So, we have a good chunk of time to have a very useful conversation about these issues. As we move into that, just to set the scene a little bit and also to reflect a little bit back on our three presentations, what we try to do is present texture and colour to the quagmire of the situation, the quagmire that the WTO finds itself in. And we've tried to do this in a way that extends the discussion beyond just a political economy of trade. Our presentations have been excellent, I'm sure you'll agree. But I'd like the panellists to think about one thing and I will ask them to give their views and that is, where do we go from here? You know, Alan talked about borders and we're now moving into a world order characterised by the erection of borders, something that in my lifetime reverses a trend. Whether it's Donald Trump's first principle of immigration where a nation needs borders to be a nation and a fence on the southern border is essential or whether it's the Calais superfence, the Bulgarian superfence, whatever. We are in a world of increasing borders. The other comment I'd like to throw into the discussion is that the task of reforming an institution is a difficult one. We know historically that international institutions are long lived. Very few of them cease to exist. The League of Nations is an anomaly in that. But we also know that they evolve in path dependent ways. Their Vaberian trajectories are one of increasing bureaucratisation but actually something that continues to preserve an existing way of functioning rather than something imaginative and innovative which takes an institution down a particularly different path. And I think we can probably point to maybe one or two institutions that buck that trend but they have been down to I think the astute engineering of key executive heads and I have the ILO in mind actually as an institution that's consistently tried to change what it does over a period of time to make itself relevant whether it succeeded or not is up to you to judge. But this is something that is not common among international institutions. So I invite your questions and comments. Please identify yourselves if you could as you make your comment. I will also ask our panellists to reflect on where we go from here and I look forward to the discussion. OK, I'm going to take them two at a time. So Deepak, if we can begin with you please. OK, thank you panellists for neat, nice presentations. I have a question which could be addressed to any of them or all of them which situates the problem they addressed in a longer time horizon and in a wider context, all right. Now, there has been a persistent and mounting crisis in the multilateral trading system long before the financial crisis surfaced in the United States and the great recession that followed in its aftermath, all right. And the fact that recovery is slow, uneven and fragile, almost everywhere, with the exception of the United States and perhaps Japan, even so recovery in trade is much slower than recovery in output and employment. Now, there is a striking asymmetry between the elasticity of trade with respect to output growth. In periods of boom, trade grew much faster than output. But in periods of bust, it is recovering much more slowly than output is or even employment is. Now, this is one juxtaposition that compounds the problem of rescuing the multilateral trading system from what you said is a quagmire or an impasse or a mess. And each of the panelists presented us a sketch, one picture of that impasse. Now, if we were to juxtapose upon this dual world a third dimension and that is the re-assertion of, you know, economies became global but politics remain national. And for a while, the economics of globalization dominated the politics of nationalism but we are getting increasingly, particularly in the European Union, member countries, a re-assertion of national identities. So it's not just Mr. Trump in the United States, it's almost everywhere. The UK, France, you see much more acute versions in Hungary and Poland who would like the UK to be kept out of a single market but want all Poles who migrated to the UK to have the right to stay there. Now, so my question to the panelists is if we think somewhat longer and we think somewhat bigger, the crisis in the WTO or the multilateral trading system is now much deeper than the institutional crisis because it is part of a much bigger picture. And it's sort of caught in a pincer movement between the slow and fragile recovery in the world economy which is having a disproportionate impact on international trade flows and a re-assertion of national identities, ironically enough, the backlash against globalization or markets and globalization has come from the far right in politics and not from the left. So it puts that trading system even more at risk. So could we try and put this together in your reflections a little bit? I have another question but I will return to it later in fairness too. Thank you Deepak for giving everyone a very simple question to answer. Madam, can I ask you to give your question please? It's the lady on the third row. Thank you. So my name is G. Maulani. I'm at the Institute of Rural Management in Anand in India. My question is about agricultural subsidies and I started framing it when Kristian was speaking about the rising powers of countries like India and Brazil. India ran into a huge trouble recently with our Food Security Act where they wanted to give very free, almost cheap food to the poor and it came up in the WTO as violating the AMS, your aggregate measurements about. And it didn't go anywhere till as far as I could follow the debate. What happened to it later on? I don't know. So my question is to what extent, what happened to that of course? And this whole issue of rising powers, whether India, China and all these other countries which are rising are really able to negotiate anything in the context of the hegemony. Still I would think of the US and the Western countries. And where are we going from here given all that Deepak Ji was talking about and the strength of the powers and the stronger regional context. Thank you. If you could pass the microphone down to this gentleman here, that would be great. And that will be the end of the first round of questions. I'll then move around to those of you who also indicated. Thank you very much. My name is Dona Dimari from Rappoa, Tanzania. I have two short questions to Fazil, especially I was very interested in his discussion. The first question relates to the mega trade negotiation between the United States and the EU. What do you think will, if it indeed goes through and successfully, what effect will that have on the producers from the ACP countries? The second one is the recently the East African community postponed the decision to sign the EPAS with the EU. What will be your advice to the EAC when the time comes for them to decide whether to sign the EPAS or not? Thank you. Thank you. So three very important interventions. I'm going to ask all three of you to speak to the questions that you feel most comfortable with. But also to ask all of you to speak to DPAC's question, actually. Kristin, you might want to pick up food security on top of that and Fazil may be the mega regional question. But Alan, would you like to kick us off, please? Oh, thank you. Yes. Where to from here since you posed the question, Rodin? It's very difficult to know. The presumption that things can only get better, things going to get more globalized and so on are clearly mistaken. And the reason for saying that is it seems to me that for some of us who have views about how the world economy should be run, actually have not been as active as we should have been. One in trying to explain what it offers and two perhaps in recognizing that not everybody gains at all or at least not everybody gains to the same extent. So it seems to me that what we do need to do is actually to try and address much more directly the sort of the rhetoric of a system that has been magnificently successful for 70 years.  We just blamed all the nasty things on the EU.  They blame everything on the foreigners and the world economy. Both are deeply, deeply mistaken views. And so I think it behoves anyone who believes that by and large the huge reduction in poverty, proportion and actual reductions in poverty in absolute numbers that we've achieved over the last 50 years or so is worthwhile. Anyone who believes that China's ability to export so strongly to the world has not been the most wonderful boon for 1.2 billion Chinese that you could imagine, we need to be saying so. What else can we do? I mean hopefully if we say and we explain, we gradually have some political effect.  We have to just accept that sometimes our views do not prevail. We do not necessarily then have to change our views. Now coming to Deepak's question, I mean I agree almost entirely with your statement Deepak. The crisis is much larger than just the financial crisis and indeed Kirsten's history, your reminders that it started back then. And again I think the issue is partly one that we haven't explained what's going on. For myself I'm not very concerned that trade isn't growing as fast as GDP. The huge boom in trade relative to GDP that we saw over the last 50 years was quite substantially helped by logistical developments, containerization and so on. And was also very obviously helped by the fact that we have global value chains again. We are shipping, the growth of trade has mostly been in intermediate goods. Trade is measured as a gross measure. All right, you ship a good in, it counts as an import, you screw it into something else and ship it out, it counts as an export. That's been counted twice in trade data. GDP is a net measure, you net out the value of those inputs. And so it's not surprising that when you move to a production system that involves more transfer of intermediate goods both ways that the trade to GDP ratio rises. So while I don't in any way want to deny that we need to be watching what's happening in the global trade alert, Simon, even its outfit has identified plenty of restrictions on trade that I think must be having an effect on the numbers. We shouldn't conclude that it is inevitable that the growth rate of trade should be 30, 40, 50% higher than the growth rate of GDP. How do we address the longer term crisis? Again, it seems to me it's incumbent on ask people like us basically to try and get the rhetoric right first of all. Well, get the analysis, do the analysis, but then be prepared to tell people what we think and accept that indeed not everything is clear and that we might indeed disagree with each other. I don't think in terms of sort of the WTO and so on, it seems to me again that in a sense what we need to do is to recognize that trade is a pretty rough old business. The idea that every single round should always close in success, you know, maybe it's over optimistic and just take the knock on the Doha round and say, you know what, that doesn't invalidate the sorts of things that we were trying to do. There are still trade restrictions that are not very helpful and we ought to get back and keep trying. I attended a meeting of senior civil servants about six months ago where the British government has a periodic strategic exercise and I was invited to a meeting about the long run future of trade. I made a rather, it turns out, prescient but unpleasant joke. I said, well, Britain will vote for Brexit and then the rest of the world will see how important trade is. We take a hit for the rest of the community and I do think it's possible that if this Brexit business turns out to be pretty uncomfortable, there may be a number of people say, you know what, maybe there is something worth preserving here. And if so, I hope we'll say so. Wow, thank you, Ellen. Kristen, can I invite you to say your responses, please? Maybe I'll start with a where do we go from here question. I think the objective of trying to secure, you know, some kind of international trade agreement, whether the WTR elsewhere that, you know, contains a real significant development component is increasingly difficult and specifically because of the U.S. I think in the U.S. there's a strong sense of a country under threat economically, also politically. And that makes the U.S. extremely unwilling to agree to any kind of agreement that's going to, you know, significantly advance the interest of developing countries. And I think a big factor in this is the rising anti-trade sentiment in the U.S. as well. And this relates to Deepak's question and this issue of the reassertion of national identities, national interests and sort of anti-globalization sentiments. And in the U.S. I think this is, you know, this is a result of policies over the past 30 years, much more so than trade. But there is a genuine sense of economic precariousness that's extremely widespread in the U.S. You know, stagnant or declining real wages, increasing precarity of employment. And this is what's giving rise to these real anti-trade sentiments. So these are types of things that would need to be addressed in the U.S. by domestic redistributive policies. These aren't something that can be tackled through international agreements, but they're certainly something that would impede any future international trade agreements. Turning to the issue of agriculture subsidies. Yes, so India had this massive food security program that it launched providing subsidized food to 800 million people in the country. And as a result of this massive subsidization, this food stock holding buying program was potentially in danger of reaching its WTO commitments. So what's happened on that issue is at Bali it was able to negotiate sort of a temporary exemption to enable it to continue its food security program until some kind of permanent solution can be reached. But this is a problem that goes well beyond India. One of the other dramatic changes we've seen at the WTO over the course of particularly since about 2008 onwards is a dramatic increase in emerging economy agriculture subsidies. Not just India, but also China, Indonesia, many other emerging economies. And so many of these countries are now in danger of potentially breaching their WTO commitments, partly because of the nature of the Uruguay Round. This is one of those asymmetries built into the international trading systems that ironically developing countries were subject to essentially lower limits on agriculture subsidies than the rich countries. So many emerging economies are several emerging economies are in danger now reaching their commitments. So this has emerged as one of the hot button negotiating items at the WTO now in sort of the post-doha round world where they're trying to see if they can reach agreement on smaller issues. This is one of the key ones that's been identified and it's been identified as a priority objective for the upcoming ministerial meeting next year. But here it's again primarily come down to a conflict between the U.S. and China. So the U.S. just took a case against China last week on its agriculture domestic support. And in terms of the negotiations themselves, the U.S. now is refusing to take any action in reducing its agriculture subsidies if China and the other emerging economies don't commit to do the same thing. So partly this is the U.S. using this as an excuse not to take action on its own subsidies but not entirely. It does have some genuine competitive concerns about the subsidies that are being provided in these countries as well. So China, India, the other emerging economies make the case that there's something qualitatively different about their agriculture support, that it's being used to address rural development concerns, the massive rural poverty that these countries face. But many on the other side argue ultimately a subsidy is a subsidy and it has the same effect on global markets, on poor producers in other developing countries, whether that subsidy is coming from China or it's coming from the U.S. So I think this is probably the most contentious issue right now in WTO negotiations. And one issue of potential concern is that because of this impasse between the U.S. and China, where China is refusing to take action on subsidies because it sees that as something that was not part of the Doha round, something that is really the U.S. trying to go beyond the promises that were made in the past. So China has refused to budge on agriculture domestic support. So you have again this U.S.-China impasse and the result is that other developing countries who are negatively affected by these subsidies are finding themselves sort of the losers in this larger game. So the cotton four countries who have been pushing for an agreement to lower cotton subsidies are facing great resistance now. That's basically impossible because of this U.S.-China impasse and the refusal of both countries to try to address the subsidies issue. So this is the concern about these larger tensions between the new and old powers. What are the implications for the rest of the developing world? And it's potentially quite negative. Thanks. Thank you, Kristin. So geopolitics with the WTO. Faisal, an appropriate moment for you to come in. Thanks. Okay. Well, I'll venture to try and address Deepak's question, which is the big question. I mean, the more I think about it from my experience in the WTO, the more it's clear to me that the solutions to the crisis in the WTO are not in the WTO. And the reason for this is, you know, actually the U.S. has said this many times, that the crisis or the impasse in the WTO is not technical. They say it's political. So I've written about this, I've quoted them many times. They have said this repeatedly. So what they say, they say that they want to level the playing field. Actually, everyone in the United States says this. I have to read the newspapers. So what do we say? And I'm speaking for developing countries. We say we want to level the playing field. So the question is, you know, and I've had, I'm good friends with the U.S. ambassador. I've had many glasses of wine, chatted a lot. And it's clear to me that, you know, like Nelson Mandela said, we have to be able to put both ideas in your head. Their concern and ours. Because theirs is a genuine concern. It reflects the reality. By the way, it's not only in the U.S. what the British referendum shows. You know, those sentiments are there too. And in Europe and in many parts of the developed world. So we have this. But, you know, this is not something that should surprise us. Because in the last few years, we had many people analyzing the global economy. And they're saying that, you know, inequality is the big issue. Not only between developed and developing countries, but in the developed world. And so we have to take this on board.  You just Google it, global value change. It's on everything. OECD, WTO, World Bank, IMF. This is a partial analysis. It's not a reflection of the nature of the global economy. And I think that we need to get a better analysis. What's going on in the global economy? What are the global challenges? We have to integrate different types of analysis.   You can't have democracy and have deep rules at the top. Because rules by their very nature, they take away sovereignty. Global rules take away sovereignty. Democracy tries to keep sovereignty. Because you don't want, you know, you take away policy space if you have too much rules on this. So there's a paradox between the two. So you've got to try and get a balance between the two. And it seems to me once we get that sort of understanding about what the WTO can do, because the WTO nowadays is not so much about goods. When we talk about liberalization, we think about goods. Actually what the US is going for, plus 30 issues in this TPP and TTIP, is rules at the border. Actually it's what they call behind the border rules. That's rules on investment, on competition, on intellectual property, on, you know, government procurement, on state, on enterprises, on everything that a government normally does its business on, all its policies. And it seems to me that, you know, that is, that's what the US says is leveling the playing field. The developing countries actually need policy space to, you know, ensure that we industrialize, that we develop. So there's a tension between those two things. It's deeply political.  So that's really the essence, it seems to me, the underlying, you know, tension that exists in the system. And I think we need a better analysis of the global economy and we need a better analysis of what we need, you know, the multilateral system to do. So that's my check on Deepak's question. On the issue of the mega-regionals, well, I mean, I was thinking of this question that a brother from Tanzania asked on the plane, actually, mega-regionals. Well, I think there are three things, you know, the impacts that it could have on Africa. There's marginalization. And I feel very strongly about this, that, you know, when people talk about plurilaterals and all sorts of ways of doing things in the WTO that exclude the majority of developing countries, I think it's totally wrong, morally wrong, and I think it's anti-developmental. So, you know, if you take Amartya Sen's definition of development, it includes participation. And what this is going to do is the mega-regionals, I mean, in any case, the intention of the mega-regionals, very clear, create new rules for the world and then go and impose it on the rest. And like the Tokyo Round, you know, when they created these codes, there were rules of few countries created and then after that they multilateralized it, which means they imposed it on the rest, to put it more starkly. That's the intention of the mega-regionals at the moment. And so this will undermine Africa's participation. It will have no say in those rules, but then in the end it will have to accept them. The second is erosion of preferences. So at the moment, you know, the preferences are important for Africa. The United States just agreed to extend the African Growth and Opportunity Act by 10 years. And there are countries who are benefiting from it and it does work. And it does need, of course, in the case of AGOA, it needs to be extended. It needs, you know, there are a lot of other things that need to go along with it, but it is important. And so what will happen with the mega-regionals, you know, accessed by Africa into the United States, will be eroded. So they will lose. The third, I think, is the threat of the so-called gold standard that the U.S. will create with the mega-regionals. They will be imposed. And they will then have the effect of removing policy space for African countries. So that's what I think the dangers are. The issue of the EPA is, well, South Africa has signed an EPA with the European Union, but hardly anyone else has. Now, let me tell you the irony of this EPA story. In the year 2000, the European Union initiated a negotiation to create these EPAs and they agreed what they decided to do away with the Loma Convention. The argument was that members of the WTO, you know, they don't like these preferential trade agreements anymore, and it is illegal in terms of Article 24 of the GATT. But you know, the irony is that was in the year 2000 and the European Union started the negotiations to create these EPAs, which means basically free trade agreements between a big power like the European Union, small countries like Mozambique, Malawi, and others. At the same time in the year 2000, the United States Clinton, President Clinton, started and launched the African Growth and Opportunity Act, a one-way preferential deal between Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, and the United States. One of the finest things that Clinton did, interestingly, that President Bush supported. And Obama has now given it another life, ten years' life. Fantastic. So nobody in the WTO, I've been there more than ten years and I've been in meetings with ambassadors from all the countries. I've asked the ambassadors who would oppose a preferential trade agreement between Africa and the European Union, not a single one. Not China, not India, not Brazil. And not the United States, but I asked the US ambassador and he said, how could we do that? We already have a go-up. Why would we oppose preferences with Africa? We have a go-up already and we've asked, each time it came up, because it has to come up in the WTO, it has come up. Well, there were a few issues, but it passed the membership. So that was actually a spurious basis for its launching, the EPA negotiations. It has caused immense damage for the European Union in Africa. And the main reason for that is too early. You know, these countries are not even trading. They don't have the capacity. And then you want to impose a free trade agreement, not only on goods, but also on services and then also on rules, well before it's time. So that's what I think of the EPAs. Thanks. Thank you, Faizal. We have quite a collection of questions. I know that you're going to push my fellow panelists very hard. If you can please identify yourself, that would be great. As a gentleman over there, I think had a question. Then Roger, you, there's a gentleman at the back, and then I'll hold that there for a moment. I've got three more, which will be Barry, the gentleman there, and then Richard. Yes, thank you. Antonio da Costa from Brazil. Most of my questions to a certain extent have been addressed. I was curious, nevertheless, the impression that I have of mega-trade agreements is that they are involving rather than progressing, in any sense. And the reaction, which is local and national, is very strong, keep reading the news. So I was wondering if you could, any of the panelists could address how they see the perspectives of this big trade deals, Pacific and Atlantic, both going forward, and what would be the impact if they do to the WTO regime. The second question, again, to anyone who wants to answer, is that, but I imagine to a certain extent, it will be, again, addressed today at 4.30, is that I have a strong feeling that one of the issues with the WTO is that we have dealt with it, and it's part of the logic of international organizations to a certain extent that the chairman actually addressed. It has been the link to discussions on changing of IMF, World Bank, Bretton Woods institutions in general. And the central point, I think, is one that, again, some of the emerging powers like Brazil have addressed, which is a process of democratization of these institutions, allowing therefore for a stronger voice of developing countries within those institutions in pursuing certain goals. It's not to question the liberal order, whatever that means, I'm not so sure what it means, but rather bringing in strongly this component of democratization of these institutions and therefore allowing a stronger voice for developing countries. So I wonder if you could address that. And finally, a small question to the chairman, because I was curious and I heard that. I hope I understood correctly. You said that there would be issues with rules of origin from seabed exploration. I hope that's what I heard. As I have been involved for over four years with the seabed authority, I was curious to understand exactly where this comes from because we're not even near marketing any of the things that we're taking out of the sea at all and we're taking very few. So the question then is how would we do? Because actually the seabed regime is a very interesting regime because actually you're trading global goods, which is a very interesting thing that we haven't seen yet. We will get to see, but it is a global commons being explored and therefore a global good. Those are my questions. Thank you. That's a very easy thing for me to answer. Actually, it was about 50 years in the future we might collide with rules of origin and law of the seas, but maybe we can talk about that afterwards. Roger, can I invite you to speak? I'm very sorry to run you across the room. Our next question is all the way over here. This is a kind of workout session in the middle of a thing. Thank you. I have a direct question for Faisal. Faisal, it's really interesting to be in the room with somebody who's in the room with the trade negotiators or been in the room with the trade negotiators and coming from a middle-sized power I want to know what it's really like experientially. Are the real problems when you're, for example, confronted with the big, big delegations like the US and EU people? Are they the complexity of the issues and the size of the challenges? Or is it that basically you're up against a hugely larger specialized team? And coming from South Africa you're relatively better off than many of your African fellow negotiators. What's it really like in those situations? And is it just that there are too few of you and you're up against these ultra-well-trained huge delegations? Is it the complexity and weight of the issues that's the difficult thing? Thank you, Roger. Our final question from this round is the gentleman at the back in the white shirt. While you complete your work out, I might add that Faisal is a connoisseur of fine wine, Roger. So if he doesn't give you what you want now, perhaps you can... Thank you. Andy Sunder from Keynes College London. So I have two questions. One is relatively simple. One is more complicated. I'm going to say a bit more about the tier of emerging economies below the bricks. Indonesia has mentioned, but of course there's 20 or so other countries that are pretty fit into that group. And that's a much bigger group than the bricks alone. And I wondered how important or what role you might see and at what role you've seen those groups of countries playing. And then the second country, I was thinking some more just about the kind of anti-globalization backlash. So in the UK the narrative seems to be Brexit was about the marginalized voting against globalization. But that doesn't really explain the millions of prosperous pensioners in the south that voted for Brexit. And so I wonder if the members of the panel think about this. If you were running a referendum campaign in the next five years in an EU country on EU exit for another country, how would you try and frame the narrative? In the UK, the narrative of remain was framed around trying to scare people into voting for remain. And there was a non-stop wheeling out of economists, economist experts. And that clever people telling us what to think really, really seemed to get people's backs up. And so I wonder if you were running one of these kind of referendum campaigns, how would you frame that vote? And I'm not convinced that marginalization explains it.  So 52% of the population, although 28% didn't even vote. So there's a substantial proportion of population didn't vote. But still there's 15 million people who are somehow convinced. So I'm interested in your take on that. Thank you. Thank you. So lessons clearly for the Dutch government as we move forward with this. Kristen, perhaps I could begin with you. Then move to Fazel and then to Alan. Is this going to be the last round? No, there'll be one more round and you'll have your question, Richard. Don't worry. So to start with a question about RTAs, I think I'll just speak about TPP in particular. I think TPP is going to have an extraordinarily difficult time passing in the US. Both presidential candidates have come out of a position it's possible that Hillary Clinton might change her view if ultimately elected. But it would still be extremely difficult to get it through Congress. There was talk about trying to pass it in a lame duck session after the November elections. Now it looks like that's not even viewed as feasible. So I think although the agreement has been negotiated and agreed, I think ratification in the US is the chances are really slim at this point. The issue of democratization of these international institutions, I think that's definitely exactly what we've seen at the WTO, the rise of Brazil, India, China, South Africa, some of the other second tier emerging economies have dramatically changed the dynamic within the institution and they have made it a much more equitable institution in terms of the negotiations. They've really served to write some of the imbalance between the developed and the developing world. The problem though is that ironically I think the result of the WTO has been that that's effectively broken that institution. The core function of the WTO, that negotiating function has broken down directly as a result of these power shifts. So the fact you have a more democratic, more equitable institution, that negotiating function can no longer operate. And just on this question of the second tier emerging powers, I think it varies very much state by state. So certain countries, Indonesia, the Philippines have been particularly active, Argentina as another. They've played quite a role in the negotiations, sometimes leading or being involved in some of these coalitions. Their role has been sort of secondary compared to the core powers, particularly Brazil, India and China. But the weight that they've been able to add and also some of their technical capacity as well in some of these issues has been important. Thank you. So I think the one question was the mega regionals and what will happen to the WTO? Well we don't know, but what we do know now is that the US has a clear intention to once agreed and once ratified to then impose the mega regionals on the rest of the membership of the WTO. Of course there are all sorts of ways in which that can be done. So there are many trade laws and we've written papers on how you can square the circle between an RTA and a multilateral system. That can be done. But of course what can be done that easily is managing the tension, the political tension between what will then become a formidable force the United States plus the Quad interestingly, the old Quad which is Canada, Japan and some of the rest of the OECD then sparring really with the rest of the membership of the WTO and that will be done piece by piece, part by part with bilaterally, with different countries. So I think that scenario is one of a great deal of tension in the world trading system. That's what I see happening if the US succeeds in getting the mega regionals off the ground. It isn't the Tokyo round. The Tokyo round there was agreement by these plurilaterals which is basically the OECD countries and then of course the agreements were multilateralized in the Uruguay round and it isn't the Uruguay round. We have a significant number of countries who are key players and actually in the WTO this has been acknowledged. So there is now a group of countries in the WTO at the core of the decision making and that includes not only the EU and the US but also China, India and Brazil, the G5 so at every ministerial meeting since the launch of the Doha round those five countries have been at the core of the decisions even at the last one in Nairobi from what I recall from the discussions I've heard they were the guys who made the decision so Brazil is there, India and China. The rest of course are not always participants Africa group, the LDCs and other developing countries and so that is one concern and where there is a need for quite a lot of pressure on some of the big developing countries to make sure that they don't contribute to the marginalization of the smaller countries. Now on the question that Roger has raised I think I'll follow Rodin's advice maybe we can discuss that but I think the two issues there one is leveling the playing field on the technical issues well we've done that interestingly as from Cancun especially with the creation of the G20 and then of course the other groups but the knowledge and expertise has been shared so Brazil and India we usually are more technically capable but also some smaller countries like Chile or Argentina Uruguay and they all have expertise so this expertise has been shared so we've managed to I think level the playing field on the technical capacity with the United States and Europe on every technical issue we've matched them on the bargaining capacity so the other thing is when the negotiations were taking place we matched them so there was a reasonable degree of let's say negotiating parity when the negotiations were taking place on say modalities on agriculture or NAMA or services that did happen and so as I said there were deals struck and compromises reached but of course you know ultimately the bigger countries are veto and the United States still has you know it's the biggest power in the block and it also has the capacity to build alliances which it has done it can bring the whole of the European Union around and Japan and Canada and it has done so and it has blocked the negotiations from going forward so we don't have an answer to that so I'll try to be very brief so the mega regionals I mean I certainly hope they will fail I'm no fan of them at all and I think if they do fail you know essentially we will just go back to essentially status a sort of status in the WTO and the important thing there is to make sure that the WTO is an institution in a sense it carries on doing as much business as it can quietly through committees perhaps through the dispute settlement process because eventually someone is going to want to talk about something and it will be very useful to have an institution that is there so I think the prospect I don't know I'd hate to give prognosis but I think I agree with Kirsten I think it's pretty unlikely now that we're going to get either TPP and if we don't get TPP and that's what I would guess a comment on just below the bricks and in a sense a reflection on what Faisal just said about negotiations I mean I think the conversation we've had this morning has sort of I know everyone knows this is not true but sometimes it does sound as if we believe there is one group called developing countries and it's really great that the three biggest powers and developing countries are now sitting at the table but don't believe that China or India or even Brazil are going to be more benign than the US and the EU and so for the next tier in a sense that's part of what they've got to start thinking about and you know it would do them well they're not going to be benign either but they have interests and maybe they can organize themselves as it were to get some of those through but don't believe that all is well there are three big developing countries at the table it's actually not like that and then finally and its comment about anti-globalization I mean I think you're exactly right that it is the Brexit the Brexit vote was not pure anti-trade globalization that left behind but I mean this group of pensioners if we look at the geographical spread it's clear that it was among the people that were not internationalized in the areas that were not internationalized and if you mention the pensioners I mean the things that we heard from the pensioners is one concerns about their families sort of things like cost of housing and so on secondly very vehemently migration and thirdly remember that they come from they have at my age it hardly behows me to say this but they have an old world view my father is a great liberal but my father can't quite get it up for migrants he's not offensive or anything like that but he doesn't feel it viscerally this is a group that knows about the war they succeeded he's a great Britain and I think you put a role all of that together it's not at all difficult to understand why nearly two million more people voted for Brexit than voted against it so I don't think that in a sense is a great mystery and given the sort of feelings about migration about the sort of isolation of Great Britain it is basically a sort of opposition to globalization what's the narrative in the next campaign well it is clear that the campaign was grotesquely mishandled in Britain I think that's among many appalling things of that government did but on the other hand we should not accept Michael Gove's statement those of you not from Britain perhaps didn't hear this but Michael Gove a leading advocate of Brexit said oh we've heard too much from experts now that is a catastrophic position and so we have got to be very clear what we know what we don't know what it means for people and Rodin and Faisal have joined me in an enterprise in Britain calling the UK Trade Policy Observatory one of the objectives of which is to try and have a belated conversation in Britain about trade policy what we actually need not with a view particularly to persuading people or shifting information but actually just with a view to explaining to people what's going on and so I do think that we mustn't we mustn't quit on the idea that the world heard from too many economists the economist must just be a little bit more humble and they mustn't be associated with a purely project fear thank you Ellen we have time for three more questions in just ten minutes my apologies to those of you who can't ask the questions Richard I'll invite you first then Barry and then gentlemen over there it's quite a short bunch did you hear that it's a very short yeah no no no my question is really a question I'd like from each of the panelists what would be your one priority for action in this area and by whom I can stop there I'd love to say more thank you Richard wonderfully succinct Barry Gillis please thanks Barry Gillis University of Helsinki the reflections of the panel brought to my mind a comment by the late John Kenneth Galbraith in which he reflected and said that well elites now tend to talk too much about free trade and not enough about social justice and we have to remember that a linear conception of the ever onward progress of free trade is not really the best end in itself or seen as an end in itself so if you think of global crises in the present time today we've still got a situation you might characterize as global overproduction and maldistribution of the product and which involves a worrying level of environmental destruction and degradation and threats to human security and pollution and the climate crisis and so if we go forward into this era those are real crises global crises then in what way do we seek to reform the global trading system that would rectify rationalize resolve some of those problems which I would argue are more fundamental thanks there's a gentleman at the end who has the final question yes a quick one, mine has been partially answered already it's to do with the capacity issue would you see the African countries on the negotiation table also have the capacity if you look at the numbers I think if you look at Britain and other countries would you see they have the capacity and if not then why do we call it a negotiation thank you thank you colleagues we have about eight minutes to wrap our panel up I'm conscious of everyone's food security so Fraser I will ask you to go first then Alan then Kristen to wrap things up please yeah I think I'll answer the last question first I think the short answer is that the African countries generally don't have the technical capacity neither is there participation and negotiating you know ability consistent because Africa is a big continent and actually Africa has many different interests the nature of the you know economies are quite different you have Mauritius and Seychelles and you know small economies planned locked economies large countries big populations like Nigeria Egypt and then relatively more industrialized economies like South Africa are very different economies mostly agricultural based mostly commodity based but some like South Africa has a wider set of interests so not so easy to put them all together but having said all of that I think they have played a great role you know since Cancun but a lot needs to be done and one of the amazing things and fascinating things that I'm personally very excited about is the work that's going on in Africa now to integrate the continent there's a huge amount of learning because everyone's working hard to negotiate and to build regional integration so you know I think from that experience African countries will understand much better what their own interests are from that experience and we will be able to negotiate with third countries around the world including the United States, China and everyone else the other question was about what Richard Jolly you know I tell you what the gap is that I see in all of this I don't know what we can do there's no point saying the United States should do this and that or Europe or China or India because actually what is that going to do normally when there's a crisis there's an impasse in a negotiation you need someone to mediate you know someone to start talking to get the process going to facilitate you know we don't have many people like that in fact the normal suspects don't exist before it used to be the Swiss or the Norwegians or the Swedes or somebody but actually they are all they've taken sides so I think what we need when this global value change thing started interesting I need to write a paper on it one day with Rod and self which is about how an epistemic community evolved around this new narrative but why don't we create our own epistemic community starting here you know in this room with the United Nations since we are in this building and create a group of people around the world north and south with the same set of values people want to rebuild the multilateral system which is broken or let's say you know revitalize it given the new realities of the world and I think the multilateral trading system is very important what we have in the WTO is a good basic framework it needs a lot of reform and you know we need a better analysis of the global economy we need a better analysis of what the key challenges are in the world today and what would be you know a better response to the ones that are being put forward so that's what I would suggest epistemic community let's start here primary problem is this issue of inequality and the primary action needed is redistributive policies and mechanisms to try to lower inequality and I think the problem is that the global trading system isn't necessarily the right institution or sort of actors to try to address this problem and the issue is for the past 30 plus years in the sphere of sort of the neoliberal Washington consensus trade has been sold as this panacea is a miracle solution to all economic and social ills that it's magically going to generate growth and prosperity and you know goodness for all and that just doesn't hold up and I think that's part of the reason why people don't trust the experts because this is what the experts have been shilling for 30 years and it hasn't panned out so I think I'd say yeah we need much more nuanced and respectful analysis and rhetoric to match and I think also the other problem the trading system it's an adversarial system you know set up around negotiations among self-interested states and that's not necessarily the best form to try to address these large scale issues of inequality and distribution thank you I can be very brief because I agree with both the previous answers I think you know the priority for action I wish I had something really concrete and plausible but like Faisal I think we've come to a period where we shouldn't be having too high an expectation of our political masters and what they will achieve when they get together in international institutions but that doesn't mean to say that some of the basic principles of multilateralism have disappeared and therefore it does seem to me I don't know whether a group constructing a group that all had the same view in a sense is feasible or actually solves the problem of getting everybody in my own instinct is much more that we need to have a pretty vigorous and debate in which there will be quite a lot of disagreement but in which I hope you know as it were people rather than adversarial and wanting to win that particular point at any cost will actually be moderately open minded and recognised as some of us have done for a long time that there are things that are good but are not universally good for everybody and that takes me back to Barry's point I mean it's certainly true that there was a period in the late 90s really where we had immense hubris the the iron curtain had come down it's created the world trade organisation I mean it was frankly mindless it started getting unpicked around 1997 or so and there is a sense in which a lot of the combatants should we say in that debate didn't really manage to get off their hobby horses and their high ground for a decade but there was actually quite a lot of debate if you look I spent some time actually going back over Oxfam's writings and Oxfam changes view quite a lot from 1995 onwards if you look at the writings of academic economists on international trade indeed there has always been a recognition that we go back to the famous Stolper Samuelson theorem of 1942 or something it was very clear that we would never lose it it's not something that is new to academic economists what's in a sense has happened is they've fed a line which some people then have blown into proportion and therefore it does seem to me that we need to have some more I don't think it's humility I guess serious recognition of what our science and our study tells us that indeed trade is pretty difficult to handle it has distributional consequences that you just cannot avoid and recognize therefore that if you have a democratic society if you feel a responsibility for the vast majority of people in the community you do have to couple trade with other things in order to get the benefits of trade which are massive I mean you know you had an orange for breakfast this morning I mean you had an orange for breakfast this morning a finish off orange of course it wasn't a finish orange trade brings wonderful wonderful things the issue is what you do about the sort of gritty rough edges that you've got around I agree entirely with Kirsten look I mean there comes a point where maybe environmental policy robs up against trade and indeed trade is the most constraining trade is the most efficient way of solving the environmental problem but almost always that is not the case almost always you need to tackle environmental problems with environmental agreements as we are doing and so on for your anti-microbials with anti-microbial problems and so on well trade looks like a handle and people want to co-opt the trade dispute settlement mechanism which is almost unique in world institutions for whatever they're aiming at and so I do think that part of the rhetoric has to be to say no no there are specific problems we can tackle them in ways that you know they don't overlap except on the very margins one of those circumstances trade does not dominate it's exactly right there are things there are occasions when we should be able to say all our theory suggests that liberalising trade will increase aggregate output but actually it's not worth it I oppose TPP that is exactly the reason I think everything that comes with TPP is just not worth a quarter of percent of US GDP thank you Alan thank you panellists for a very fruitful discussion thank you all for contributing to that


Let's take some time to talk about the Republican Party in Wyoming. So this party claims to care a lot about parental rights, but at the same time they're doing things that fundamentally undermine parents' ability to make decisions about their own children. For example, they have advanced a bill that bans gender-affirming care for anyone under the age of 18 and classifies that as felony child abuse. Additionally, they passed a bill that would establish a commission that has the authority to ask trans people very personal questions about their body and body parts and the goal of this commission is to limit their ability to play sports. So these are steps that they're taking to protect children, at least that's the pretense that they're using to pass these laws or at least advance these laws at the time that I record this video. You see, you can protect young girls in sports by banning their their trans peers from playing. You can protect children by restricting the ability of parents to make decisions that the experts deem as medically necessary for their trans children. So they claim to care a lot about protecting children. That's the point. But turns out something happened that proves that they don't actually care about protecting children. As LGBTQ Nation explains, Wyoming's HB7 seeks to ban marriages involving anyone under the age of 16 and would allow 16 and 17 year olds to marry with parental consent. Current Wyoming law has no minimum age requirement for marriage. For those under 16, parents must receive a judge's consent. The bill would take away a judge's ability to do so and simply make it illegal for those under 16 to marry. Opponents of child marriage say that it places children at the risk of being victims of violence and robs them of their childhood. They have criticized the Wyoming bill because most child marriages involve girls who are 16 or 17 but some conservatives are opposing the bill for the opposite reason. They believe younger children should be able to get married. A mass email sent Thursday from the Wyoming Republican Party reportedly advocated constituents email their lawmakers to encourage them to not support the bill due to concerns about constitutional rights. The email linked to an analysis of the bill by Capitol Watch for Wyoming families, which argued that since children under 16 can get pregnant, they should be able to get married so their kids can grow up in a stable home. It claimed the bill denies the fundamental purpose of marriage by denying a child's father and mother from living under the same roof. Capitol Watch also claimed the bill is in violation of parental rights and that this arbitrary age is demonstrably higher than the historical norm of millennia of human existence. So these are the folks who claim to care about parental rights, who care about protecting children. These are the same folks who are calling LGBTQ plus people groomers and here they are passionately defending child marriage, rallying their constituents to lobby against this, call their lawmakers and say we don't support this ban on child marriage. We want child marriage and understand that this bill is basically a compromise. Imagine trying to compromise on the issue of child marriage. It doesn't ban marriages for anyone under 18, just 16 and under. But they're not happy with that. Now some additional facts about this bill.  So he's very clearly trying to do some PR damage control for his party. On top of that, it did pass out of the house by a vote of 36 to 25, which is controlled by Republicans. So there is a little bit of momentum for this piece of legislation. But if you think it's going to pass, that's still up in the air, because according to Newsweek, efforts to raise the age of marriage in the state have consistently stalled for years now retired Laramie Democratic Representative Charles Pelkey sponsored legislation to raise the age of marriage to 18 only to fail with every effort. Now, additionally, Wyoming is one of just eight states in the country, including California, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Washington and West Virginia without a minimum age requirement for marriage. And it currently ranks among the top 10 states in the country for child marriages, according to a 2021 study by advocacy group Unchained at Last. Now, the aforementioned advocacy group that was quoted there Unchained at Last, they say that 97 percent of child marriages include girls between the ages of 16 and 17. And all that this law does is say that you can't marry younger than that. So the bill is essentially window dressing. You're still allowing 16 and 17 year old minors to get married. And Republicans are still very much against it. Why? Well, I mean, maybe it's the principle. They just believe that children should be allowed to get married. And as they make the case, they argue that, well, since you can get pregnant at a younger age, then you should also be able to get married as well. Because, of course, they also don't allow minors to get abortions because that's bad, according to them as well. So they want to force these young girls who are children in some instances to have these babies and allow them to get married. But yet they claim, you know what? If you're under 18, that's too young for gender or family care, even if your parents think it's appropriate and your doctor, more importantly, says that it's medically necessary to reduce depression and suicidality. They're the experts, not the doctors, but they care about protecting children.  This was never about children. Everybody knew that that argument was nothing more than a Trojan horse to get people to buy into broader anti-trans and anti LGBTQ plus arguments. But right here, they're showing their cards. And this isn't the first state to try to not only protect child marriages, but go in the opposite direction. Tennessee, for example, you talked about this last year. So I think that child marriages is something that anyone who wants to protect children would be in favor of banning, but not these Republicans. I wonder why, maybe when they call it other people, groomers. Maybe it's just me, but maybe we should consider that more of a confession than an accusation. Up yours, up yours, up yours. Sons of bitches, bitches, bitches. Whoa, more of a whoa, more of a whoa, more of a whoa. I dreamed I saw my maternal grandmother. She was stroking herself absentmindedly. I let her have her way. The genital region was exposed. I let her have her way.


Hi everyone, Sean with jaspyscasebrakes.com here doing a team random randomizer for pick your team number three series to jumbo case break Where 16 spots will randomize lists of customers whatever spot you match up with next to is the spot you get So you can either win three boxes of sealed hobby Boxes or down to the Rockies those 16 spots there. I've copied and pasted that list right here but Because Nick is being generous We didn't actually sell all 16 spots. We have 13 spots here I'm gonna randomize the list of 13 names that we have top three get additional spots So Ryan with multiple spots could end up getting three additional spots as well. Let's check it out dice roll Six and a four ten times to figure out who gets the additional spots Ten final time whoa Look at me I called it ten times on the randomizer Ryan Ryan and Ryan Ten times on the dice some people would say I'm amazing. I agree I Okay, so here is the full list again with the additional spots All right, so there's the additional spots there that Ryan just won back up to the original purchases as well New dice roll and we're gonna take this list and pair it next to the giveaway spots That's one to five and a five ten times. Good luck tense and final time Trying it's top three again And the giveaway spots in the top two Not bad. There you go ten times on the randomizer Ten times on the dice We gave away three spots Joe Nick took out three spots instead of selling 16 He gave away three additional spots, so There you go, Ryan So you got three boxes of sealed hobby series, too You also got the Yankees the Phillies mark new bow with the White Sox Eric Adams with the Mariners Ryan Redmond with the Cardinals and the Rangers Joe P with the Orioles Daniel I'll see the Indians Joe P with the Tigers Ryan met with the Astros Brewers and the A's Daniel I'll see with the rays Joe P with the Royals and Ryan Redmond with the Rockies So there you go guys, that's the team random randomizer for pick your team number three Series to jumbo. I'm Sean Jasper's case breaks calm Case break itself coming up next. See you soon


Good morning once again, my name is Joy Mochache. Welcome back to the Why In The Morning show. You are watching the Health On Monday show. My name is Joy Mochache once again. You can find me on Joy underscore Mochache. And remember if you want to interact with us, you can do so now. Social media handles are right there at the bottom of the screen. And all you have to do is put the hashtag why in the morning and hashtag health on Monday. And please, you guys, I'd like you guys to welcome a very special lady. We've been interacting. She seems pretty cool. Her name is Dr. Ann Wyn Johe. And she's here to tell us a little bit about contraceptives and sex and how it's affecting our youth today. And actually she's going to be telling us a little bit about her practice just before we start this discussion and where she's practicing at. And then we'll start the discussion. Karibu Nisana and welcome in joining me, Dr. Ann Wyn Johe. Thank you so much, Joy. Welcome back. Thank you. Thanks. Yeah, so where are you practicing at? Yeah, my name is Dr. Ann Johe, as you have said. I was working at PCA Kikui Hospital as a medical officer intern. Currently, I'm a medical officer and I'm also involved in advocacy for the youth. Throughout my internship, throughout my undergrad, I was involved in respect. It's a program for educating the teenagers on reproductive health and sexual health. Oh, so that's quite fitting for today's. Yeah, it really is. How did that experience go? It was just a program that was started by Medical School Association of Kenya. So most medical schools in Kenya, if you were interested in advocating for the youth and advocating for their reproductive health and sexual health, you could join. So it was something that I cared about and I joined it. I see. Well, that's quite fitting because today we're talking about things to do with the production, but we're talking about contraceptives. Yeah. And of course, if we're going to be discussing contraceptives, we can't do that without discussing the connection to sex because they are connected ultimately. Yeah. And so the reason why I decided to discuss this topic today is actually first and foremost, this is something that a lot of people need in their lives in order to plan their families, in order to keep things in such a way that their income at home can be controlled and also that the children at home cannot go out of number. And that's exactly how contraception actually came into the picture. Contraception actually was first created for that purpose, for the sake of helping families out and trying to curb the overgrowing of families and other methods that we're going to be talking about today that people are trying to use in order to curb unwanted pregnancies and things like that and unplanned pregnancies. But for today, we want to talk a little bit about more controversial things but just for a second. But right now, we want to talk about the most important and the most basic contraceptives that people not normally tend to use.  We also have the female condom and the male condom. And these are also used by people on a daily basis and also the IUD, which doctors are going to tell us why it's not so common but also one of them. And we also have the coitus interrupters, which many people know well. It's when a male decides to pull out and also spermicide, which is actually an ointment that you apply in order to reduce the reproductive cells of sperms. And there's so many. The list goes on and on and on. Doctory. We can't find it in Kenya. And those ones are the vagina, well, not find here, but maybe you can, but it's so difficult. So that's the vaginal ring, the diaphragm and the patch. Can we talk about why they're so difficult to find? And then we'll focus more about the ones people have chosen to use. Okay. So the diaphragm, the vaginal ring, the patch, some of them have hormones inside them. But the reason why it's difficult to find them here in Kenya is usually because of the price, the price tag that are associated with them. And then remember we are living in a country where there are people who are doing well financially, there are people who are not. Okay. And we have to cater. In terms of health, we have to cater for all groups, whether you're doing well and whether you're not doing well. So usually the people who are not doing well or people who are young, the places that they will go to are government facilities or mission-based facilities. And these facilities might not have this diaphragm's vaginal rings and usually it's because of the price tag. So the government facilities offer specific types. So they will offer condoms, they will offer pills and they will offer them usually free. So obviously someone who does not have the means, especially the young people or someone who does not have that money, they will end up going to the government facilities and using this rather than using the diaphragms, the patches, etc. But they are there, they are there, yeah. They are there. They are, but like in high-end facilities. Yeah, and at a high cost as well. Yes, and at a high cost, yeah. So that's not very useful to our population right now. It's not really useful. Because our population is very skewed towards, most of the people tend to be under the, actually under the, wow, under the poverty line, literally. Yes, sure. Most of our population. Over 50% of our population is under the poverty line. Under the poverty line. So these particular ones are not going to cater to them. True, true, very true. What's the point of them bringing them into the market? Why can't we focus on bringing all types and all sorts of the free ones? And right now I know that in offices, actually most offices, they tend to keep condoms in the toilets and the bathrooms. Those are free. Yes. And that's excellent, of course. Yes, of course. Because some people just don't want to spend that money. True, true.  So that is excellent. Yes. But then why, why would they, I don't know, maybe do you have an idea as to why, what's the point of providing these high-end ones when we have such a high population of people under the poverty line? Okay, what I can say, and this is a part that not many people say that the government has really tried in terms of reproductive health. And I say this because the government tries to reach people all the way, Hadi Mashinani, let's call it that, yes? Yes. So for the small health facilities, they will mostly just, they will provide what is the basics. So the basics are the condoms, the basics are the pills. It's not for everyone, but usually it's there, yes? So the high-end ones, the high-end, the diaphragms, the patches, they're usually provided by the private facilities. Yes. So if you want them, if that is what you're interested in, you go to the private facilities, but the government really does not offer this. I see. Yeah. Okay. So now that we've covered some of the ones that we can't find and why it's hard to find them in first place, maybe we can talk about, now, focus on what people are using on a daily basis. So our youth nowadays, what do they tend to run for when it comes to contraceptives? When we're talking about youth, because this is a youth-based channel. Yeah. We're talking about teenagers or people who are just above the age of puberty, adolescents, just above the age of adolescents. What do they tend to run to? As an expert, what do you see them tending to run to when it comes to a contraceptive? Okay. So what they will usually run to, we classify them into two types. We classify them into temporary and long-term. So usually the youth will go for the temporary ones and the temporary ones, I'm talking about condoms. I'm talking about the oral contraceptive peel. I'm talking about the plan B, what is called the postinotu. Or P2. P2. Yes, the P2. That's what they usually run to and then the long-term ones. Okay. So the long-term ones are usually the ones that you put the IUCDs, you put them through the uterus and it's put through, it's put by a medical professional, either a nurse who is trained or a doctor who is trained, or the ones that usually go through the hand. It's called Implanon or Jardel. I'm sure you've heard these names. Yes. Yes. So usually why the youth will go for the temporary ones is because they don't need someone to help them to put it. You see, like for example, they can do it themselves. They can just go and you don't even need, currently you don't need a prescription. So you just go and talk to your pharmacist or whoever and say that I need this. I need a condom so you just buy it.  Then second, they're not doing it for family planning. Most of these people who are just out of puberty or they're just young, they're not yet in family, a family setup.  Yes. The long term, the Jardel, the IUCDs, usually it's someone who's had a baby or two, maybe in a family relationship, they're married and they want to plan their baby.  So in that way, that's when they will use the long term ones. So because the youth are just, they're breakthrough in the sexual health. So they're just starting to have sex. Also, they are not planned.  So that's why they will take the temporary ones. So they'll take the condoms, they'll take the pills, the P2, they'll take the spermicide, something that they can use. No one can tell them, you know, something that they can easily access. Yes. They can buy themselves. Yes. They can use it themselves without asking for assistance. Exactly. So discretion is the key. Yes. Discretion. Yes. Discretion is something very, and I think it cares quite a number of people, you know. Which is my next question, actually, because I do feel like our youth may run to these temporary measures exactly for that discretion. And now let's touch a little bit about discretion when it comes to contraceptives because this is something that I think even for shamed to buy in the shops. That's very true. You're going to choose the dingiest place to find this. That is very true. Where nobody knows you. That is very true. And wait until the line is like finished. As in, people go through lengths to get these things. Yes. And then you can go to a journey, like, hey, Tuskees, like Shikapap, you know. And so I just want to talk a little bit about the discretion and when it comes to our youth specifically. When they do tend to choose these temporary methods and they want to be discreet about it, is it because they're trying to be discreet because they feel that if they share that, hey, I'm having intercourse or I'm having sex, they might get some judgment or is it because they feel like if they share to their friends or to their parents that, hey, I'm using a contraceptive of this kind and of this kind because I don't want to get HIV or AIDS. They don't want to get some kind of judgment. Is that the reason why they might be wanting some kind of discretion? Because I couldn't think of another reason why, but I could be wrong. Yes. I think you are so right. You are so right about that. The first thing that really affects the youth currently is that shame and I feel like it's a shame that is carried all the way from our home setup. Yeah. I feel like it's a shame that is carried all the way even amongst from the school setup from wherever. Yes. That first of all we are taught to approach sex as something of shame rather than something that is a normal human function. Yes. That actually the World Health Organization insists that reproductive health and sexual health should be safe, should be accessible. Accessible. Accessible and should include freedom of choice.  Yes. But if you are approaching sex as something to be ashamed of and usually this is seen so many times even in universities, the first thing that someone will do there will be someone who is selling P2 from his suitcase and you will prefer to go and buy the P2 from someone who is selling from a suitcase then walk to a pharmacy and buy.  Yes. Because maybe you are afraid that if I go to the pharmacy someone will see me. Yes. Not only will someone see me Yes. They will judge me what I knew on that day. Like why did you have sex without a condom? Now you come to buy P2s. Yes. Now it's even more scary. Even condoms are something of shame. You're even afraid to buy the condom. So usually they will either buy from illegal sources or they will prefer not to have. Not to have, not to even use the condom. So they go with the coitus-interruptors method? Yes they just go. Exactly. And how many people who are young can actually have the coitus-interruptors method is one amongst the highest failure rates? Because how many people have that self-control? Not very many. It's something that comes with age. It's something that comes with experience. Maybe this is a young boy or 15 years old who is the first, this is the first time the first time they're doing it. They might not have that control and that is the truth. Yes? That's true. So really at the end of the day is that you will see these young girls, these young boys who are afraid to even access, access to even walk and say I want it, to even see. So no wonder again I said I applaud the government by trying to even put those condom dispensers in schools, in public places. So that someone can just take. No one can know that you're taking but someone can take even if it's in a loop. I think it's something good but it's not common and people are ashamed of it and it's a shame that is carried all the way from home from our friends that we don't want to talk about it. We don't want to talk about that our health it has to be safe, accessible and with freedom. Exactly. And we're going to come back a little bit about talking about these substance, these things that are sold from the suitcases, these contraceptives. But before we do that I also wanted to kind of tie in the whole topic of shame with the fact that it begins at home with a question of is it because our parents maybe don't do that awkward awkward let's sit down like no we're going to sit down for about an hour we're going to talk about this. This is not something we're going to talk about for 10 seconds just in passing. No, we're sitting we're talking about this for a very long time and we're going to do it for repeatedly until it gets in here. So is it maybe an issue that parents are not doing that properly because nile shame as well coming from the parents. Then again you have to remember they've been brought up in a different generation. This is very stuff you don't discuss in the generation where parents have come from. And so for them it's sometimes but also at the same time they also have the knowledge and since things have been narratives have been pushed along advocates have been pushing along narratives that hey as a parent this is something you must do. So at the end of the day they do that just when you're going to bonding. In the car even or just at the bus stop when you're holding your things about to climb up they do that kind of thing for don't you find it to be a buyer or something. And it's like what is to be a buyer and why shouldn't I do it and why can't I do it and still be safe. And so this kid goes with a lot of questions goes to school can't talk about it in school once again because now he's filled with a whole bunch of kids whose parents don't tell anything to anyone so they're filling each other with ideas. Ideas like sex is this, sex is this to bring by need, they are not easy. So it builds up a whole idea for them that is not necessarily true. It comes from university and then they're ready to try it out maybe some have tried it even in high school some even in primary. So comes university they don't want to get the condominium open like you said. And so do you think that yes it does set at home and once you do answer that question we'll come back to what we were discussing before about getting things from the suitcases. Okay, alright. So today it does start from home I would say that it does start from home and I would say that as much as parents are bringing us up they're also bringing us up mentally. And it's very hard to break through a mental if you're making a safe house because that's what our parents are there for to create a safe house for us and it's not just giving you shelter it's not just giving you food it's also also building your mind yes and I think building the mind is one of the most important things but parents are afraid of it not only parents guardians are because they feel like if I talk about it then I'm encouraging it you understand that I'm encouraging it if I talk to you about sex you know that there are so many families where even the word sex cannot be spoken about again this parents who grew up in an age where they didn't ever even see their parents engage in any physical activity not even like a handshake it was Babanani and that is your wife so even like any physical contact so you can tell that that barrier is already there it's still there but the truth is that this discussion has to be done and the reason why is that parents are building create a mental safe house for your child let them know let them be armed with knowledge and with the ability to make decisions because please repeat that let them be armed with knowledge and the ability to make decisions very important not making decisions for them it's giving them knowledge and letting them choose wisely and once and believe just like the way it's written in the Bible bring up a child in the way he should go and they will follow it up even in adulthood that remains the truth when they depart they will come back because they know and that is the thing if you tell them first of all I even have a problem with the use of the word tabiambaya in regards to sex because it already gives a negative connotation to sex bad manners yes that it's bad manners and the truth is that it's not it is just a human function it's actually a gift from God it is a gift from God and the truth is that even every gift from God if not used in the right way if not used with knowledge becomes a curse that is the truth you can have so many gifts from God but if you don't use it the right way and that's the same way with sex now the thing is that teenage pregnancies are on the rise in Kenya sexual violence is also a problem in Kenya and that is why you have to be able to create that mental safe house as a parent tell them what sex is tell them the right age to have sex an age of understanding mental understanding tell them the consequences of sex the benefits of sex talk to them and then tell them what are their options if you are not capable of doing it yourself get a reproductive health professional take them to a clinic let someone else talk to them get a nurse to talk because that is their job get someone to cancel them have someone who knows what they are talking about teach them let it not be that they are learning as you have said from each other people who don't know what they are talking about are the ones feeding each other so that's the sad part that's the sad part and you don't want even kids to have fear in their mind because once you have fear in your mind you do those things you behave like you are ashamed you behave like you are ashamed to go and get those condoms you have that fear but once you know about yourself about what sex is in your life then you can make good decisions and I think parents are so they are a key in creating a safe house a mental safe house of knowledge for their children okay, that's very true and then before we actually I don't know if our producers can bring up the one question that we had posted to our people we want to know when your people will talk to you about sex and how that conversation went with your parents was it an awkward thing or was it a comfortable thing that didn't even happen at all or in Bakasai your conversation just didn't happen no no so we just want that little feedback from you guys feel free, feel comfortable once again, this discussion is not here so we can encourage young people to have sex no, not at all, we're not doing that we're here to disseminate knowledge about sex and contraceptives once again so that people can have the ability to make wise decisions on their own and maybe we can move on to discuss the effects now we talked about the fact that there's a stigma around it this kind of taboo in our society in our homes and our people have reached a point where they're getting P2 from the suitcases now they get the P2 from the suitcase what happens within their body at that stage, is there any effect that these things happen and what makes it fake what makes them fail because if it's coming from a suitcase even the condoms, most of the time it's not legit actually almost, I think 100% it's not a legit product it's going to fail them and some of them are not aware of that and so it's just kind of wondering what are the effects that may hit these people when they use such things and let's say when a tumiaquilasa and someone maybe has low sperm count or a girl simply can't get pregnant and she keeps using this P2 she thinks it's working and it's not working, she doesn't know she's simply maybe infertile and then it creates some kind of problem in the uterus because it has chemicals it should not be having what do you know about this doc? what I can say let me start with P2 because it's quite common apparently one of the most counterfeited drugs in Kenya and in Africa is actually P2 and the reason is because it's so easily everyone wants it and everyone wants to buy it from whatever corner this is a public health issue that actually people who are selling such fake drugs should be in jail you should be in jail you should be fined for it but the first thing that needs to be done is people need to protect themselves against it and understand you understand by knowing what true P2 looks like should plan B or whatever you call it plan B, morning after pill that it needs to be taken from legal sources legal sources means a governmental facility maybe a private health facility a pharmacy that actually has a certificate that it's supposed to be selling because not all chemists and pharmacies some of them are also fishy places you go there and you're like how am I buying a drug that's supposed to be sold at 150 to 200 for 25 bob or for 50 bob cause they're sold for that but in your head you're not thinking that you're just like oh what a deal I have a buggy and usually now the thing with these counterfeited drugs there are two things they could be placebos completely there is nothing inside that drug it's just a white pill it's just a white pill that has nothing so usually what happens with such is that you can easily get pregnant of course because it doesn't have the desired contraceptive effect usually those are the safe ones they're the good ones if you just have a placebo drug the one that has nothing inside it the ones that are dangerous are the ones where they are selling drugs that has another ingredient for example you could be sold for an anti-diabetic medication they just take any drug but you see those drugs now are dangerous because for example a drug like that a drug like that can lower your sugars and you can end up fainting so you'd actually rather have even the white pill that has nothing rather than the other drugs they can just get any drug that looks the size of the p2 and then they give it to you and tell you that this is p2 or tell you that this is the daily pill actually the truth is that there are so many counterfeited drugs in the market and it is a public health concern because you don't know what it can do to this person either it can result in pregnancy or it can result in other side effects depending on the drug they are giving you because they can be giving you anything yes yes yes so the first thing that needs to be done is you need to know that currently you need to look at the date of manufacture the date of expiry the active ingredient even google it just google just ask p2 what should it have inside and look at it and you should come up with it what you are seeing on the box and then is it closed is it something that does it look like something that has been tampered with look at the manufacturer as well and then at the bottom there is usually a logo to scratch off and it is also written original the fake ones usually when you scratch it off there is nothing written there is like a white part for scratching but then there is nothing yes yes yes so you purchase and then you scratch and you see whether it is written original you need to always approach these things with knowledge and wisdom first go to a legal source even if you want a place that is cheap or rather you go to a governmental facility or a government pharmacy or all this private pharmacies as well it usually goes for around 150 to 200 bob or even condoms whichever condoms sometimes are free or they are the ones that are sold for cheap by those ones and then look at it look at examine it and see and if you do know someone who is actually selling these things that are fake whatever fake drugs you should actually just report to the chief's office there is a public health officer who should actually come and take those drugs so the measures that have been put in place are just in case of this but you see people don't know about them so they even fear so they buy this and they just go in their way and whoops I'm pregnant yes whoops I'm pregnant or I'm just having funny side effects I've been fainting I'm bleeding excessively because you've been given another drug or a fake drug so it's a whole problem and it's a public health concern because sometimes even anyway no it sounded like you were going to say something quite important no no no to me it's a heart breaking issue because people take advantage of people who don't know and people who don't know what to do what to use how it should look like so taking advantage of only one or two who doesn't know and it's a bit too naive and innocent well it's a pretty sad situation and like you said and I think the only way we can curb this is once again everything starts at home I don't think there's something that everything starts at home so whatever you're doing as a parent or whatever it is even as a child if you're having a free relationship with your parent or comfortable relationship you can or if you don't the internet is there thank God for Google but then we still think that this is a sit down kind of conversation because you need a back and forth back and forth interaction when trying to understand contraceptives and sex it's not just something you Google and understand you need to ask some questions you need to be given proper information and you need to do that with an expert and first and foremost do stay safe in any sexual interaction once again we're not encouraging it but in the event that this does happen do have safe measures put in place so that you don't have any mishaps and mistakes that you're going to look back on you're young you have a long wonderful life to live so think twice before you make any mistakes thank you so much for tuning in this has been a wonderful talk on sex and contraceptives we're the wonderful Dr. Juan Jorri, very abled and wonderfully first on this topic coming up next is Barry with Youth and Politics and this has been one in the morning my name is Joy Mochache Santemi Sana