 Today, we're speaking with Mel Sanderson, who, among other accomplishments, was an American diplomat in the Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for how many years, Mel? Mel, with the Diplomatic Service 3, but I lived in Congo 8 years working for a mining company after I left the government. Okay, so would you consider yourself more knowledgeable than, let's say, the Speaker of the House in Washington on the Congo? Yes. Okay. How about I'm going to up the ante, would you be more knowledgeable than the United States ambassador to the Congo? Yes. Okay, we'll stop there with the comparison. So tell us, Mel, with regard to critical mineral supplies for the United States, what's happening today, July 25, 2023, in the Congo that's going to be a benefit to the United States? Well, I'm going to answer a question from two angles of the tack, Jack. The first is what Washington believes is possible and when. So for instance, we just have this recent piece of legislation that came out of the hill. Quite a substantive document which tackles the issue of the Congo from a variety of directions. This legislation addresses human rights violations. It addresses the presence of United Nations peacekeeping force known as Monoc. It addresses the economic potential of the country. It addresses corruption and how that impedes that economic potential. And it addresses the need for the United States to expand its access to resources in the Congo. Now that's what it addresses. What the bill does is proposes a study by the U.S. Geological Service to identify the types, locations, and to the extent possible, likely quantities of critical materials present in the DRC. It gives the administration three years to complete that study. It also mandates that the United States should withdraw its funding and we are the principal funder for the United Nations peacekeeping mission. And therefore that that mission should withdraw from the Congo by 2024. It addresses the issue of the potential escalation of human rights violations in Eastern Congo if Monoc were to withdraw. By mandating that the administration should examine the possible consequences of potential sanctions against Rwanda or Uganda if they are determined to be instigators of human rights violations. It mandates the State Department to increase the staffing at the embassy in Kinshasa, including with the addition of rare earth expertise in order to be able to better facilitate the entry of U.S. businesses into the Congo in order to secure these minerals for the United States. That's the answer from the Washington side. What Congo expects would be something different. What Congo would expect and want is something that doesn't focus on doing studies and that doesn't focus on moral persuasion, but the focus is on actual money. So for instance, the UAE recently announced that it has reached an agreement with the government of the Congo that it, the UAE, values at around $9 billion for development of the mining sector of the Congo. That's really an interesting announcement because the UAE therefore positions itself to go head to head against the Chinese in the Congo because after all, let's face it. The reality is we talk about China has 85% right now more or less of the world's rare earth production and capability. It's actually higher if they're able to maintain their grip on the DRC. And right now they're well positioned to do that. They may not be popular, but they're spending money. You know, you made me think of something. I'm aware of the UAE's interest in the Congo and the fact is they've been operating there for some time. But it dawned on me just a second that the UAE is a very wealthy, tiny country. OK, and so they in fact would say to the Congo will not only mine, will process, refine, fabricate. We'll even make things here because they don't have any room in their million dollar square inch country to do anything like that, nor do they have the people actually do anything like that. So for them, it's a win-win. And even though I think we might think of them as coming allies of the Chinese, it's my opinion that Middle Easterners are allies of themselves first and foremost. Oh, I 100% agree with that, Jack. I mean, Saudi Arabia and the folks in Dubai, et cetera, had been completely up front and honest in saying that they are focused on building processing facilities for lithium and rare earths. They are clearly interested in transforming away, as the Prince of Saudi Arabia has said, from fossil fuels. And now we've got UAE coming in. And actually everything that you mentioned is in that agreement with the Congolese government. And so there's every incentive for the Congo to embrace the UAE and actually throw the Chinese out because the Congolese have never been fond of the Chinese. They've accepted them because neither the US nor the Europeans have been interested in operating in the country. So they'll throw the Chinese out and they'll hand it as much as necessary to the UAE who is there to spend money. See, this is the problem for the US. We don't want to spend any money in the Congo. We want our businesses to go there based on assurances that Washington is going to make sure that the corruption decreases and that they're not going to be hassled and that everything is going to magically be better for them. But we don't want to spend any money to make it so. One last thing, though, based on your experience and understanding, if Dubai or UAE, for example, becomes the principal investor in the Congo, is that a guarantee of the United States' full benefit? No, in my opinion, it's absolutely the opposite. And it also potentially raises yet another hurdle for the DRC because one of the things it's not widely talked about is that for decades, we have had strong Lebanese presence in the Congo, along with some other countries that have been engaged in illicit mining activities and funneling money to terrorist organizations. OK, thank you very much for that update on the Congo. And for your opinion, which I share, that makes two of us. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mel. Thanks, Jack.