's views, both from industries as well as civil society. So, but the response to what is better, multilateral, plurilateral, we have to live in a world where there's coexistence of both multilateralism and plurilateralism within a coherent system. And I say we're still in one system because again, if it continues to suffer this kind of attacks, we may get into a real fragmentation of the system. And that's a possibility. I think that's like a coherent system that can be safe against this type of unilateral attacks. I think that's a great point. And I think we have a question here. My name is Daniel Feffer. I'm from ICC, International Chamber of Commerce. We have the Global Trade Alliance for Trade Facilitation with WEF. And we are working strongly to reunite CEOs, major CEOs, major corporations to build a coalition to support global trade and avoid backlash and protectionism. We see, I see some key words that were said in this very mature conversation I would say in this so primitive trade situation that we're dealing. And I like the word harmonize, complexity. And ICC took an initiative called ITTI, which is to step up into a next phase on trade. We see the influence of technology on trade. The audience here, we have to compete with the Twitter outside for questions. So I'm feeling like a taxi and a Uber. So we need to step up. And the feeling I have is that trade is in a way, if we compare to a human being, it's like a child. We're just learning to walk together because trade facilitation agreement was a fantastic accomplish of WTO. If we compare with Doha, objective, of course, doesn't look as important as it is. But as a dynamic of a global community, we're really learning how to do something together. We don't know how to talk about tariffs yet, tariffs, because it's so complex. But we need to step up. And we're bringing up this initiative, intelligence, tech and trade initiative, to find win-win solutions on trade, which is how can we use AI and blockchain on global trade tools, not just to do the business, but to solve the problems? We see the problem is so complex, no mind can find a solution. And ITTI has a site, interviews, and a discussion paper made by Professor Marcos Trijo from Columbia University, Bricks Lab, that is uploaded at top link for everyone. And it's a methodology. So how can we use AI to find a solution? That's a great point. And I mean, having to add to what you said, during many, many years, and we're at the World Economic Forum, so there was a consensus in the Western world how globalization was good, how trade was good, because you not only shared goods, but you also shared ideas. And ideas from one part of the two world traveled to the other parts of the world. Then we've seen this backlash against globalization, not only at the street level and protest, but suddenly it's come to the position of power. So within your context, for instance, what is the view on globalization nowadays? Has it changed the perception? Emerging economies are in a more advanced position because the net influence of investment has helped you to really outbalance the reduction of labor demand from technology and robotization. So you see the case of Mexico. In the last five years, we have six new brands of new cars that build plants in Mexico. BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, six new high-luxury brands. Now, the consumption of labor per capital has been going down. The net inflow is really increasing. We have one million Mexicans working in the car industry. So if you do an opinion poll in Mexico, the majority of Mexicas are in favor of free trade because the net effect has been job creation. Now, the same element has a different challenge in a developed economy. In the last 40 years, manufacturing jobs or manufacturing has proportion of total global production has been going down from 70% in developed countries to about 40%. While emerging economies had increased their role in manufacturing by 30%. So at the end of the day, there is a shift that is obvious when you open up that shift is going to happen. Now, the new employment that is happening in the economies that you just mentioned is in services. And that's where the increase is. In the US economy, you say, well, the Ross belt has been losing jobs not because of trade, mostly because of technological developments and trade, but the main factories, technologies. But when you look at manufacturing in the US and you divide manufacturing between one link to production process, Mexico, Canada and the US and the one that is no link in share production process, the manufacturing that is isolated is going down because of the Asia competition while the one production share with Mexico is going up. So at the end of the day, Mexico is not the problem for US manufacturing jobs. Mexico has been the solution to compete globally. Now the world competes by regions, not by countries. Taking out the political part of the argument, do you agree? Is there a political party, what I said? Well, being a minister, there's always a political part in what you say. I'm a definition. Okay, all right, fair enough. Fair enough. Is technology creating new spaces for work and changing others that are being left redundant from the private sector perspective? Yeah, the future is globalization. Technology is enabling us to leverage cross-border trade, drive innovation. So it's, in some ways it's creating jobs. I know it's taking away jobs, but it's creating different types of jobs. So it reverts back to the big question on education. How do we train the workforce to participate in more of a globalization network? My view is similar. I think more and more we are a service economy and we kind of say that data is the new wild. So that needs to kind of really keep going. The jobs are changing, they will change. And I think the challenge is really how we rescue, upscale the sales forces. The jobs will be there, they will just change in nature. One of the issues, of course, is how do we work on education to make sure that data science, STEM, coding, et cetera, is embedded into education of our kids, et cetera, so they can get the new jobs. Otherwise, I think the challenge will be big in terms of re-skilling and upskilling our workforce. Let's finish the debate here with education. Are the governments up to date in education, in skills, to actually prevent these problems that you were mentioning, minister? No, public policy is always behind change. Governments are always lagged in terms of response. The challenge is how fast can you catch up? And it is a big challenge. Yesterday, in one of the discussions, it was well established that Latin America being a region with a lot of young population, it was 160 million young people that was established as part of the wealth of the continent. The problem is that asset can be wasted if you don't really change education. Today, according to the OECD, every 10 kids in elementary school, at least six of them or seven, don't know what kind of a job they will be holding in their adulthood. So you have to prepare this population for a rapid and high velocity change that is already here. So Industrial Revolution 4.0, how you prepare it. Mexico was extremely successful in preparing a labor force for the manufacturing world of the 20th century. But now that is changing in front of our faces very quickly. If we don't adapt to the new technologies of information and new educational tasks, we will be clearly behind. That can be applied to Mexico, like one of the economic powers in the world. In Brazil, another economic power that also needs to get updated in scale. So just to wrap up, I wanted to highlight some ideas. Like, as a journalist, now I know that I shouldn't use the word trade war, but just like trade threats ongoing. No, you can use it, but the time comes. It looks good on a headline. I actually like the idea of like multilateral, bilateral, you know, like creating a trade scenario that adapts to the needs of the countries that you both pointed out. I think it's amazing, the idea of education and how to educate the workforce to be ready. And I think you minister made a really good point, which is it's not trade, it's technology. And the technological change. I mean, you can put all barriers to trade that you want, but the technological trade is driving a revolution in the workforce. And from your perspective, the importance of keeping like the protection of supply change, which is very important for you and how like technology is actually driving all the changes that come behind. So thank you for having us here. And I think, as I said before, one of the, some of the most important ideas have been discussed here in the forum because trade is so important in international relations now. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.