 from all the delegates who are here, and I remember telling yesterday that UPU is a strong organization, it has a long history, we have survived two world wars, we have survived the good depressions, and I knew that we had the capacity to be able to overcome any challenge. So colleagues, the happy news I would like to convey this evening here is to tell you that the UPU is as strong as it has always been, nearly 150 or more countries that were gathered today, we have worked hard and long during the last couple of days here in Geneva, sometime in the last night and this morning, but this has been a problem which has been with us for a very long time. So after long and very tiring negotiations last night and today this morning, we were able to really get a critical mass of member countries coming together and making the final decision to come with a compromise, what we call option, we call it option victory, we call it the V option. The V option or the victory for the union, the V stands for victory and victory is for who, it's for the union, it's for membership as well as it's for the citizens of this planet because really there's no other organization that has the capacity, to reach and extend to be able to serve humanity like the University of Costa Rica. Therefore today what I really witnessed is a historical moment, really where we avoided possible exit of one of our member countries and of course many other supporting countries. I can't tell you, it was very intense, very, very, can I say really, the moments really felt that things were really falling apart, but I always kept the faith and the confidence and the knowledge that we always overcome this challenge. So we had a very interesting day yesterday, we had an option called option V, it's called Votion and that really meant if it had gone through then probably half the world would have been supported by this option. So when it fell yesterday, then we fell back to the option which we call C, which was a convergence option which was compared by it was supposed to be here, as far back as it came this year. However the version we came with which is called option V really takes element of all the proposals that are on the table. My international secretariat myself and my team together with the member countries really worked very hard to come up with a compromise proposal which I think at the end of the day what we have witnessed is that every single member country that took the floor, I think more than a program, 67 countries support this morning and this afternoon in support of what we call the victory option that we presented. Therefore, the good news is that we are strong in Russia, of course, to live in, stronger than ever before and it's not one single country that's going to walk out of this place. Certainly like every other our combatants or every other what do you call it, we've shifted their models. We have, we've not got everything we want, but certainly it has kept the union together and for once I think member countries will live this place very satisfied that the union is intact. So that is the news I really wanted to give back to you. I'm very delighted as a Delta General and on my watch I did not want to see this union for a part and I was relieved, I was vindicated and I knew that we had the capacity to be able to do more member countries together and all our initiative for our efforts and many, many months and years of great debate has come to fruition this evening and I'm therefore very, very happy with those results that we have brought this evening. Thank you. Yeah, please go ahead. Let's have a Q&A session. Okay. I'm Jamie. Sir, I understand there's a compromise, but can you give us the details exactly? This is a brand new option. It was not on the table coming in before today to my knowledge. What actually is being decided here? Will the United States be able to self-declare rates right away like they had been hoping to do? Well, there are many, many elements of this things really. It's a very technical thing that probably I will not be able to answer all of this at this point in time. However, what this means is that first of all fundamentally I've changed our pricing policies in the, or rather setting the rent policies for this organization. From now going forward, all member countries agree that self-declare rates will be acceptable more for the United States system of each other. Now the question is, everybody's agreed about that? And that's one of the sticking point that the United States was looking forward to achieve and that was achieved. However, the issue here was that how fast then do we want to achieve that? So we wanted a transition period of about five years to which all countries now will be able to move that final, what we call, self-declare rates. Now, of course, United States wanted to have a, what we call, a dual speed process. And this was a good case that any country, not necessarily United States, any country with certain parameters of threshold, such as 5,000 tons of mail that was made, has the capacity or has the possibility to be able to really self-declare the rates. However, it's not 100% separation. In fact, we have got from tears, and 70% of the domestic taxes, so to say. And then thereon, we can have the VR on VR and then they can be able to really take one person. Oh, sorry. The United States community are saying they wanted to be able to self-declare rates immediately. Is that what's going to happen? What's going to happen is that from July, America can be able to declare July 20, 20 is when they can declare their self-declare rates. That's when it takes. So, for the rest of the worship, I think, it is going to be January 20. Oh, sorry. They backed away from their original position then, right? Sorry. They're not holding the line that they were on coming in, right? They backed away from what they initially demanded. Well, this consultation, this is the negotiations. And certainly, I think that the demand has always been that they want to have a fast July was the date they had expressed themselves. But still, I must say that the United States of America wanted to self-declare rates and not only for them. It is the principle of the supply. And I think that the principle is a good one. Analyze, please. Yes, sir. You said that you thought at one stage it was all going to fall apart. At what point did that change and how much was U.S. flexibility or compromise part of the final solution? Well, I think I will give credit to United States for American delegation to be really had a very strong influence in really the positions that we have here. And we needed them to be there once because they're the ones who put this proposal on the table. However, I must say that I credit those to every state member countries and every country that was part of this effort in this initiative. Really, I will give, I'll say that this was not easy because tough negotiations, people have different options and therefore to bring them together to reach a compromise was not an easy task. But I knew I had the confidence that we were going to pull this together. Of course, the option was not to. It was that we leave this place disappointed and we are not going to get one single in. I think, what was there a point at which you did see the whole thing was on the point of falling apart? Well, certainly, first of all, I think, let me just give you some context to this. I called 4NX, the owner of what's called a converters group under my leadership to deliver on Sunday. Sunday and Monday, we've been working on these things so that I knew, certainly, that the option, which is called option B, which was the five options in active states, and the option A, which is provided by options for other countries who are there, I mean, that the exporters on May will not fly. Therefore, the proposal, or rather the conversation was around option C, which was just a midway between the two different spectrums. So, we worked on that. Also, many barriers and many, what we call, amendments, and that is really the moment where they really brought almost all four countries together, key players in this market, and drawn from different regions, and of course, different levels of economic development. So, we sat in a railway hotel for almost two days. We worked very late in the night, but when we were just this close, we could not agree on certain parameters, and really, that was when everybody would say, no, we can't accept when they walked away. That was, I would say, my lowest moment and I just felt a little bit disappointed. But we never gave up. We came back, and the next day, which was really yesterday, we took the whole entire thing again head-on, and when option B, which was the extreme option, preferred option by the United States, and many other countries called Canada, Brazil, and many others, when that failed yesterday, then what happened is that we had to fall back to what was called option B, which was a competition. But option C was really a challenging option because it had 12 different amendments to it, and therefore, if we had gone into it, it would have taken us probably about 20 days between another time. So what we did really, the work we carried out on Sunday and Monday, is really the option C itself. So we already have covered substantial ground, and therefore, what I decided to offer this morning is that instead of going through the entire thing, we have already gained a lot of support for this, so we just went to those stake issues which you could not agree on, and technically, we went through this with other countries of different views and really worked out what we called diplomatic consultations, I would say, but diplomatic and non-business themselves. I've been trained for some of these things so I knew that we had to work with all these people. And close member countries really saw the agency and the desire to hold it in together. I think wisdom prevailed at the end of the day, and it can't be another... Yes, sir. Stay back to the time newspaper. Two questions. First, what remains from the multilateral system with this option of self-snecleric rates? Second question, what will be the impact on the rates and will there be a short decrease, but will it impact e-commerce? What is the main impact on the multilateral system? Of course, QPU is a multilateral organization, and therefore, what we have found is really the desire to maintain that system, something in a multilateral system. Countries can have difficulties with a specific aspect of business or relationships, but what happened here is that what was going on, first today is the desire to hold a multilateral treaty that has been developed today in Burma. So again, it really is our DNA. The multilateralism is part of the... The second question, I missed again. The impact of the rates on... Okay, fine. Really, of course, any rate revision has impact on customers. It's not all about that. But we are there to see how this will really affect the volumes that are on the system, if you guys can help me be offered here right now. But certainly, in any way, it's going to the United States of America. Of course, if they risk the threshold of 1,500 tons going to that country, they can self-require how we can use them. They will only get the full 100% rates, which means they can't... I mean, impose the tariffs, for example, of 100% domestic tariff in the country. There is a 70% cut, which assumes, then, that this mail has already been processed under... Of course, from other countries, therefore, it cannot treat exactly the domestic tariff. But then, from there on, then they can be able to raise... We are on to see whether they can be able to bridge 80% cut, we put it at 80% cut. So, this is some of the technicalities which you've probably used to get through for you. But the principle behind it is that self-require rate is the future of our remuneration system. We have time for one more question. Gentleman Frantzi. Hello, Osiris News Agency. Does that provision on the 75,000 tons a year introduce a kind of two-speed organization that might be used by other members for other discussions in the future? And gave up the impression that that system, because they did it back from 1969, will it prevail for the next 50 years? No, I think what has happened is that the system, which was there from 1969, will no longer be functional in this country. Fixing that from next year. So, that is already a departure from our remuneration system, for sure. That 75,000 tons is a threshold we set up for a country to be able to invoke this self-require rate. Ten, that is, you have to have that threshold fast. The second thing is that they have to do it. I mean, is either invoke it or not. They don't have to, but if they want to do so, they can do so. But even back then, we have to have then this service called, we can copy it after 80%, after 80%, which means from 70 to the best mine, I'm also, well, one, one, one, one, I'll send it up to the, I'll go up to the personage of 80, for the domestic cut. That way, then, we know that kind of the service is taken, and I'm not saying this. Jamie, one quick question. And then we have to follow up on Stefan's question. Just to follow up on his question, because it's a really important one for my readers. Okay. Will customers, which customers will see rates go up? Will they see higher shipping and delivery costs in their daily lives if they're trying to send or receive mail? Well, what will happen here is that once a country declares the rates, they're sending them to stations or they're exporting countries who have to factor that cost. So it means then that cost will be transferred to the person who's sending that item. And certainly those who are, okay, let me put it this way. When you are in a country and you buy item overseas, the customer, the end customer will definitely have to get a high price because it's not the old price which is really important. So I have no doubt in my mind that the financial impact or rather the impact on the customers globally will do you for the exporting countries as well as the... Okay. That's the end of the press conference with the director general. We have another guest. But first of all, sir, I'd like to escort you out. With a big hand. Good. Okay. Thank you for coming here. Just one year ago when President Donald J. Trump learned that the U.S. postal system was being forced to heavily subsidize the importation of a flood of foreign packages at the expense of American factories and jobs. He said to me in the Oval Office, fix it. Today, a White House-led team working closely with the director general of the Universal Postal Union and a broad coalition of friends and allies within the UPU has more than achieved the president's goal and we have done it in Trump time, which is to say as quickly as possible. At just the third extraordinary congress in UPU history, member countries today approved by unanimous acclamation to adopt a comprehensive set of reforms based on the U.S. proposal. This measure provides the United States with the ability to immediately self-declare its postal rates and thereby cover its costs. This is and was the lynchpin of President Trump's objectives. This agreement will also transform an antiquated discriminatory system into a modern and resilient one, far more prepared to meet the new demands of e-commerce and the increasing challenges of counterfeit goods and drugs such as fentanyl now being pushed like poison through the international mail system. Today's victory was neither easy nor preordained. In fact, the skeptics and there were many said it couldn't be done. However, instead of leaving the UPU as the United States was more than prepared to do, we will leave Geneva having demonstrated a new brand of Trumpian diplomacy. This diplomacy is based on one simple principle. International organizations like the UPU must respect the rights of the United States and serve their members rather than be used as piggy banks by bad-actor countries that seek to bend their rules. Today's outcome is also a huge victory for millions of American workers and businesses that President Trump tirelessly champions every single day. It is both appropriate and not without irony that we achieve this historic victory just a few blocks away from the World Trade Organization and during the week of the United Nations General Assembly meetings. An important signal has been sent. With this new agreement, the United States will remain a member of the UPU. This favorable outcome could not have taken place without two irresistible forces. President Trump's resolute willingness to take on a flawed international system and the strong leadership of U.S. Postmaster General Megan Brennan, Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Dennis Shea, the Department of State's Superb Chief UPU Negotiator Stephen Anderson, and Special Assistant to the President Hunter Morgan. And I want to have you think a little bit about what has happened here. This is a problem that goes back to Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and before that. President Reagan himself expressed deep concern for the market distortions of the UPU. The problem, of course, is that neither Reagan or any president that followed him ever did anything about it. President Trump did this in 11 months. 11 months. That is Trump time. And this could not have been done, really, without working closely with our friends and allies and with the UPU negotiator. Now, what we will do as a practical matter is we will begin our self-declared rates in the end of June of next year. This is exactly what we wanted and had planned for. It won't take place tomorrow because it takes time to get to that point. But immediate self-declared means we do it as quickly as possible on our end. Postmaster General Megan Brennan has prepared for that and we will do that. Now, in terms of the rest of the proposal, with this synthesis proposal, we were able to help our friends and allies get to self-declared rates as well over a slightly longer period of time. So that's important. This is the essence of the multi-speed option. So this was a key portion of this. We have an escalator clause in the mechanism so that under the cost-to-tariff ratio, if it exceeds 70%, which we do not assume it will, but if it is, there's allowed some adjustment just like any contract in any kind of business or government situation would allow for. So that's a good thing. We have a really nice provision to assist the UPU to get to a complete electronic data system, which is critical to monitoring the counterfeit and illicit drugs. So let me stop there and take some questions and I'll try to do my best. I noticed that I think that the Financial Times is not here, but I would like to congratulate the Financial Times for being an important part of this story because they reported it well and I had several op-eds in their paper. The first one, we began this fight a year ago and then just recently coming into this. So yes, sir, and please just identify yourself. You mentioned WTO and Trump in time. Does that mean that the next stage for WTO might be the more precise schedule before a potential withdrawal from the organization? I just say that the United States has a number of issues with WTO. We have a differentiation proposal that we're pushing. We've raised many concerns about the develop body. So reforming the WTO is a big part of our business. I said in my preparatory remarks that an important signal has been sent. It's multiple signals in a way. It basically shows that you can achieve a result with an international organization that actually serves its members rather than punishes some at the expense of others. It also points the way to the ability to come to that kind of result. Yes, sir? Let's try to keep our questions related to universal postal union. No more WTO questions. They are. Paul Needham, CP Research. Paul Needham, CP Research. I write on the postal industry for 15 to 20 years. Two questions. So how do we do? How long has this issue been going on? We did it in what, less than a year? So you'll write a good story then, right? How much are Chinese small packets for the U.S. going to be going up by from next July is the obvious first question. So what is the price increase going to be particularly for the Chinese small packets? So we don't... Second question? Yes. Second question is also, under the terms of this agreement, the U.S. is going to be paying 40 million U.S. dollars over the next five years to the U.P.U. It's what I've been reading. You actually bought this agreement? Oh, that's funny. Okay, so let's do that math, okay? First of all, the money... There's an agreement where 40 million dollars over a five-year period will be used by the U.P.U. So do me a favor. How much is that a year? Quick. How much is it? Eight. Eight, okay. How much do we save a year? By this agreement? You tell me. Did anybody read my op-eds or anything like that? Anybody? Hundreds of millions. Hundreds of millions, good. He gets it, right? Anywhere from 300 million to 500 million dollars in savings and subsidies, over here and then eight million over here a year, which will be used in a large part for what? What would I say we're going to use that money for earlier? Security. Security, thank you. All right, so did we buy the agreement? I think not. Thank you. Now, your first question, I can't give you the details on that, but here's what I can tell you. This is probably a U.S. story, but it's also a story of other countries, and we've seen studies that show the size of the subsidy to the Chinese is very significant depending on how much it weighs. I mean, it can be as much as $10 per packet if it's more towards the 2.2 kilogram side, unless. So there's no question that their rates are going to go up as they should. And the problem we had, a lot of countries, it's not just the China problem, but it's primarily a China problem. We need to be honest about that. And Iceland, during the, it's heartbreaking. Iceland representative, if you were there, said what? They said they went bankrupt because of this, right? There's just so many packages coming in from China and elsewhere under this formal due system. So, yeah, rates are going up. Yeah, we'll buy less Chinese stuff, and we'll buy more stuff from other countries, and we'll make more stuff in America, and the market will be free of distortions. And that's, we call that a hat trick and hockey. What else we got? Yes, sir. Sir, hi, Jamie from Associated Press. I'd like to go back. You mentioned that businesses and workers are going to benefit. Yes, sir. What about consumers in America? You mentioned that if the prices from China are going to go up, there are people going to be paying higher costs for shipping and delivery when they make an order. No, there's nothing for shipping internationally. There's no change in the shipping rates. In fact, the post office will be better profitable from a profitable standpoint. So, there will be no upward pressure on the rates. And remember, when you run a 300 to $500 million loss a year on subsidies, you've got to find that money elsewhere. So, this will actually help keep rates down. But more importantly, it will allow our domestic manufacturers, particularly small retailers and cottage industry types, they won't have to have their product stolen and counterfeited in China and then sent and sold to a destination off of Alibaba at a price less than what they can produce. I mean, that's just crazy stuff. So, this is all good for America. Consumers, workers, entrepreneurs, business is big, business is small. Can I just follow up? Sure. My understanding was you were coming in here hoping to have the self-declared rates taken right away. No, that's absolutely false. That's absolutely false. Never, never. We had a clear understanding that we would start them in July of next year based on information from the first, the Postal Regulatory Commission and then the Postmaster General who we worked with beautifully on this. It just, it takes time. You can't just like put the pill in the water and have it become wine. It takes a while. I'm sorry. Just follow up. Go ahead. There's also my understanding that at some point I know that these self-declared rates were going to come into effect anyway. That's not accurate. That's not accurate. That's not accurate. That's not accurate. If we did nothing, we would never get the world of self-declared rates. We would never, ourselves, get the self-declared rates. We would have some bump ups, but no, that's just false. This is a big deal. It's a big deal for a couple of reasons. One is the U.S. got immediate self-declared rates that saves us a half a billion dollars. It eliminates market distortions. It creates tens of thousands of jobs for America. It also helps our friends and allies in other nations, Norway, Finland, Brazil, who are getting hammered by this situation, allows them in a multi-speed option to get to that path. So if you write a bad story about this, you got your facts wrong. What else you got? Yes, sir. We just heard from Mr. Hussain that there was a point where these talks nearly fell apart, that people basically went and left the meetings that they were having on Monday and it looked as if the whole deal was coming unstuck. What did you walk away from at that point and what was fixed that brought you back together? And secondly, you talked about the electronic system, the electronic screening system. What's the plan for introducing that exactly how? So hold that for a minute. Let's just do the first one. Let's talk about process. So we were on public record in the Financial Times as saying that there were two acceptable options to the United States. One was option B, which was the most disruptive. It would provide self-declared rates immediately to everybody. And then the second most disruptive option, and I use that word in a constructive way, is the option C with the American Amendment, which is the multi-speed option. And then there were the gradations of that all the way down to the bad faith option A, which would have done nothing. So by the rules of the UPO Extraordinary Congress role, you must consider each proposal ranked by most disruptive to least disruptive. So in the op-ed I wrote in the Financial Times, they said there's two acceptable options, option B and the multi-speed option. So we knew, first of all, that we would deal with option B. And that would be first and that was on Tuesday. We knew that that was a tougher challenge in order to get the votes because it had just by count fewer supporters and more opposition. So that's fine. So the good part was that we took care of that on Tuesday. We let option B folks have their say. We fully supported that. But we knew that the next day we would have option C considered. Now, here's what's interesting. That's why I have to salute my friends from the UPU. They did a fantastic job. What Bashir did was convene a group of, I think, about 30-something countries on Sunday and Monday of this week, including my good friend here, Ambassador Shea, who was in every single meeting, every single minute. And the beauty of that, the goal of that process was to get to what we got to today. But we didn't get to that. We almost got to that. But what the process was able to do through Bashir's leadership and the participation of folks like Ambassador Shea was to identify what we disagreed on and what the boundaries of that were. And that was the beauty of that process. And so once you knew what you agreed on, what you disagreed on, and what the range of disagreement was, then you could be within the box of consensus. And so through the efforts of the UPU leadership working with many of the countries that had to come into that majority coalition, they arrived at the result today. And if you noticed what happened today, this session was supposed to start at 9 a.m., right? But no, no, no, no. They wanted more time to work to this. There were technical issues with writing the actual documents, which they did beautifully. There were the politics of talking to the competing parties and bringing them on board. And I think that the realization is that in a large organization such as this or in a large organization such as my Congress, it's very difficult to do a trade agreement, which is effectively what this is, by many, many amendments. You're better off if you can. We have in our Congress what's called fast-track legislations, like comes, you voted up or down. We want our Congress, by the way, to do that with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement tomorrow, or at least within 30 days. But in this case, the brilliance of the leadership here was, okay, here we are. We're in the box. This is what we think the market can bear from a technical and political standpoint. They worked it, so by the time three o'clock rolled around the room, they had disseminated the appropriate information and gotten buy-in from people. And I stress, look, this was not preordained. This was hard work. These gentlemen and our people and many other people were up till three in the morning last night and up at seven this morning, and they did it. So I think it's useful to understand how that worked. I mean, this is a beautiful thing. This is how processes should work when they work well. And we were sufficiently close. And the fact that the U.S. was going to leave the U.P.U. I think played as... President Trump was in the room. And China was part of that 34? Pardon me? China was among the 34 countries? I don't know. Was China part of the 34? Yeah, China was part of the 34. I wasn't part of the... But he's the professional in these matters, Dennis Shea. Okay. If you're in Geneva, if you want to know something about the WTR trade, he's the guy. Yes, sir. Good afternoon. I'd like to ask you, sir, to clarify for our readers who are businessmen, what does this deal mean? If I'm a producer in San Francisco exporting to New York, shipping through the post to New York compared to someone who's shipping from Shanghai to New York. Well, you're not going to ship race cars, right? No, no. Small packages. What's the difference? Does that give a leg up to the domestic manufacturer or service provider? And I've got to follow up. Okay, so the big leg up to American workers and manufacturers is protection from subsidized inbound. Okay? And you can go and look at the press coverage. There's like the Mighty Mug example, but the problem we have is that products, if you try to ship from, say, Chicago to New York, a product that you made in Chicago, your postal rates are far higher than the postal rates from China, and given that it's small parcels and low margins and all of that, there's a lot of cases where you simply can't compete. And if you want to do the analytics from an economics point of view, what happens is low margin manufacturers in America get pushed out of the market and high margin manufacturers get their margins squeezed. And our unemployment goes down, our tax revenues go down, our economic growth rate goes down, right? So that's the primary issue there. You know, if you're exporting in a world where we don't anticipate significant issues there. But let's keep in mind, too, I encounter this problem all the time when we're talking about tariffs and trade and things like that. It's like, won't the consumer pay more? Well, the bigger problem here, besides the heavy subsidies, the postal service, is these broader, longer-term economic impacts. I mean, whether it's Iceland or Norway or Finland or other countries, it's a very corrosive trade model that China practices. It's designed predatory. And there's a lot of predatory things China does. This is just one of them, but it's an important one. What else you got? Yeah. How much time we got? I had a follow-up. I had a follow-up. You mentioned it. Let me do this. Let's see if anybody else in the room is here. So we spread the love here. Anybody else? Okay. Reporters with no questions. I'm amazed. Yes, sir? I just want to ask, sorry. Ben Simon, I work for the AFP News Agency. Do you feel like the United States had to give in at all during this negotiation? Because listening to you talk, it's like a total victory. There was no area where you could... It's a total victory for the UPU and the US. I mean, it's... I think there won't be many times you'll see a result like this. Because I can't think of anywhere... Look, the one thing I regret about this is that the other countries weren't able to self-declare. But that's not our loss. That's the loss of the broader system. But in terms of the US, we got immediate self-declared rates. We got basically what we were pursuing and we were going to work with the UPU going forward on a lot of other good reforms. We built really good will with our friends and allies in the group. We demonstrated that reform within an international organization can take place in a collegial way once people understand that the United States must be respected and that these kind of unfair things that happen, whether it's in the WTO or whether it's in the UPU or the United Nations, wherever it is, it's like, and then that. And that's good for everybody else. So, no, I think... I don't see anybody losing here. I mean, China's certainly going to pay more for the privilege of shipping to our market, but that's a good thing for the market. It's a good thing for the UPU. What else? Hang on. Anybody else before we... Yes, sir. You just said you got immediate self-declared rates. Dude, I heard you. I heard you. I'm talking about... Hang on. Just stop. Just stop. Just stop, okay? Just stop. It's just like... Look, I told you that immediate self-declared rates mean and is always meant to us that we're going to start them at the end of June of next year because that's the quickest time we can do them, okay? I mean, what part of that don't you understand? Okay? You going to ask it once more? Okay? Come on, dude. There's other interesting questions to ask you. No, there's other interesting questions to ask. Okay, go ahead. This will be the last one unless somebody sticks up their hand up. I was interested in your CVL's diplomacy that you highlighted in your introduction. Yes, sir. To what extent has it got that in this very room on December 15, 1993, they gaveled the Uruguay around agreements which didn't capture all these issues that you're mentioning in the following negotiations on... What has this got to do with anything today? The symbolism. They gaveled it in this very room. You know, here's an interesting question because the... Here's the thing, it's like the difference between President Trump and the previous people who have followed him is he actually understands that when you have unfair and non-reciprocal trade rules that hurts America. And if you don't bring that mindset to forums like the WTO, you tend to get bad rules. Here's the last thing I'll leave you. So I'm here for the UPU, but I'm burdened by doing all this other stuff, right? So under the rules of the World Trade Organization, which is just a few blocks from here, other countries around the world can charge America systematically higher tariffs than we charge them for the same or similar products. Let me say that one more time. Under the most favored nation clause of the World Trade Organization, it's perfectly legal under WTO rules for other countries to charge us higher tariffs on the same or similar products than we charge them. How often does that happen? About 66% of the time compared to 20% of the time. And for countries like India, China, they charge us higher tariffs 85 to 90% of the time, right? Now that's insane. And so how does that happen? It happens because the presidents who have preceded President Trump have not had the awareness that trade matters in terms of economic growth, jobs, wages, and other things. So anyway, I love that you're covering this story. I think it's a big story, both on its face and for the larger implications of a better future for UPU and reforming international organizations. And I thank you for your time and patience. And I like Geneva. Thank you very much for coming. Can you sign out a press statement on this, too? You can take it up on our website when we distribute it. I want to send from all the delegates who are here. And I remember telling you yesterday that UPU is a strong organization. It has a long history. We have survived two world wars. We have survived the good depressions. And I knew that we had the capacity to be able to overcome any challenge. So colleagues, the happy news I would like to convey this evening here is to tell you that the UPU is a strong