Okay, good morning. We are here today to talk about my favorite subject. I am Sean Donovan, I'm the World Trade Editor for the Financial Times, and I spend my life thinking about trade and globalization, openness, closeness, and so on, and we're here to talk about trade at a crossroads, which feels like the subject of the moment, really. We have had, I think a year ago, if we had had this session, we'd be talking about the future of the Trans-Pacific Partnership or another new initiative at the World Trade Organization. Clearly, things changed a little bit in that election up north in November. Very different message that's come through there. And trade is front and center. Certainly, we're on-based in Washington and here in the region again. So we're here to have what I hope will be a lively discussion about trade. And to really think about where we go to from here. How do we, we've had this sort of upsurge and protectionist rhetoric. How much is that gonna be with us? Overnight, we've had what I think is an amazing moment, the turn for our president, the Republican president who ran as an isolationist and non-interventionist to ordering a bombing of Syria for humanitarian reasons ostensibly. That clearly is a very different change in foreign policy and this is someone who has had a very unique message in terms of trade as well. So we're gonna get going here, very eager to turn this to the audience as we develop the session and as more people join us. But joining me today this morning is Arancia Gonzalez-Laya who is the executive director of the International Trade Center and spends a lot of her time going around the world. I think of it as trying to make trade work. I think that's absolutely right. Maria Claudia Lacouture, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Tourism for Columbia. Thanks for having us. A member of the Pacific Alliance. You're gonna be having a meeting with your colleagues from Mercasur later today, I believe. And we have one of those colleagues from Mercasur over here in Marcos Pérez, Ministry of Foreign Trade and Services for Brazil. Welcome, Marcos. And then we have, of course, I'm gonna think of Jeff McElfresh here as the representative of the future in some ways. Jeffrey is the president of Direct TV Latin America and is a man who cares deeply and is invested deeply in things like data flows and digital future in terms of pay TV and where that goes. So not only the voice of business, but also the voice of the future. No pressure, Jeff. Yeah, no pressure. Why don't we start with you, Maria, if you don't mind. I'll let you finish your water there. Ready. You're ready now. What are we gonna get this, tell us a little bit about this meeting between the Pacific Alliance and Mercasur. These are two very different trade blocks traditionally or ideologically quite different in recent years that it seemed to be coming together and having a very different conversation nowadays. So what are you gonna be talking about? What are you gonna give us? Thank you, Sean. I'm gonna switch for Spanish, so it will be easier. Before I begin, let me give you the context in which we are looking at the movement of trade internationally and within the region. Latin America is a set of countries that have not been used to creating intraragional trade. If you look at the integration of Latin American countries versus EU countries or other regions like Asia, we have quite limited interaction. It's less than 20% among Latin American countries while the EU has almost 70% integration intraraginally. That opens up more opportunities than disadvantages, especially given the current international context from where we are looking at trade relations. Why opportunities? First, because part of the exercise that has become established internationally, which we have called a movement of the tectonic plagues in Colombia, plagues that have been moving at the level of trade in different aspects with uncertainty, with some more protectionist positions, other more flexible ones, which used to be protectionist in the past are currently more protectionistic. Countries that still haven't found solutions to their domestic problems and a number of different connotations that have made countries to move differently and adjust. And in this framework, uncertainty has rolled king. What have we seen in this process? Opportunities for Colombia, opportunities for Latin America, and especially opportunities for the Pacific Alliance. When you look at the scarce integration we developed, that uncertainty that has evolved internationally over the years, where we can see, we can say we've seen strong movement early this year. Colombia, as one of the Pacific Alliance countries, has the opportunity of becoming integrated and has made significant conclusive progress with clear goals in the sense of achieving greater integration within Latin America. We don't see Mercosuras as a totally different group. Actually, part of the exercise we've been doing is we have different products, but at the same time we supplement each other and have equal products. What's the purpose of the Pacific Alliance? The only purpose is strengthening the relationship between four very similar countries, aiming at increasing integration to improve in tri-regional trade, but especially to reach third countries, like Asian countries. That was part of the goal that we are now seeking to strengthen. And we won't strengthen it only among these four countries. When you look at our opportunities and the actions that could be undertaken, definitely the biggest opportunity in this context of tectonic plates moving is how among the four we can negotiate with third countries jointly. Of course, using great efforts to achieve not only trade, but go beyond trade, and it is the trade facilitation process as we have been working through the WTO, but especially through attracting FDI, which has been one of the main successes of the Pacific Alliance. The four countries together have a set of companies that have been investing in the different countries, which has facilitated trade and created greater interrelations between or among the four countries. So, indeed, in this process, what we see are opportunities clearly, and the Pacific Alliance has been working first in its strengthening. Already, we not only have certificates for rules of origin that are equal in the cosmetics industry, there are equal registries among the four countries which facilitates trade. We have customs standardization, which will be completed by 2018, the Authorised Economic Operator System, and a number of other steps. When we look at Mercosur, it has also made inroads. It's called Indira, one of the most recognized programs internationally, which is the standardization of customs practices, and part of the exercise is how we can exchange and cooperate further between Mercosur and the countries of the Pacific Alliance. Is integration necessary? It is. We need to search beyond trade and move into the field of investments. If there's investment, there is trade as a result and practices among the four countries. The vision there of almost turning to a single Latin American trade bloc, really, that will then start negotiating with the outside world and so on. Brazil, you loom so large over Latin America as the largest economy in Latin America. Is that the vision that you share in Brazil and in Mercosur? No doubt. Good morning, and thank you. Before I answer your specific question, it's important to mention something we are working on currently. Two days ago, we had the first meeting of Ministers of Trade and Industry of Mercosur. Mercosur has existed for 25 years now, and we have only had our first ministerial meeting, which was proposed by me. And we are realigning our countries. It's important to highlight among all the countries in Mercosur, and you are all aware here that Mercosur had been closed up. And now we are looking for alignments so that Mercosur opens up. Evidently, there are issues that are more sensitive than others. This meeting we will have today between trade ministers of Mercosur countries and foreign affairs ministers and their counterparts from the Pacific Alliance countries will also serve to send the world a message. We need to become more liberalized, more open. We must do trade unless we have more trade and attract investment as a result. Everybody loses in this juncture after the American election, after the exiting from the UK, from Europe, the process of which has already started, elections in France and Germany this year, where we don't know what the outcome will be. We need to re-signify and inject more oxygen into Mercosur and no doubt this conversation we will start today with the Pacific Alliance will be essential in sending a message not only to Latin America but to the world at large. I believe this will be the main gain from today's meeting and to conclude, we have four important topics that we will be addressing at the outset and then delegate on the negotiators. Let me just quote two or three. Trade facilitation, SMEs. We also want to discuss e-commerce. We need to discuss that. All of these topics will be in the agenda of the ministerial meeting and I don't want to speak ahead of the discussion but they will be there in the agenda of the WTO meeting in Buenos Aires. So this alignment in my opinion and to conclude comes to meet the trade facilitation agreement which we celebrate in Mercosur which was signed last February and this provides a counterpart to increased protectionism which is evident around the world. Because I think of you as one of the wise minds of global trade nowadays. So no pressure there. You've been around trade for a long time both at the European Commission level, at the WTO level now in the work that you do where you interact with a lot of less developed countries and emerging economies. I really, I wonder we've got this, both of you are sending a message that you're open for trade, you're keen to integrate, you want to negotiate new deals with third countries outside of this brand new Merco Alliance trade block that we're moving towards. And yet we have, you know, where I live in Washington, the conversation is very different nowadays. It's about attacking bilateral trade deficits and so on. Where I used to live in the UK, it's about how do we save our trade relationships but clearly there's a move away from the world's biggest trade block. We're at this astonishing moment and we need to remind ourselves every so often. So you've been around for a while. How does this look to you and how do you move beyond it? Well, I see a huge discrepancy between what trade is in the 21st century and trade is essentially today an accumulation of tasks. Not necessarily all produced in one factory, in one country, but an accumulation of tasks. Along value chains with a huge component of these value chains being in digital trade with a huge part of these value chains being in the services economy, meaning in intangibles. So it's not just cars and steel and textiles which is also the case. But it's also about telecommunication services, designers sending their designs online, medical services offered online. This is trade in the 21st century. As this is happening on the ground, the rules of trade were made in the 20th century and the narrative of trade is a stack in the 19th century. So we've got a problem, a very serious problem of narrative today and a discrepancy between what we think trade is and what trade is in reality on the ground. Let me give you an example. We keep talking about exports, whereas what matters is not just exports, it's trade, it's exports and imports because more than 50% of your exports are in reality imports that have been transformed at home. We keep talking about multinationals, whereas 95% of businesses in any country is the small and medium enterprises as we just heard from the minister. And we know that for them trade is huge because that's how they regain competitiveness. We think of a man trading whereas there is a huge she trades community out there. We talk a lot about trade deficits and we don't talk about what matters which is value addition and competitiveness at home. So I think we have to make a huge effort at recasting the narrative of trade and we need to urgently do that because we need to give an explanation to those who are seeing the benefits of trade not being properly or equitably distributed at home. And that is something that is... And I was gonna say that's absolutely, one of the ironies of what we've seen in terms of Donald Trump and an increase in protections rhetoric is that it has actually, it's enabled the other side, the advocates of free trade to speak much more freely in some ways. I mean, I have not seen a European commissioner speak more or push the idea of free trade more than to see the mouse room, talk about a progressive agenda for free trade, Justin Trudeau in Canada doing the same. But you get at that, I mean, that crucial question of that device that we all rely on and so on. I used it the other day to listen to a baseball game back in the US sitting in my hotel room here, the right team won and thanks to a Venezuelan catcher. And I thought that was a wonderful symbol of kind of globalization today in some ways. Jeff, you're the man from the future. Do you share this view of trade? I mean, you said as we were getting ready for this, you said, I don't know very much about trade policy, but you clearly, you're here and it's on your mind in a big way. Yeah, no, certainly. I mean, the digital economy and what that facilitates in terms of productivity and growth for a population in a country is directly proportionate to how open the environment is for members of that society to achieve new opportunities, access to new markets. I think the internet has proven that time and time again. I could not agree more with the three panelists. I'm very encouraged to hear that in Latin America we have the potential of working together as one unit to help tackle some of the most difficult challenges that we have faced independently. We are here, we have to grow our presence in the world together, we are stronger. And I see this from a customer's point of view. We connect lots of multinationals around Latin America as AT&T, but we also serve millions of local consumers. And in the pay TV business, for example, what I believe is watching TV, what I grew up watching or listening to the radio was over a radio set, not over the internet. Where was that signal streamed from your Red Sox game? God knows. Yeah, God knows exactly right. Who knows where the border is in the internet? But what we do know is that consumers desire more of that. Small businesses need access to that. And I think that echoes your point beautifully. That the policies and the frameworks that we have to work on for the future need to include the digital economy as a cornerstone. That's where business is headed. That's where our economies are headed. And I believe that all countries in Latin America share that vision. And I encourage each country to work closely together to help create something that is seamless. When you have consistency and harmony in a trade policy or a regulatory framework, investment flows into the region with cooperation among countries, it flourishes. It's like the cycles of the engine that keep helping the economy grow. Maria, I want to come to you because you have a background in marketing as well. And we've heard about the need to change the narrative on trade. And marketers have a big role in this. How do you sell free trade, which is now, again, where I'm living now, is almost a dirty word? It's not a recitize. When you are selling and in marketing, the important thing is to establish the added value of the product versus other products internationally speaking. That's part of marketing to make visible what I am selling and what the value added is. What is the result? What actions can that product cause in a seller? An exercise in trade is first that we have not achieved, and I think this is an important point to be looked at by all countries. We should all understand that trade boosts social inclusion. Trade generates the process of improvement and good practices. And trade is a way to distribute risks, the sales risks of a product, a company, or a country. When we have a market like Colombia and we have found it difficult in our country to get entrepreneurs, importers, but to rather join the value chain and sell surpluses, which is what is currently sold, all this is quite a difficult product. It's difficult to find the added value, the benefit that the business is generating internationally, not only for businessmen or entrepreneurs, but for the country as well. But there has been progress. I don't think this is something we have been able to establish. This is, one of the main processes is, in fact, if we are able to generate trade, and no sales of surpluses, this will make the movement of international prices and of commodities better. And in fact, our basket or our sales of raw materials are about 65%. So the first thing is, how can you get people to see that value so that if we advance towards added value and we make those products evolve, the companies and the countries grow further. An example we always set in part of the sales, which is interesting, is through examples. Today, Colombia is one of the great exporters and traders of bananas worldwide. Everybody knows our products, but we have got stuck there. And international trends are consuming banana meal, the substitute of sugar or of gluten with values allowing for greater support. What are we doing? Looking to company businessmen so that they see that opportunity so that they realize that they might get an added value from bananas through banana meal, which would make the risk far more balanced. How do we market this? It's not easy. Part of the exercise is to see that transformation and part of the exercise is to see how, at the time of going from bananas to selling banana meal, which will be difficult, he or she will have higher income, generate more jobs and feel more resistant to international movements. This has been the process that we are working on internally in Colombia, marketing the importance of trade and additionally, rather the importance, the opportunities it provides for constant growth which will give more equity to the country. Trade, so much of the conversation in trade today gets caught up in also national and national pride. In the US, Donald Trump, and I apologize for keeping coming back to the new president up there, but he's sort of inescapable. But this idea of economic nationalism has really taken off in the US. A by American, made in America campaign, a sense of national pride, it's hard to turn on the TV without seeing during the advertising breaks a lot of flags waving nowadays. But that has also been a feature of trade in other places. Brazil, you have a very strong national identity as well. In the past, you have had a slightly more inward looking, shall we say, a trade policy, a sense of wanting to build national champions and so on. So how, as we think about this new narrative in terms of trade, how do you reconcile that with this idea and this past in terms of nationalism and national identity as you kind of integrate regionally and internationally? It was a timely question because, in fact, Brazil had been closed for a long time. There used to be an agenda for the Brazilian industry and productive sector, which was contrary to opening up the market. It was stated in the agenda of the national confederation of industry. Now recently, things have started to change and one of the steps taken by the national confederation of industry in Brazil that is precisely the opening up of the country and the negotiation of free trade agreements. Every week, I receive representatives from associations of follow-up at the ministry, at my office, and I receive requests. Minister, are we going to make progress on an agreement with Colombia, for example? Are we going to make any progress on an agreement with Peru? So currently, there is a request and beyond a request, pressure from Brazilian industrialists that used to be closed in the past because they understood that that was not competitive. It's true that the competitiveness of the Brazilian industry is currently far from what it could be because of the so-called Brazilian cost. Brazilian costs that are too high. Now, since we took off this last year, this new administration is implementing deep reforms to Brazilian legislation providing further legal certainty and predictability. Two weeks ago, for instance, we have adopted and President Temer approved the law for outsourcing, a law that grants further transparency and certainty to the topic of outsourcing, which used to be a dilemma. Jeffrey, who has a large operation in Brazil, knows about this and recognizes the importance of this law to improve the business environment and the Brazilian productive sector. And consequently, increased competitiveness, which puts us in a position of speaking more freely about free trade and world trade, global trade. And I would like to link into what you have just said. Much is said about free trade currently, whether market operators are speaking more openly, more vocally, that's true. I can bear witness to that. In June last year, I attended the G20 meeting in Shanghai and met a rancher there and at a bilateral meeting, for example, with Susanna Mauster, trade commissioner from the EU. We, Cecilia Mauster, we perceive the EU is willing and last January in Davos at the World Economic Forum, I met Cecilia again and I think I heard her say something different and I agree with you, Europeans are more open and vocal on this, but more important than saying is doing. I have some data here. The World Trade Organization points out that from the one thing that the EU had from the 1523 restrictive measures on trade that were reported to the WTO from G20 countries since 2008, only 387 had been implemented until May last year. There are more than 1,200 measures still effective. So in Brazil, we have instructed our negotiating team to take action because that's more effective than speaking to expedite things and boost negotiations. That is why I would like to conclude by saying that we have agreed Susanna or Cecilia, Susanna Malcora and Cecilia Mauster agreed in Davos that we are going to boost the Mercosur EU negotiation to the fullest extent possible so that by December before the ministerial meeting of the WTO, we can and that's our will and we've seen it in the negotiation round that took place in Buenos Aires last March. We wish to use every effort so that by December we can announce at least at the political level that the EU Mercosur agreement is a fact. Evidently, you will have to continue working or technicians will have to continue working next year but at least at the political level the EU Mercosur agreement will be announced by year end hopefully and that in itself will be a significant step forward because this agreement had been negotiated since 1999 with a certain interruptions evidently but now I have the feeling it has become reinvigorated. I'm optimistic by nature. It started. So we've got 18 years of trade negotiations almost as long as the Doha round or actually it's longer than the Doha round. It's longer. Longer than the Doha round. But this gets into a little bit, I mean one of these questions that I keep thinking about which is the mismatch between the time it takes to do these deals and political reality and political cycles which seems hugely important. I mean the TPP actually in hindsight was done relatively quickly. CETA, the Canadian EU deal took almost a decade to negotiate it. The WTO negotiated the Doha round for a long time and got nowhere. A lot of texts were written but nothing really taken home there. And this gets into this question of the system and whether it works. And whether it works for business, whether it works for consumers, whether it works to keep up. You talk about 20th century rules for a 21st century economy or 19th century rules in some cases. And now we've got one of the leading actors in that system talking about blowing up that system in some ways, the focus on bilateral deals that they want to do quickly instead of multilateral deals. A suspicion of the WTO and its role in terms of dispute settlement. You're there in Geneva. How do we navigate this? Do we need to blow up the system? How do you change the system? It seems to me to be a crucial question. It is true. You just said it. Trade negotiations may take a long time whether they are in WTO or whether they are outside the WTO and the EU of Mont-Cousins is a good example. This is not in the WTO. This is only with a handful of countries and still it takes a long time. And it takes a long time because economic realities, political realities, topics, expectations, sometimes are difficult to manage. In the WTO, you multiply this exponentially because it is 160 countries that have to agree on a set of rules. And these rules are like anywhere else in the international system are subject to a dispute settlement that is binding on the parties. Now, this is a huge step forward in managing global issues. And I want to now make a clear defense of multilateralism because it is very questionable. But it's only questionable when people lose. It's not questionable when people win. And frankly, 99% of the time... But that's true of sport. That's true of politics. Absolutely.  WTO is the only place in this planet where Minister Pereira can challenge China and win against China and get China to change its policies. Where the digital industry in the United States can challenge Japan, win that case, and get Japan to change the rules. Now, of course, if Japan loses once, Japan is going to say, oh, gosh, this game is rigged. No system is rigged. It's playing against me. But it's not going to say that the 99 times that it won that case. So we got to be careful that the system that has allowed all of us to manage a huge transformation of our economy, so multiplication of GDP, exiting one billion people out of poverty in the last 20 years. Let's not forget, that is that system. So we got to be very careful that we don't throw that system out of the window lightly. Now, the system was last updated in a big way in the 20th century. Minor adjustment recently with the WTO agreement on trade facilitation. I say minor, but in economic terms, is the equivalent of cutting 10% your costs of trade. 10% of the value of trade now all of a sudden is reduced thanks to that agreement. So ask companies what they think of that agreement. Big progress, took a long time. Okay, let's look at where else in the international trading system we need to improve existing rules so that they adapt better to the economic realities of today's world. Let's adapt and adjust the system rather than throwing the system out of the window who would be in nobody's interest. Frankly, I'm not sure I see whose interest it would be to throw the system away. Adjusting, yes. Reforming, yes. Making it work for everybody, yes. Destroying it, no. I mean, no sense. Maria, is, I mean, does the WTO work for Columbia? Is there anything? I was looking at the numbers and when we see how much it can increase through this trade facilitation at WTO, it's almost 30% in Latin America and the Caribbean. If we apply the facilitation processes of WTO, that is significant. But I want to go back to the question you asked me previously, the question of marketing. We have given more importance to policy than to, or to politics and to trade. And within the process, what we are building in international trade as an investment or what the general definition of trade is, politics are above the practicality of the business. And this leads us to the process which we have required and have, we have to carry on looking for that, updating so as to get the practicality of trade go beyond politics in each country. When we look at WTO and we look at trade facilitation, there are very good tools to improve trade among different countries as well as independent trade in the region. But this is transferred to policies which are not clearly established like non-tariff barriers, part of the exercise. And what we have to clean up is, as we say in Colombia, leave the cart aside and turn it into something practical, turn it into something more adjusted or adequate for trade and less established within a political rhetoric which won't allow us to go ahead. For example, in Colombia now we are undergoing a process of trying to remove all non-tariff barriers so that it's easier to export. We have found more than 2,500 TBTs which existed very small ones like a form which differed depending on the sector when ultimately what we want is to have a form to carry out that export regardless of the product itself and have fewer regulations with product definitions so that we can group everything into one single form, but part of the exercise and part of what we have to do in trade both regionally, interregionally and internationally is that the politics come down a little so that trade and practical relations go up a step. This is a huge, the marriage of politics and the relationship with politics is something that I think we often try in the trade community, we often ignore and the last year has taught us that you can't ignore it and I think that's an important lesson there. But for business as well, I mean the system, the WTO, someone who helped negotiate NAFTA the other day told me how long it took them to negotiate NAFTA. Seven months, and that is arguably one of the most successful trade agreements in the world, Donald Trump disagrees, but arguably one of the, I would say, more successful for business, from a business perspective. But 20 years on, 25 years on, does this trade policies, does the system, does the WTO work for business? As a way of example, in my industry, I remember a day when there was no iPhone. I remember a day when we would invest in a country, we would build a cellular network and we would carry cell phone calls. I remember the day when text messaging began and we all do because most of us come from that era. The business today on a wireless network is predominantly video. Consumption on that network is dominated by video and it is growing at a pace that no economist or any planner ever projected it would grow. The demand for consumption of entertainment or content is a marvelous thing. It's a beautiful thing. What does that have to do with a trade agreement? When we set policies in place that focus on a specific kind of product, that policy at one point in time in the future is going to be outdated. We are encouraged to have the opportunity to update NAFTA. It is 20 years old, it has been very successful. NAFTA needs to include areas and items to address the digital economy and the free flow of data because this is what the industries are moving towards. Frameworks like this are sometimes hard to define and many times folks will focus more on the technology to speak about specific solutions that they will or will not allow when in fact a year from now that technology is outdated and something new has come in. And so this concept of taking seven months or 10 years to negotiate a trade agreement is just going to make everyone in the world behind the time. Technology is going to evolve, consumer demand is going to evolve, the need for the free flow of data to accelerate the digital economy is going to force us, and this is hard work, but it's going to force all of us to find the right guiding principles in our trade agreements so we don't lock ourselves out of the technology evolution, we don't lock ourselves out of the digital economy, and who knows what the future holds, but we know it's going to change, and that's what I would say is really important as we set forth to renegotiate. So you're talking about needing to set forth broad principles like openness, free flow of data, what would be some of the other ones that you'd like to see? Yeah, I would like for the regulatory frameworks locally, because you want to make the trade agreements open the market, and then obviously, as countries, we want foreign direct investment to build jobs and to create infrastructure that helps catalyze that system, and so the allowance of foreign direct investment, 100% of foreign direct investment, the free flow of data across borders, no definition specifically on a type of technology that should be used, those are the kind of the pitfalls I would avoid. Tron, I... Sure. A very important point being mentioned here is the need to improve trade agreements, which is constant. Colombia is deepening a trade agreement right now with Argentina and Brazil. The fact that the United States says I want to improve my trade agreement is another chance, it's an opportunity rather than a disadvantage, and it's part of getting that trade policy, instead of a government policy, becomes something more active rather than leave it as it was, or the deepest point there is the improvement of agreement, the central point, but nowadays, trade agreements that Colombia has have also the need to improve because they don't include all electronic trade, all electronic tools, these are not included in many of our trade agreements, which is why we are looking to improve these agreements so that they become more beneficial for both parties. This is an important process, an important point within this process. When a person, like President Trump says, I'm going to renegotiate NAFTA, one feels fear, obviously, because it's more of an ideal than a question of politics or policies, but from the point of view of Colombia, from the year 2010, we have improved our trade agreements to have platforms that are more useful for businessmen. There, we have two positions, which are to renegotiate an agreement is something positive. The problem is when politics and idealism take part in the trade policy. President Trump says he's going to renegotiate that trade deal. He says, because that trade deal has hurt us here in America. I mean, and I think that's the point that he comes from. That's politics. And that's politics. That's politics. That's about 80,000 votes in three states that got him over the hurdle and got him into the White House and so on. But that is also about something that I think we've come to recognize in the last year, and that is that people do sometimes get hurt in trade. And as economies evolve and as they change, and that perhaps governments haven't done enough to address that pain and to resolve the politics. Aranya, you're... Yeah, I mean, first, let's unpack people get hurt by trade. People get hurt by what we call globalization, which bundles together technological progress, openness, trade, investment, and progress in general. If you look at very brainy studies that have been done in the U.S. for every five jobs, lost, one was to trade, four to technology. Technology will continue. It's much forward. I mean, I'm speaking on the authority of Jeffrey who knows much more about technology than I do. But when I hear that in the U.S. in the next 10 years, for example, 40 to 80% of the 8 million truck drivers may lose their jobs. Absolutely. 40 to 80% of the 4 million cashiers would lose their jobs as a result of technology. I think the question is not to shut trade and pretend that this is going to keep the jobs in America. The problem is a different one, and the solution is a different one. The solution is in strengthening the domestic policies, the domestic agenda in education, in skills, in healthcare, in soft and hard infrastructure that will help people, empowering the people to move as technology moves. And this is where I am afraid in many countries of this world, including the one you know best, they are not doing enough of a job. And this is where I think this discussion needs to be moved into, because if we keep it on trade barriers, we run the risk that we are going to kill a source of growth that is going to help us generate the revenues to accompany the transformation. Marcus. I received many times the question about Donald Trump. When President Trump was elected, and especially the day before he took office, many people asked me what the effect Donald Trump could cause on the world economy was, especially by virtue of the several announcements he had made about NAFTA and the TPP. And I said, a president can do so much. And we need to underscore that. He can do many things, but he can do so much, especially in a consolidated democracy where institutions are strong and work quite pragmatically as in the U.S. Now, it's important, and moving on to the topic, you were just discussing technology. This issue of technology is of great concern for us in terms of employment or job creation. There are a couple of things we are doing in Brazil currently. We are signing agreements with universities to create new courses, because our university courses are also from last century. So we need to design new syllabuses adjusted to the current era of technology, where there is very fast digital progress. Jeffrey mentioned iPhones. 10 years ago, we didn't even have any iPhones. We have several different releases or versions that have come out since. So we need to understand this. And as Arancha said, let's empower people. When we empower people, they feel they own the process. And then politics will be diminished because politicians need to serve societies. They need to serve their peoples rather than serving themselves and their political lobbies. The interests need to be those of their populations. We need to be aware of that. And I think, and we've discussed this earlier at the WEF here, I received many times the same question as to whether President Macri in Argentina and President Temer in Brazil will manage to pull through their reforms. And there was a general strike yesterday, and I think they will, because most of the society wants that. And it cannot be only 80,000 like in the US. There are internal issues they need to discuss there. In Brazil, currently, we are discussing a political reform, for example. Brazil has 35 political parties, 26 of which are represented at the National Congress. It's ridiculous. One cannot manage a country the size of Brazil with the size of 26 different states, 26 different accents and cultures represented by 26 political parties in Congress. We are currently discussing that because society has already indicated they want a change and they will achieve it. That idea of getting to a place where people feel empowered by trade rather than threatened by trade seems to be absolutely crucial. But also that idea of dealing with the internal complexities. I mean, 26 provinces with 26 accents, you said, well, 27 countries in the EU with, well, 28 minus one soon. Yeah, we want to open it up to the floor quickly. We have about 10 minutes left.  I'll ask you to introduce yourself and I'll also ask you not to give any speeches. You can do those over coffee later on. But, so let's ask a question to the panel and just let me know who you're directing it to. So, any behind me? Any questions in the audience? All right, straight back there in there. Thank you. Thank you very much. Stefan Flicky from Switzerland, Foreign Affairs. I'm taking the floor, not from coming from a country that is European, but from a country that is small because I think the discussion on WTO and World Trade is particularly interesting for small countries and you're quite scared, actually, at the moment at what is happening. Once your export quota is 50%, it's a no-brainer.  Now, what really scary is that now the discussion about the future of trade is in the G20, which is the large countries whose export quota are actually quite low. And so I'm very encouraged by what I'm hearing. I have, you know, more or less three problems. One is that it seems that in rooms like this we always agree that economics are trumped over politics but the communication does not get through anymore. There was a meeting at the OECD just about that communication problem. And I just wonder how, you know, if this is a branding issue, not second thing. And Geneva, I'm not sure if some of the staff should be exchanged because the old trade negotiators were tariff guys. But here we're talking about completely new issues like video medical services, 3D printers that will completely change the game. And yeah, that's it. I'll stop there. Now look, I think that issue of communication is fascinating and I'll be at the OECD in Paris in a couple of weeks to talk about exactly this. But I think, you know, the corollary or the flip side of Donald Trump is that he has set off this conversation about trade within the United States. One great example sticks out in my mind. There was a moment a few weeks ago when Sean Spicer stood up on Air Force One and said, and it was at a time when there was a big discussion about how you're gonna pay for the wall with Mexico. And he said, ah, we found this thing with 20% import tax. And he was talking about a proposal that was working its way through Congress. We're gonna use that to pay for the wall and that's how Mexico will pay for the wall. And immediately, the reaction from the reporters on the plane was, wait, hang on a second, that's not Mexico paying, that's US consumers paying. And then very quickly, Lindsey Graham, the senator, tweeted out a wonderful thing that demolished it and I probably killed this idea forever. He tweeted out, anything that raises the price of beer, tequila, or margaritas is a terrible idea, mucho sad. Within days, within days of this, we had, this happened I think on a Friday or a Thursday or a Friday. That entire weekend was consumed by discussions of the supply chain for avocados into the United States and about guacamole. Then you go into the Super Bowl, so this was in January, you go into the Super Bowl. And one of the biggest advertisers during the Super Bowl was avocados from Mexico. Doing these fantastic advertising campaigns. So the communications in some ways, there's a push, but there's always a push back in a way and I think we're starting to see that. And I've monopolized that time, or ancha. I mean, I think first on communication, it has to be more grounded on what people can understand. My test, I've been in the business of communicating since I was a spokeswoman for a commission of a trade, was my mother had to understand my message. If my mother could not understand it, it did not pass master. And this was as important. Now my mother at the time could not retweets because there was no Twitter, but it's tweets, it's Facebook, it's press releases, for those that still do this, it's engaging with communities, it's YouTubes, your mothers and fathers have to be able to understand it. Second rule, it has to be grounded in reality. It's not, communication is not propaganda. If it's not grounded on reality. If we are not doing something to change the realities of the millions of people for whom trade is not working because trade is not being redistributed to them. And again, this is not with trade policies or with trade policy makers is good or bad. They are in Geneva versus with other policies and ministries at home. But just to be clear, I mean, at the WTO, they're having a conversation about whether to have a conversation about e-commerce right now. I mean, it's not, we're not getting into nitty gritty discussions of setting down rules for e-commerce. And I think that's telling in a way. I mean, they're a long way from talking about free data flows at the WTO. Exactly. You gonna jump in? No? No, one of the, one of las cosas importantes dentro de todo el tema. One of the important things relative to communication and the advantages of showing the importance of trade is, and I agree with Arancha, in that governments need to build a level playing field. And we haven't been good enough at doing that. Trade has moved forward much faster than the internal processes of creating level playing fields. And part of the exercise of communication is showing that reality. Now, the problem is reality is not totally real at the time of trade. We've had for many years. And that raised many difficulties in creating communications. Within that level playing field in trade, many actions play against it. Elicit trade, for instance, nobody speaks about that. And it's been, and there is an increasing need to establish rules, regulations among the countries to counter illicit trade. That's not openly discussed in the WTO. And those are the communication issues that build trust among consumers and citizens of the different countries relative to trade. Regardless of whether we can build a living playing field for the countries that are receiving products or services and exporters, if there is a notion that governments are looking for a level playing field that would raise or boost trust. And part of that exercise is putting out straightforward communications and speaking about illicit trade, under invoicing, technical smuggling or contraband, and all the actions that are not being put on the table now. Rather, we're trying to create communication on things that consumers don't see. In the room, right here. So I'm Magnus Schultz. I come from Sweden, another little European country. But with the small difference of being a member of the European Union. Just to echo what you have said on Cecilia Malmström being a Swede and having met her team in Brussels last week, they are very enthusiastic about having this progress made this year. And I think I'm here also to communicate a new narrative about Europe. That's actually the future. The single market of Europe is the best free trade agreement you have on Earth, better than after. But of course now, Europe will also start to negotiate in speedy terms, hopefully Japan and Mercosur and so forth. So this is a positive story coming out of Europe. I'm representing the Wallenberg Group, which is the leading banking and industrial group in Sweden. We have the second biggest industrial city, a Swedish industrial city is in Sao Paulo in Brazil. Just to say that we have a lot of multinational companies who are big outside. My question to you, this group, is that what we see is actually causing a lot of inertia when we want to expand our businesses abroad and making them so good that they can export. We don't go to Brazil only for the Brazilian market. We want to create companies in Brazil that would be able to export. We see some inertia actually from the domestic Brazilian companies who are not really used to that type of thinking. And I assume this goes a lot for the other countries as well. But again, we are mostly present in Brazil, hopefully we soon come to Argentina. But this is my question. How to tackle internally the conservative forces, if I may call that. That's a really interesting point as well because Jeff Emolt gave a speech in May last year that I think was one of the most important given last year. And he talked about a shift from globalization to localization as a strategy for GE and which was a frightening thing for... And he admitted it as a globalist, as someone who took advantage of globalization for a company that had taken advantage of globalization to shift this strategy was huge. But you're talking about a different model to having those local arms then export out again. So it's the localization of globalization in some ways. Thank you. On Monday, personally, I participated with President Temer, the governor of São Paulo, of a welcome dinner to the king and queen of Sweden. There we have a mechanism of dialogue between Swedish and Brazilian business people. And I noticed it was a highly productive seminar that took place there. We have more than 250 Swedish companies in Brazil. And evidently, those investments are capital flows which are always welcome. Sometimes Brazilians feel threatened, but it's impossible to prevent this from happening, especially when we want to raise the Brazilian economy once again. Today, this year, we've been the seventh, we've been the seventh economy, and we are using a huge effort to go back to being seventh or perhaps sixth in the world. And as a result, we need to open up our market and provide more security to foreign companies like DirectV, your company, and many others from around the world which operate in Brazil. It's important that the economy that takes place in the country creates jobs, and we need to create quality jobs. And hence, these things can be minimized when you show the benefit that a foreign company like yours and G or Jeffery's company bring to the country. And you can prove that that's higher than the competitiveness or competition with others. I think you can progress that. Unfortunately, we've run out of time for this session. Thank you. Thank you so much. If you can join me in thanking our panelists here. And enjoy the rest of the day.


Should police officers live in the neighborhoods that they police, why or why not? Wow, that's a good question. Um, no, they should not. Um, I did in my first, in my beginnings, but I stayed across, I lived across the street from a woman who was a prostitute. Her son was a gang member and he would break into homes and break into cars. He knew I lived across from him and I would see her bring John's in the house all the time. We had an, we had an, we had an understanding and a respect. He knew who I was. I knew who he was. He wasn't going to do dirt in the neighborhood. He did all his dirt outside, but the uncomfortable thing was he knew where I lived at. Hmm. Right. He knew, you know, there are nights I would get off from work. I would obviously change my uniform and keep my gun on me and stuff like that so that people wouldn't know who I am. But eventually people find out I would have to go to the store and we're going to like Walmart and Publix. I'd always have to wear disguises, hats and everything like that. Wear sunglasses because, you know, you run into these people again.  The guy you locked up, his girlfriend, they're out before you get off of work. You run into them. You know, I would tell my family if you see me in my uniform out at, out working, don't ever speak to me unless I speak to you first. And so, because you never know if I'm dealing with somebody, looking for somebody and they see me acknowledge you and then now you become a target. I had to take myself off of social media because you had suspects who were looking for officers and seeing what their family were and things like that, threatening them, trying to follow them around. And so, no, I don't think, I think if officers live in a community, it has to be secured and gated. It has to be a police compound of sorts to where that's where officers live at. And yes, they do live in the community, but they live in this compound. But the problem is you still have to live and exercise and move around within that area and it's dangerous.  They find out what car you drive, they find out whether they've been officers who've been carjacked, they've been officers who've been robbed, you know, there's, there's all types, there's officers homes have been broken into and their equipment and weapons have been stolen. So it is very dangerous. What's the solution? Because a lot of people's argument is if you don't live in the community, then how do you, how are you attached to the community? Well, you don't have to live there to be attached. My solution, based on my reform packages that I put together, how do you work around that? When you extend the amount of time officers need to be training, you also need to be sending them into these communities to do community service without the uniform, without their gun. There's a certain amount of hours that they need to consistently do, not just in the academy, but also after they graduate. Community service should always be a part of their job, meaning maybe it's one day a week, right? Because now here's how my reform package looks. If I told you about 85% to 90% of the stuff officers are called to do, we shouldn't be doing it. So if you take all that away, guess what? Now they, these guys got seven days a week wide open to work. Well, one day out of those weeks, every week, one day a week, that officer should be doing mandatory community service training in the community. Whatever that looks like, they need to be there. They need to be bonded and connected to the community that they're serving. That's how you do it and you do it consistently. It's part of the job. It's not something you did in the academy. It's not something they force you to do. It's part of the job. That's how you build that relationship. That's how you build that bond. I think you cannot serve, I think you cannot serve a community if you're not attached or connected to them. You don't have to necessarily live there, but you have to understand you have to be a part of it. Having officers do community service even outside of work, we're talking everybody's required. Normally what police officers or police departments do now is they have maybe five officers that are part of a community service unit and that five, their job is to go out there and hand out candies and kiss babies. Well, the other 99% of the officers are not required to do it. Well, that's a problem. So these five officers are there to give the impression that we are community based, but those five officers a lot of times don't even do police work anymore on average. They play the football and they help. It does help create a positive image, but you need the officers who are doing the job to have those connections. Because just because Officer John has a good rapport with the community doesn't mean Officer Tim, Mike, Scott, Tyrone, Officer Tyrone, Officer Jackson, they need the same rapport as well. Why? Because they're the ones who are going into those communities day in and day out and they don't know the people. They live an hour away from the community they're serving. They're white and they're patrolling in a black community. You know what you need to do? Just like in school, when we're in high school, white kids sat on this table, black kids sat on this table, Asians sat on this table, you have to force them to be a part of the community they're serving. People need to see their face, know who they are. They need to understand what's going on. They need to understand the nuance, the struggles. They need to understand what people are going through day in and day to mingle with the children. They need to have a connection. They need to see themselves and the people that they're serving. And so that is the answer to that problem. Officers would never agree being forced to live in a community because it's a safety issue. These officers have kids, some of them are married. So that's why I always say, when we talked about this earlier, people bring out these ideas, but because they didn't do the job, they don't understand why officers would say, no, I don't agree with that. To them, they're like, well, this is a good idea. No, no, it's not a good idea because it's a safety concern. We want to sleep safe at night as well. And so I think that's one of the challenges people don't realize. And I think that's why it's so important to have someone like myself or other officers with experience and a creativity. Because outside of being experienced, how creative are you about solving the problem? You have to be able to think outside the box. So just a simple, I've never heard of making it mandatory for all officers to do community service. And if you're the type of officer that's like, I don't want to do that, then you're not meant to be an officer. Your job, you're called to be a servant of the people. You cannot serve people that you do not know. And that's just what it is. What is your take on gun control? Or more specifically, the abundance of guns among citizens? Does that make police work harder? Or would you prefer a world where more citizens are armed? I think there's too many guns. I think I prefer a country where citizens have an ability to protect themselves. So I'm pro two way all day. I have no issues with it. I do think people get carried away, but I know that's their personal prerogative, right? So no question there. I have an issue with the irresponsibility of gun owners. A lot of our guns that these criminals have and young adults have, kids have, teenagers have, they have them because they steal them from gun owners, from legal gun owners. So you have illegal gun owners taking legal guns from legal gun owners. Well, that's the problem because they're irresponsible gun owners. I love guns. I think they should have them. I think any form of gun control is kind of, it's a, it's a, it's not logical.