 I'm Jay Fidel. This is Think Tech, and this is Global Connections, where we enjoy the company of Carlos Juarez from Mexico City every couple of weeks, and we get an international perspective on things. Hi, Carlos. So nice to be with you. Hello, Haje, and welcome. I'm actually joining you from Puebla, Puebla, Mexico, of course, just a city to the east about two hours away. So, but it's all part of the same. I am in Latin America, connecting with you in the middle of the Pacific, and, you know, an opportunity to just catch up and reflect on, well, the interesting times we live in, and particularly this impeachment inquiry, maybe a perspective of an international perspective that kind of informs how it's viewed from abroad. Yeah, so let's look at what's happening that, you know, the trouble, the machinations, the hearings, proceedings, remarkable statements from both sides in Congress. Let's try to get a handle on how that already affects a world that is quizzical about what is happening in this country. So I suppose I would ask you, you've been following it. Everybody in Mexico probably has access to it. It's not like, you know, the only people who can watch these hearings are in the U.S. It's global. Anyone with a television and an internet hookup can watch it. And so is this the talk on the street, the way it is here in the U.S.? Well, I would certainly tell you, not the average street. The average person in much of the world is not. And now, maybe when you're talking about those who are interested and informed and maybe try to stay up on global issues, on foreign policy, foreign affairs, yeah, it's obviously, and so here I am as a university professor. I mean, yeah, students who are students of these issues, international relations, political science, faculty who are obviously more informed, you know, intellectuals, elites. It is the talk of the day. It's a dramatic, you know, set of issues. We haven't seen anything like this in literally two decades. But I think the other dimension that is different is that social media brings it to us in different ways. It brings it to us instantly. You could be anywhere, literally with your smartphone and, you know, plug in live, but also just the reaction, the commentary. And that's a separate issue. You know, one is what's happening. The other is like, how are we interpreting? What are we reading? And so it just depends on where we get our sources of information. Obviously, for me and the young leaders that I try to educate, it's like, no, try to make sure you're looking at a range of good information. And so for myself, while I read the main major media, I also try to see both different alternative sides and international media, whether here in Mexico and Latin America and Europe. And, you know, it is interesting to see the, you know, maybe the perception, the reflection, the confusion, because that's always a question. You know, what does this mean, what's going on? And will, you know, the perennial question, well, is he going to go? I'm not going to put my money on it or bet. I can help explain the process, identify, you know, what are the factors and variables and possibilities. Beyond that, I think like all of us, we're just rolling with it to see how it's going to unfold. These are not normal times, normal processes, and maybe things that are happening right now that would have happened 20, 40 years ago would have led to a quicker, different outcome. It's hard to say how this is going to continue. Can you talk about that, the new normal? Because as you said before, the show on any given day in this administration, if that were seen, say, 10 or 20 years ago, it would be a day on which the president had to go. We couldn't tolerate it. But now we have learned to tolerate it. The new normal creeps up on us. Can you talk about that? Can you talk about it from the point of view of someone who is not necessarily in the U.S.? Yeah. Well, here, and it is true because actually we have to also understand. I mean, what's happening in the U.S., in some ways, it reflects trends happening in other places for similar and different reasons. But we speak about an erosion of norms. Things that maybe in the past had been normal, accepted behavior are now being pushed. And many have often noted how under Trump, he sort of opened the can of worms about topics that maybe used to be under the radar, or even just this notion, if you believe as many do, that he's basically responsible for a lot of lies and misinformation. He has a tendency to repeat them and repeat them again and again to the point where it just leaves you confused and muddled up. Now, putting it in a more global context, I would say, you know, we've seen dramatic protests in these past weeks and months of, you know, worldwide, global protests. And, you know, we had another show where we spoke about this. One thing in common is overall an anger and frustration with political leaders of any kind, whether it's even left or right in general. Maybe we could even say a frustration with democracy. Democracy has brought now maybe, you know, a paradox. On one hand, more openness, more participation. But now we can see more of the ugliness that goes on. That transparency also reveals more corruption and, you know, sort of a divide between those in privileged power and the masses who are not. And then again, back to the social media. It has a way of mobilizing support, forming opinion, shaping the narrative. And that's happening again, everywhere on, you know, in some cases in their own issues, whatever country you might look at, or even just shaping the perception of the United States, which I think, you know, we want to talk a little bit about here. How is this impeachment process impacting the image of the U.S. abroad? It's complicated. It's not simple or easy because on one hand, we can speak of a trend that's been going on long before Trump, of a gradual, maybe relative decline of the United States in the eyes of many. And part of it is a function of the rise of the rest, as I think Farid Zakaria explains in the book, the rapid growth of China, the, you know, emerging Mario countries like India or other parts. And so while the U.S. is still important, biggest army, you know, biggest economy, it's operating in a world where it no longer controls or shapes everything. Then we add to that a President Trump who comes to office with a new version of nationalism, a variation of it, if you will, but not entirely isolationist because he's engaged, but on his own terms. But certainly one would argue maybe a certain degree of abdication of leadership. The United States has sort of stepped away from its traditional, long bipartisan leadership role of sort of the international system, etc. And here maybe as we continue talking, I mean, interesting to contrast some of the perceptions maybe in places like Western Europe, traditional allies of the U.S., other parts of maybe the developing world where they, you know, there's a different reason for skepticism. I think that's an important point to distinguish the context. So you have a couple of contexts, I think. One is what is the historical context, for example, in South America, how do people in South America feel over the years about the U.S. before Trump? Then you have the context of Europe and Asia that's it's different and they are likely to take the developments, the events in the U.S. differently, or at least with a slightly different kaleidoscopic pitch on it. And then finally, you know, there's the context of what he's been doing vis-à-vis them in the course of his term of office, where he's treated Europe differently, Asia differently, and South America differently. So all of these lead to different results, don't they, in the way people in those places see him and react to him. Can you talk about it? Sure. Yeah, again, just as you're touching on there, I mean, if we start maybe with Western Europe, here's a region that has traditionally been a, you know, strong ally of the U.S., post World War II, you know, differences here and there, but overall a strength. And let me even step back farther. I want to repeat that on balance, I think we can still say people around the world still have, you know, good, you know, interest and image of U.S. and often distinguish between the sort of people-to-people, you know, level of, let's say, understanding. And those who have connections or otherwise have traveled or worked or visited and no people interact with them, you know, that's one thing. I think we're also going to distinguish that from maybe the government policies or the current, you know, president or any given president. And then sometimes there's more criticism of that because of the policy. But back to, again, Western Europe, we've seen a significant, strikingly negative perception. Certainly it didn't entirely begin with the Trump administration, but it did accelerate. So it has been there at different times, 15 years ago when we had the drama on playing in the Middle East, the intervention of the U.S. and Iraq, very unpopular in Western Europe. That was a low time for a lot of the image of U.S. Barack Obama, of course, came and he was very well liked in that part of the world and many others as well. For various reasons, maybe his style, his charm, the contrast from George W. Bush, who had been maybe criticized heavily, maybe his re-adherence to, you know, the multilateral alliance systems, etc. And many, I think, just admired him because he was a smart, articulate, and, you know, here I would distinguish, you know, the U.S. we have a presidential system whereby, unlike the traditional parliamentary democracies in most of Europe, you know, you can't become a leader in Europe unless you've kind of worked through the system and you, you know, have the support of the political establishment. Trump came to office as a, you know, very much an outsider, a one-man operation, you know, of a reality TV, realistic developer. You are not likely to see many European countries elect a leader like that. I mean, there are some variations here and there, maybe a little, that was going on many years in Italy, powerful media mogul. But maybe what I'm getting at here is that the Europeans look at someone like Trump and it's like, the guy doesn't have the first knowledge of public policy, diplomacy, you know, world history. Anytime you deal and interact with other countries, you need to show some of those skills and knowledge to gain trust, to develop credibility. So they will see him as just, you know, a bizarre, you know, well, just negatively. And I'm speaking here more about elites and other governments. But people obviously get informed and let's say, educated people who may not be politicians can also see that too, that he reflects a different type of leadership than what you would typically see. Well, let's talk about the joke factor. There's a joke thing. I mean, at first when he made these outrageous remarks, you know, there's more people at my inauguration than you can count or that. And then he lied a lot and, I mean, it was clear because the press made it clear. They showed it in relief all the time about how he was lying. I can imagine the people in Europe, you know, thought he was a clown. And he did all these clownish things. And frankly, he still does. You know, Brian Greenland, are you kidding me? But you know what? If he is, if he gets by this impeachment process, if he gets a re-elect or somehow stays in office, some people think he's going to wind up staying in office by dint of extrajudicial activities. If he stays in office, it's no longer a joke. It's no longer a clown. And I can see and I've been interested in your thought about it. The people in Europe, for example, who thought he was a clown at the outset, they may not think he's a clown after a while. If he's in there for eight years feeling he's got a mandate to do anything he bloody well wants to do, they're going to see him as a serious expression of America. They're going to think that, well, I guess the Americans, let them stay in there this long. They must really support him. Therefore, we will treat him as the cultural representative, you know, as the moral representative of the country. And we will lose confidence in the thought that the American dream, the American morality, is going to come back. Yeah. I mean, I have no doubt that, and I think the way you placed it as well, because at first, it was a shock not just in the U.S., but to the world that he would come to win partly because of the expectations of Poland, partly because of just the nature of who he is as an individual. Again, I go back to how, at least in Europe, politicians by and large tend to come, you know, and I mean not just the leaders, the prime ministers, and respected presidents are usually people who come in through, you know, I guess based on their expertise and knowledge about government and, you know, these kind of issues. It's very uncommon to see someone like that. Now, that doesn't mean there are, I mean, and it's not possible. And moreover, we have to recognize that Europe doesn't speak with a single voice. There are certainly several places, you know, Viktor Urban in Hungary, the Polish leadership today, even Italy with their current, you know, right wing government that are sympathetic and supportive of Trump and maybe share some of his values and anxieties. So it is, you know, we have to be careful not to say all of you, but certainly when we talk about, and even the United Kingdom, again, a place that has its own current crisis there, you know, there's always been a certain and maybe a small element there that sees Trump when, you know, successful business interests different from the mainstream, but most certainly places like Germany, France, even Spain, we've seen a lot of evidence of a very strong, you know, criticism, a very negative perspective. Now, let's turn for a moment, because again, I can't speak to every corner of the world, but as you know, I'm here in Latin America, and it's a different story here, no doubt, mainly that, you know, the relationship of the U.S. with Latin America has a long history of tension, of U.S. intervention over the last century. And it's a history I want to say that here in Latin America, they know their history. They're more grounded in it. There's maybe a deeper understanding. I won't say appreciation in certain ways there is, but maybe there's just more knowledge of that history. And by contrast, I can assure you if you talked in, you know, interview the average 20, 25, 30-year-old American, they have no clue that the U.S. has a history of, you know, military coups, overthrows, interventions, supporting repressive regimes at other times. Today, the relationship continues to be complex, and maybe it's not as engaging. Latin America is not at the forefront. It's not on the radar. It's, you know, after all the other issues, whether it's Europe, North Korea, Middle East, you know, even China, Latin America kind of gets pushed down to a much lower area of priority. Well, you know, ideally if you go back from a point of view of international relations, Latin America is our neighbor. Latin America is our continental neighbor and presumably our friend. And we have never, you know, post Monroe, we have never really, you know, followed through on that. And so we've treated it as something in the back door. We have not taken care of it. We have done all kinds of silly tricks. I'm remembering Oliver North, you know, and the scandal around him, which was really a scandal around the whole government. And so over, you know, 100 years or so, we've been much, much less, what do you want to call it, kindly to Latin America than we should have been if we wanted to bond up and have a, you know, a strong relationship vis-à-vis the whole world going forward. But, but Carlos, seems clear to me that what Trump has done in the past three years, man-to-man, woman-to-woman, face-to-face, is worse than the U.S. ever did. Because it's racist, because it separates, you know, children from their parents, because it makes all kinds of outrageous statements. It seems to me much worse. And the question I put to you is, doesn't that sort of settle down in the mind of the Latin American and say, gee whiz, I can really learn to hate this guy? There must be a certain amount of enmity about that. Yeah. No, it is. I have to be very clear and, you know, both in the social media that I engage with here, a lot of different chats and groups that I hear from and just following the media, there is a much higher level of anti-American sentiment and just real hatred. And unfortunately, while some of it, yes, is narrowly targeted at Trump, some of it is just this general sweeping, you know, Yankee imperialism, again, drawing on that long history of legacy, sadly, I think for the U.S., because we are not as engaged, we don't see as much engagement, the public diplomacy part is not able to change that. Now, interestingly, and we've talked at different times here about in Mexico, for example, for a very long time, there was no U.S. Ambassador. It took the Trump administration literally two years plus, two and a half years to finally point one. That person has arrived here a few months back, and it's very interesting to see because he is obviously appointed by the president, a conservative businessman, but he is trying very much to sort of get a more human phase, reach out, you know, more of this sort of citizen diplomacy, and he has well received. I want to tell you that overall the impressions I get from Mexicans here is that he's doing his best, he seems like a nice guy, and it's, you know, better to have somebody than nobody. His predecessor, who had been appointed by Obama, was a woman career foreign service officer, Roberta Jackson, and she was very well received as well, knowledgeable of the country. In fact, now I believe she's decided to retire here in Mexico, like a million plus Americans who live here, but I just go back to this. I mean, today I'm seeing a lot more evidence of a very nasty growing, you know, anti-Mexican sentiment, I'm sorry, you know, anti-Trump specifically, and anti-U.S., so it is broader. Moreover, I would just remind us a few months back when we had this dramatic mass shooting in El Paso, Texas, this took notice here, especially in Mexico, because this individual left his, you know, home in the Dallas area and drove to El Paso specifically to target Mexicans, and that was a pretty alarming. It wasn't just some random, you know, killed, you know, anybody or maybe, you know, even religious. This was specifically targeting Latin Americans, Mexicans, Hispanics, and so that was very worrisome, and I think, again, for those who are plugged in and aware of this, we're living in a time of a growing anti-American sentiment, and it will be hard to change that. I mean, maybe a future president may begin that process, but sadly, I want to say at the end, Mexico is so important for the U.S., major, major trading partner, deep, you know, cultural ties, the simple geography that, you know, our economies are so deeply integrated that, you know, there's no option but to engage and cooperate and coordinate, and, you know, that happens, and it's happening, you know, at different levels at the micro and local and state level, but at the top level... We've lost ground. We've lost, the U.S. has lost ground in Mexico, and we'll talk about other places, but what I find interesting is this. So you have a sort of smoldering hatred, if you will, a smoldering anti-American sentiment growing, and people don't forget the things that he's done. We may, on a given day, forget some of the things he's done because he's he's trying to distract us, and history, as you said, is moving so fast, so many changes, but the reality is he's done things that really break with the past, break with decency, and I would imagine the people in Mexico, so far as these things are against Mexico or against Mexicans, they remember. Okay, so the question I put to you, Carlos, is that sounds like it's going to last a long time. People don't get over that right away. They continue to remember. And the question is even, you know, even if another more enlightened president is ultimately elected, and soon, is that going to change this, the damage that has been done? What would that president have to do to change this damage? Because it may not be something you can change right away. Yeah, no, absolutely. I mean, obviously there are things you can do just about engaging, and even the typical diplomatic task of meeting with the counterpart. Traditionally, a new president in Mexico or the U.S., one of their first visits abroad is to engage, and either the U.S. president will meet the Mexican, they'll come here, or they'll even go to the porter, or they'll invite the president to come to a state dinner. These two presidents have never met since they're both in office. Now, when Trump was a candidate, he did visit Mexico with the previous president as a candidate, and that was a very controversial here, very heavily criticized. But since the new president here came into office almost a year ago now, in early December, has not made any effort. Now, part of it is the function of his own. The president here, Lopez Obrador, is very much focused on domestic politics, doesn't have interest in global affairs, has never left the country once. So not just the U.S., he's never even crossed the border of Guatemala. He's gone to the border and met with some leaders there. But so part of it is that, but part of it is that there's a very tense, awkward relationship between the U.S. and Mexican presidents. Earlier this summer, we saw it play out in the drama of holding the U.S. hostage with tariff threats in order to force Mexico to take a harder role on the migration of Central Americans. So if that, if anything, reinforced this asymmetrical relationship, the bully relationship, that the U.S. gets what it wants and Mexico pretty much has to do the dirty work and get on its knees and just move on. I don't think people forget that. Now, you just shift over for a minute to Asia. And Asia means primarily China. So we have this trade war going on. And I don't really call it a trade war. I call it a trade attack. It's a trade attack by this administration. You know, stroke after stroke after stroke. Never really trying to resolve anything. And he hasn't. He's just made it worse. And the farmers in Indiana, they're going bankrupt. So the point though I make is that this has got to filter down to the street. The kind of enmity that Xi Jinping would feel being whipsawed this way on this trade war attack has to change his policies, his way of dealing with the U.S., his way of developing defenses against these attacks. And that has to filter down to the man on the street. In fact, I would say as a matter of policy, he probably wants it to filter down to the man on the street. And now the man on the street, who used to be sort of pro-American, is not so pro-American. Same process, isn't it? Yeah. No, it is. And here, I mean, you did mention China. That's certainly the big player. But I was just right now thinking about a few weeks ago the drama that has unfolding in South Korea, between the U.S. and South Korea, because again, another traditional ally with the U.S. has had strong, has a treaty alliance to defend that country. And most recently, I believe the Trump administration basically rather than possibly announced that they wanted South Korea to now literally pay for all of the military assistance and, you know, not just a 50-100%, but I think a 500% increase, something that, you know, certainly caught the bureaucrats who manage these affairs off guard and scrambling to figure out how to deal with this. All of this, again, continuing this erosion of maybe credibility and trust, which is not easy to rebuild. Because for decades, since literally the 50s, South Korea has been dependent on the U.S., yes, yes, they can afford to pay more, but you don't do it by the strategy of just pulling them and, you know, sending them a check, you know. And so, again, that just underscores another example of an erosion. And while it may be a result of a government-to-government initiative, surely it has to play out in terms of the public perception, the public opinion about, is the U.S. a reliable partner? Will they be there to help us if, you know, something goes bad? And I see that's true again and again in many places, especially with traditional allies like Western Europe, maybe like some of the, you know, the cases of Asia. I would imagine the same for Taiwan, which is a long thought that, well, the U.S. will always be there. Will it or will it just use it as a pawn? Latin America doesn't quite have that same relationship. I mean, while they are partners and allies, I guess, you know, technically, it has always been very asymmetrical and maybe bullying relationship from the North or aggressive interventionist one. But having said that, let me just add this, especially both from Mexico, but this is true maybe of some other places where you have a large diaspora community in the United States. Maybe to put it in a different way, here in Mexico, I will ask people, whether it's in my class or anywhere else, you know, do you have anyone in your family who's in the U.S.? And of course, a very high percentage do. So there's a real people-to-people connection. A cousin who lives there or someone who went to go study in the U.S. does business with the U.S. Mexico, because its geography is so close, means that a very high percentage of people have a connection to the U.S. And while, on one hand, that humanizes it, and there's maybe a positive aspect, at the same time, too, the borders have gotten tighter, the visa policies are under a lot of uncertainty. So there's a nervousness. And it's meant some curious things. In the past, it was much easier to go back and forth. And even for those who might do it illegally, today you have many undocumented workers in the U.S. from Latin America who are having to stay because of the uncertainty and the risk of going back and never being able to come back again. And just the uncertainty and confusion about U.S. immigration policy. You've referred a couple of times to the people-to-people connection. And I think there's a strong people-to-people connection. And with Mexico, other countries in Central South America, and for that matter in Asia and Europe, of course. But if the governments are slugging it out, if the governments are isolating themselves and not cooperating, I suggest to you, Carlos, that that is going to erode, over time, that is going to erode the benefits of the people-to-people connection, because governments are not going to encourage the people-to-people connection. Maybe it'll contraire. But I also just have a reaction to the things you said up to this point, and I want to put it in the form of a poem, okay? Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty back together again. And so, I mean, that's really the essential question. I mean, let's talk about Europe, for example. And I think Humpty has fallen off the wall there. The relationship we had with all these countries after World War II, the greatest generation, all the great connections, lifelong bonds, bonds forever, bonds that we effectively saved the world from Nazism. Those bonds have been stressed and strained in the past three years, where we no longer have the same kind of relationships. Can you talk about it? Yeah, and again, I would want to make sure we understand it's not as if it just came out of nowhere three years ago. It's been going on for some time. The current Trump administration has certainly accelerated it, maybe deepened it, maybe made it worse, I would say. But it is this relative decline of power of the U.S. It is the rise of these other emerging powers and different configurations and global politics. And just in the passage of time, obviously, for the older generation that's right now fading away and dying in Europe, who remember the past, who know the story, the role of the U.S., the younger generation, anybody under 40 today, the U.S. is basically a place of chaos, of intervention in the Middle East, of poor management. And then it's a commonality, let's say, of mass shootings and the rise of racism and white nationalism. So it's a pretty ugly picture, no question about it. Here I would even add, I was thinking as you were describing this people to people, yes, it's important for maybe images and perceptions of the U.S., and to the extent that there are people with those connections, I mean, it gives it a different angle. People maybe who can still evaluate and appreciate what the U.S. is. But here I was thinking separately, look at the U.S. Congress. I mean, we can say there that, for example, the norm of where politicians from different parties used to actually talk to each other, used to share a meal. Today they don't talk to each other. Any of those so-called moderates are gone. And they spend 80% of the time just raising money for their next reelection. So this bipartisan tradition and dialogue, and you will recall, well, I mean, there were previous times where you had political leaders in the Senate or House who, some of their best friends were on the other side of the aisle, so to speak. And yet they managed to, I'm thinking of the old Bob Dole's or the Howard Bakers that we heard a reference today in the hearings about, sadly, that's gone. And the result is we don't have Americans having a common dialogue, even agreeing on the basic narrative. It's a polarization. And that same polarization is happening at the global level as well. Yeah, so that's a critical point. That's a critical point. This divisiveness is actually viral. It's not only the U.S. that affects other people that's catching. And for example, we could have the same kind of device that we are having, the same kind of devices in Europe and Asia. And my last question to you we're running out of time is, how does this play out in terms of the international relations between these countries and the U.S.? We can't assume it's going to stay the way it is or return to the way it was. It's going to be different. How is it going to be different in terms of the conceptual relations and the day-to-day relations? Yeah, yeah, no. I mean, it's a complex, important question, but not a quick and easy answer. I think here on one hand, you're going to have, and maybe I'm trying to distinguish between the government to government formal aspects of diplomacy that are there. And eventually that does change and evolve. It changes with every different administration, whether here or there. And yet, again, because the norms have changed and because everything is like now out in the open and let's say more and more, I can remember the first days of the Trump administration, people trying to figure out, well, how do you deal with them? How do you transact? Now, there's almost like a blueprint or a lesson plan. If you're dealing with Trump, keep it short. Keep it simple. Make sure there's something in it for him. Nothing complicated. So I guess I'm getting at the government to government. People have to adapt. Or you spoke earlier in the program about, wow, now we have to accept it. And here there's a growing, I think, a pretty strong sentiment that Trump will probably be re-elected. After all, he got elected. Why wouldn't he be? And it wouldn't be any surprise. In fact, it would be a surprise that he didn't. And then I want to say maybe at the people, the people of this really depends, because I want to say frankly, to the extent that there is an erosion and that people-to-people connections, it is harder. And the long-term, how this can get better and improve can only happen with more and more of that. It's relevant both to international relations, but it's the same. You can say the same thing about domestic US politics. How many of these, maybe rich, whether you say it's a Donald Trump, a rich billionaire, does he have any close friends who are really not part of that world or similarly a factory worker and wherever? Doesn't have a lot of interaction with people outside of their world. And again, back to that narrative, there was a time, as we know, 20, 30, 40 years ago where we had three major news stations, maybe a fourth on the side. Everybody listened to the same information and there was a dialogue. Today, it's just, no, it's just not there. The information is overload and it's over extreme. Well, no easy answer to any of this. And I think, unfortunately, the legacy is going to be one of constantly having to be vigilant, fighting back. I hope in time we can cut this problem of, I guess, the misinformation, disinformation, and lies that now become the new normal because that's unhealthy. If we have a world where people are not held accountable for blatant misinformation. So again, yourself and your experience in these kind of issues, I mean, how do we do that? There's no single answer. Well, there is an answer, Carlos. The answer is you and I will carve the statue. We will find the statue in the marble and we will discover the answer in continuing conversation about it. Absolutely. Yes. And this program and all of them do that. Exactly. I mean, we're keeping raising public awareness. It can only be done by that, by dialogue and conversation and not closing out. So I want to commend you for the value that Think Tech Hawaii brings to keeping us in dialogue. We don't have to agree on everything. We shouldn't, but we need to at least have a dialogue, a conversation. Amen to that. Thank you, Carlos Juarez. It's always great to talk to you. I look forward to our next conversation. Aloha. Aloha.