Inside Geneva
Inside Geneva is a podcast about global politics, humanitarian issues, and international aid, hosted by journalist Imogen Foulkes. It is produced by SWI swissinfo.ch, a multilingual international public service media company from Switzerland.
Inside Geneva
Does it matter to the UN who’s in the White House?
The presidential elections in the United States (US) are just a couple of weeks away. What will they mean for international affairs, for Ukraine, for the Middle East, for humanitarian work, for international law and for the United Nations (UN) in Geneva?
“When I was in the US, I definitely saw that there is no interest for anything called multilateralism or collaboration globally. Because it’s a matter of support – political, financial and moral support for international questions and for international Geneva. I think Europe is there, yes, but I don’t think Europe will be able to match the US,” says Swedish journalist Gunilla von Hall.
Does it even matter who wins? Or is the waning support for multilateralism part of a bigger problem?
“Is multilateralism a system that allows all countries to deal with each other in a civil and non-violent way where common interest prevails? Or is it the appearance of a system that allows the continued hegemony of the old powers after the Second World War?” says Tammam Aloudat head of the international medical aid charity Médecins sans Frontières (MSF) Netherlands.
“There are two words that are key here. One is the notion of polarisation, not only in the United States, but internationally. We see it in Geneva, we see it everywhere. The second is the word transactional. Everything seems to be transactional: ‘what’s in this for me?’ instead of someone coming in and saying: ‘for the common good'," adds analyst Daniel Warner.
Would the multilateral system even be better off without the US?
“I don't think we can afford to sit in an arena where our hope for multilateralism, which still is in the UN and its institutions, [means we are] sitting still, taking the constant bullying of the United States,” says Aloudat.
Join host Imogen Foulkes on our Inside Geneva podcast to discover how important the US still is these days.
Get in touch!
- Email us at insidegeneva@swissinfo.ch
- Twitter: @ImogenFoulkes and @swissinfo_en
Thank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter.
For more stories on the international Geneva please visit www.swissinfo.ch/
Host: Imogen Foulkes
Production assitant: Claire-Marie Germain
Distribution: Sara Pasino
Marketing: Xin Zhang
This is Inside Geneva. I'm your host, Imogen Foulkes, and this is a production from Swissinfo, the international public media company of Switzerland. In today's programme….
Speaker 1:Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, I will have the disastrous war between Russia and Ukraine settled.
Speaker 3:When I was in the US. I definitely see there is no interest for anything called multilateralism or collaboration globally.
Speaker 4:There are some in my country who would force Ukraine to give up large parts of its sovereign territory.
Speaker 1:There are two words that are key here. One is the notion of polarization, not only in the United States but internationally. We see it in Geneva, we see it everywhere. And the second is the word transactional. Everything seems to be transactional. What's in this for me? I gave them Golan Heights. I gave them the Abraham Accords, I recognized the capital of Israel and opened the embassy in Jerusalem, Gave them billions and billions of dollars. I was the best friend Israel ever had.
Speaker 5:Is multilateralism a system that allows all countries to deal with each other in a civil and nonviolent way, where common interest prevails, or is it the appearance of a system that allows the continued hegemony of the old powers after World War two?
Speaker 4:international humanitarian law must be respected. Too many innocent Palestinians have been killed. The scale of civilian suffering and the images and videos coming from Gaza are devastating.
Speaker 2:I would say that this particular conflict has done more to undermine the US place in the world, but at the same time undermine the multilateral system, than anything that we've seen in the last few decades.
Speaker 3:It's a matter of support, political, financial, moral support to international questions, to international Geneva. I think Europe is there, yes, but Europe will not be able, I think, to match the United States.
Speaker 5:I don't think we can afford to sit in an arena where our hope for multilateralism, which still is the United Nations and its institutions, is still sitting, taking the constant bullying of the United States.
Speaker 2:Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva. I'm Imogen Fowkes and today we're going to talk US presidential elections. It may be a bit of a cliche to say that Europe is looking anxiously across the Atlantic, worrying, maybe about another Trump win, but here in Geneva we want to go a little deeper than that. So, regardless of who wins, how important is the United States these days? How committed is it Democrat or Republican to the things we talk so much about here in Geneva international law standards, the fundamental principles we all apparently agreed on post-World War II, what we often call the rules-based order To join me. I've got regular analyst Daniel Warner, swedish journalist Gunilla von Hall and head of the humanitarian agency MSF Netherlands, tamam Aloudat. He is originally from Syria. Welcome to you all, danny. As the US citizen in the room, I'm going to come to you first. Talking to you, a while ago you said neither Trump nor Harris was going to campaign on foreign policy. It's just not a factor to American voters, you think.
Speaker 1:No, as someone famously said, it's the economy's stupid. Foreign affairs is not a major issue, but it should be said Imogen to start with. Why is the United States election that important? And it should be reiterated that the United States was fundamental to the League of Nations and fundamental to starting the UN. So it's normal that everyone's looking at the election. Whether the results will affect multilateralism, whether the results will help the UN, that remains to be seen.
Speaker 2:Ghanila, let me come to you next, because you've actually been in the States reporting on the elections. I'm just wondering what your sense of it is.
Speaker 3:It's very interesting because I was there this summer to report on the election. I was at a Trump rally in Minnesota. I was at a Kamala Harris rally in Atlanta. I was in Washington, in the suburbs and in the city. I was in Washington, in the suburbs and in the city, and almost everyone I spoke to were basically focused on kitchen table issues. They want to have lower prices for food, grocery prices, lower gasoline prices and close the border Basically these three issues. And then when I try to speak about well, what about international? What about Ukraine and Gaza or Taiwan? It was barely that people reacted and they would say like well, ukraine, especially with Ukraine. People told me, both the Trump crowd and also people at the Kamala Harris rally, that why do we continue to support and pay money and give weapons? We should care about the United States, about our country, first, and then care about Ukraine and far away, and where is Ukraine anyway? It was striking how little appetite and interest there were in international affairs, international policy and what the United States can do.
Speaker 2:You know it's quite interesting. You say that I heard a European former ambassador to Washington commenting on this. He said it's probably not really a question of whether the US will withdraw from international affairs. It's basically one candidate will slam the door on his way out and the other will creep away hoping nobody notices. I hope it's not as bad as that. But, tam, let me ask you, because we're in a very unstable world and I heard your colleague from Doctors Without Borders, medsans Frontier, or I read in an article today talking about how the big powers, in particular the United States, was using humanitarian aid as a kind of smokescreen and that their actual foreign policy is at best helpless and at worst part of the problem, particularly when it comes to the Middle East.
Speaker 5:Yes, I do think it is worth examining now, particularly at this moment, whether we're looking at a system that has broken down or a system that we have convinced ourselves existed when it really didn't. If you think about, you know we're talking about multilateralism, and here it warrants the definition. Is multilateralism a system that allows all countries to deal with each other in a civil and non-violent way where common interest prevails, or is it the appearance of a system that allows the continued hegemony of the old powers after World War II? I mean the first thing you said a system we designed after World War II. Who the we is? Most of us were under colonial rule at the time. We designed nothing and we still suffer the consequences of a system that is designed to empower people already in power.
Speaker 5:I'm not going to venture to think why is one going to slam the door and the other going to creep out? It's beside the point. Now, maybe it doesn't pay to be in the pretense of a multilateral system anymore, but at least let's make a possible starting point the fact that there hasn't been an equitable, multilateral, rules-based order ever. It's not a Trump thing. The humanitarian crisis only mattered as far as they mattered in ex-colonies or in places of interest. So what we probably are seeing now is, rather than a new smoke screen, the clearing of the old smoke screens. And I here won't talk about the US alone, but it seems to me that Western governments stopped caring about appearing benevolent, as cheaply as that comes through the crumbs of humanitarian aid they give. The UK under Johnson stopped funding others. So it's about what do they care about now and what do they care to pretend to be at this point?
Speaker 2:That is a really important question. I saw you nodding there, gunilla, and I want to come to you on that point. But, danny, I'd maybe ask you first. I mean, tamman is way beyond our framing of the debate, in the sense that he doesn't see the US as a global leader at all in any kind of beneficial way, whoever is in the White House.
Speaker 1:Well, I think he makes an interesting distinction between who the we are. I did mention Tom, the United States. I didn't say it was beyond that, but the question of whether the UN and multilateralism are Western-oriented or universal is a very good point. I would make a distinction, though. The UN is totally failing in making sure there's peace and security there's no issue about that in Ukraine, middle East and other places Sudan but there are certain organizations in Geneva the ITU, international Telecommunications or others that may have certain benefits for countries all over the world. So I would say that what we're seeing now is the inability of the UN to deal with peace and security, which is supposed to be one of its, if not its, fundamental thing to do.
Speaker 2:Gunilla. What do you make of Tamam's point that maybe this multilateral system never properly existed, or perhaps only in the minds of the Western powers?
Speaker 3:I tend to agree and more and more, and that's based on what I hear working as a journalist in different areas. Now, when I was in the US, I definitely see there is no interest for anything called multilateralism or collaboration globally, perhaps with some questions like climate change and diseases and so forth, but politically there is almost like a resignation because Security Council is always blocked. Nothing happens. They are incapable of stopping any large conflicts, like Danny is saying also. So I see that and also what I tend to see.
Speaker 3:I was in Russia this year and of course, you get another point of view from there, but there I also hear this that we do not want to have this. We want to have a multipolar world. It is BRICS, it is India, China, South Africa, other countries, other countries than Europe and the US. I don't only hear this from the Russians, but also from other quarters an interest in kind of turning away from the multilateralism that has been invented or built up like a structure by the Western world and by the United States. So, yes, there is our notion of multilateralism from perhaps a Western point of view that is in crisis.
Speaker 2:Well, it's interesting you mentioned BRICS because they are meeting, that is, brazil, russia, india, china, south Africa. In Russia, the no-go area for the West, the sanction after sanction after sanction, and yet these big emerging economic powers are meeting there. They're going to do some very good deals together, I expect. And I wonder, and again I will ask you this, tama we've had for a long time in Geneva, geneva, the claim of double standards towards the traditional Western powers, but that in the last 12 months, over the conflict in Gaza, I'm wondering whether the Western powers have lost any of the moral authority they had, and I obviously, because we're talking about the elections in the United States, I include the United States in that.
Speaker 5:Yeah, I just want to follow a bit on what Dani said on some of the UN functions. I think, to be fair, even organisations that haven't had the best reputation for being effective or outspoken, like WHO, have spoken better than many others in the past between COVID and Gaza, and we've heard from WHO positions that are not what you'd expect here from WHO courageous and straightforward. But to go back to moral authority, as someone who comes from a country that has been historically opposed to American imperialism, I don't know that everybody else thinks of the moral authority in the West as fondly as the West thinks of it. This is why I talk about stopping the pretense rather than stopping the action.
Speaker 5:Much of the world has suffered the double edge of the West wanting to appear moral while acting immoral over the past many decades, and now we don't at least have to pretend that the West is moral anymore In the sense of, if you look at Palestine and the complete negligence of what's happening, continuing supplying weapons. Complete negligence of what's happening, continuing supplying weapons. I mean Macron wants to appear like a champion now that, a year later and 42,000 people dead, he's calling for stopping exporting weapons to Israel and Biden speaks very mildly about the situation with Netanyahu and John Bolton goes on CNN and tells him to put a sock in it. I mean, there is not even a semi-civilized conversation anymore. And the reason I mentioned that, not because I want to amplify the obscenity of Bolton, but because it seems to pay better for home politics to be openly rude and foul-mouthed about being a civilized nation among nations.
Speaker 2:Now that is a very depressing but actually, I think, quite accurate point. Dannyaruga To me when he was president of the Red Cross.
Speaker 1:There was a moral compass there. Do we have any leaders in the UN or other places who are moral leaders today? I think the whole concept of moral authority is declining, if not disappearing.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I think there is a point there. There's so much contradictions and double standards because, you can see, the US always says we're the global champion of democracy and human rights, but at the same time, it has alliances with these authoritarian regimes like Saudi Arabia or Egypt that really have criticism for the human rights violations and this, I think, undermines the US credibility in these questions, and this is a big issue. A lot of people say you know the US, yeah, it's going to lead, you know they're the leader of democracy, of human rights, but then in practice, what are they doing? There was a military intervention in Iraq, in Libya, but the Syrian civil war nothing really changed with the US. We had the Uyghurs in China. There hasn't been much action either if you compare to what happened in Iraq and Libya. So the choices are driven by geopolitical interests rather than these moral principles and weight that we could expect, perhaps, from the US.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean, I think that you are echoing things I hear in Geneva, not just from non-Western countries but increasingly from some Western countries, that you know you have this cliched status as the leader of the free world. I mean, even I that phrase starts to bug me. But let's bring it down to something which is also important and that is cash dollars, because the United States is a big, big funder of the UN humanitarian agencies in Geneva, big funder to the World Health Organization, to the UN Refugee Agency, also to the International Committee of the Red Cross. Now, under Trump Mark One, we saw him start moving away from the US, left the Human Rights Council, left the Paris Climate Accord, left the Iran nuclear deal, wanted to leave the World Health Organization. So that matters, doesn't it? I mean the money, were it Trump, or even political pressure on a Democrat president to cut things back, that's going to matter here in Geneva.
Speaker 1:Yeah, but the question is Imogen supposing Trump gets elected and supposing he does what he promises by stopping funding or reducing, is it worth it for other countries to step forward? And that's, to me, the fundamental question If Tamman is talking about the lack of Western credibility in the UN system, is it worth it for some other countries to step forward and say if the US isn't paying, we'll take up that deficit? And that, to me, is a real question, because if they want the UN to be less Western oriented, okay, you be more active or maybe you begin to take charge. That might be an interesting possibility.
Speaker 2:We certainly see very little cash coming from China, for example, or the Gulf states, who have plenty of it.
Speaker 3:Yeah, and that's been a long time that they've been asking for, as we see in the UN, asking for more support, especially from the Gulf states and China. We've been seeing that in how many humanitarian crises lately I don't know, but there's nothing coming from there. So that is true, it's the US, it is Europe to a large extent.
Speaker 2:Tamem, do you want to come in on that?
Speaker 5:Yeah, I mean if we take a slightly cynical view, I understand asking other countries to take charge, but if we measure it by money, then we are saying that poorer countries will never take charge of anything. And I think they can and they should. And COVID has given us an example where several countries refused the framework that has failed in distributing vaccines and negotiated on their own and actually got vaccinated before other Western countries. So the point is, if we are talking about a failing multilateralism and I'm not saying this is the case, but this is part of the argument then why do you expect other actors to come and invest in a failing and rigged game that they haven't designed and cannot control against a superpower that economically and militarily I've traveled across much of Africa in the past 20 years and China is giving a lot of money not to the UN but to infrastructure. The US invests very little in infrastructure infrastructure. So we still are seeing the game from the existing Western multilateral eye. Others are coming with other means and methods.
Speaker 5:Now one of the issues is if other countries want to invest, then there needs to be a possibility of reform of the multilateral system. And here I'm making the distinction, danny, that you mentioned between the peace and security part, which is completely blocked. As Gunilla mentioned, it's like a security council. It's dysfunctional and the investing in actually livability which other agencies provide. I think it is absolutely worth reforming and improving the functioning of agencies that improve livability without having to stick to the current shape. But I don't know how would we ever be able to overcome the complete blockage of the peace and security part.
Speaker 3:I think it's. Yeah, we're coming back to the issue, too, what Danny was speaking about the Security Council Council, and when and how it can be reformed and be more representative of today's world. Because if you have that, then countries will feel also that they're participating more, they have more influence and then maybe they want to also contribute more. But as you have a Security Council that's stuck with these five, you're also going to have perhaps the whole structure of how much countries want to help is going to be blocked.
Speaker 1:You know, we're in Geneva and Geneva is the site where the League of Nations folded, and is there a possibility that either the United Nations folds and the multilateral system goes under or it continues in one way or another. But it's totally ineffectual. And that's when I think Tom picked it up. The question of the fights that are going on, the violence that's going on and the fact that the UN has nothing to do with make any kind of peaceful settlement or humanitarian is terribly disappointing and, I would think, enormously worrying for Geneva.
Speaker 2:That's where my next question was going as well, actually, because we've got two viewpoints being expressed here, but on the same lines. One is that, you know, the Security Council, the current setup of the United Nations, is so mired in the past and so blocked that it's becoming discredited. Tamim, you said. Well, you know, some countries might want to just do things their own way, ie not through the multilateral system, but where does that leave the United Nations? And particularly, where does it leave humanitarian aid? Because certainly there can be bilateral efforts, but there are some crises which, I would say, still need a multilateral effort, perhaps not one that's as discredited as we have now, but that need one. I mean, gaza would be one, actually, if it worked.
Speaker 5:So I would say, if I follow on a mention of where's the leadership that Dani mentioned, moral leadership, I believe you know, at least from appearance and so on, least from appearance and so on, guterres might be a moral person, but leadership it's either impossible or beyond his capacity at this point to assert. And you said who do? I remember, I mean I remember reading about Dag Hammarskjöld and his diplomacy. I remember reading about people who actually went I can't remember who is it that did land in Baghdad and negotiate with Saddam on the airport. That doesn't seem to be there anymore. It seems to be more of a massive three-dimensional chess game where people don't seem to be taking enough risk and Imogen. I definitely don't think it is beyond multilateralism and that we don't need it anymore. But I don't think we can afford to sit in a arena where our hope for multilateralism, which still is the United Nations and its institutions, is still sitting, taking the constant bullying of the United States and unable to answer, have no capacity to answer. And here I'll just give you an example In New York, in the UN General Assembly just a couple of weeks ago, on a session on Sudan, ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield sat on a panel and talked about how she has.
Speaker 5:You know, her heart is broken about how Sudan shows the collapse of compassion. I think she said it. And this is the same person who has vetoed every resolution on ceasefire and gas, like. Who has vetoed every resolution on ceasefire and gas, like. Okay, you're a superpower, fine, do you need to insult us, insult our short-term memory to this extent? Do we need to act like this? I don't know, to be honest, that, if this is the moderate, supposedly leftist government in the US, I mean, who needs enemies when you have friends like that.
Speaker 2:I mean I think you've highlighted very starkly there with that example, the dismay and anger that we hear all the time in Geneva, particularly the Human Rights Council, about double standards. There are more and more countries I mean Gunilla, you're nodding there I mean there are some in Western Europe as well, but they're not very loud.
Speaker 3:No, it's true. No, it's true. No, you hear it more and more. I mean there's double standard and it's against the US. And I saw it also in the United States, especially when Kamala Harris rally in Atlanta. There were maybe two, three hundred people outside demonstrating for Palestine, for support for Palestine, and inside Kamala Harris is not even mentioning and people were frustrated saying where is she standing, is she not? You know they continue to give weapons and pay money, political support and weapons to Israel, but what about Palestinians? There was an enormous frustration that it's not clear. You know who side are you on and how come. You support Israel, but what about? You?
Speaker 2:look at Ukraine and you are stoutly, stoutly against Putin, but Israel support going to be a proper answer to this that will make any sense to anybody who's had anything to do with humanitarian work or international law. I would say that this particular conflict has done more to undermine the US place in the world, but at the same time undermine the multilateral system, than anything that we've seen in the last few decades. I see it's a terrible fracturing and people won't forget. They won't forget this.
Speaker 1:And it may change. The people in the United States will not vote for Kamala Harris simply because she won't come out and say that I will do this or I will no longer continue to support Israel, and which will mean in the end that probably Trump will win. If that happens, where we don't even know, we can't imagine what he'll do. We know as far as multilateralism. What he'll do as far as the Israel situation, we're not sure. But I do think that there are two words that are key here. One is the notion of polarization, not only in the United States but internationally. We see it in Geneva, we see it everywhere. And the second is the word transactional. Everything seems to be transactional. What's in this for me, instead of someone coming in long and saying for the common good, and those kinds of moral, ethical questions have totally disappeared from the narrative that's going on today.
Speaker 3:I also think that, just to add, I think it is so much. Well, you have the Gaza conflict, of course, and Israel, but I think what happened in Ukraine and the invasion by Russia in Ukraine has destroyed so much, so deeply, that has completely closed the door between the West and Russia. Russia is turning east and this we're going to have to live with for generations. I think that conflict, what's going on in Ukraine today, has much, much, much deeper repercussions than we can imagine. I think.
Speaker 5:Also, let's remember, Russia invaded Syria in 2015.
Speaker 3:Exactly.
Speaker 5:And no one did anything, and you know, and bombed the hell out of it and displaced hundreds of thousands of people and actually sustained the regime in Syria and continues to do so. I mean, I'm not going to sulk about how that affected my country, but I'm going to say also politics, even bad politics, requires smart people, and the inability to see the obvious over the past couple of decades in most political circles is staggering. The fact that the US didn't see that, you know, invading multiple countries, two decades of drone bombing and supplying weapons to Israel and others, is going to backfire one day. That you know, letting Putin give him Syria, he'll be fine. No, he wasn't fine and he won't ever be. All that, I mean, it wasn't impossible to predict or deal with, but everybody was throwing stuff down the road and we're now down the road. And you know, chicken Is that how you say it? Chicken, come back home.
Speaker 2:To roost.
Speaker 5:They're roosting now.
Speaker 2:Well, on that note, we're actually just about at the end. I've got one really cliched basic question for each of you, because we did start talking about the consequences on international Geneva for the US presidential elections. So, basic question does it even matter who's in the White House in January 25? I'm going to come to you first, Gunilla, from maybe the Europe point of view.
Speaker 3:I really do think so, because it's a matter of support political, financial, moral support to international questions, to international Geneva. I think Europe is there, yes, but Europe will not be able, I think, to match the United States. We have a lot of problems in Europe right now and we have the war in Ukraine to deal with, so there is a need for the United States. It matters who is there. The world needs someone who cares about the world and about multilateralism and global support, and I don't think that's Trump. I think that's more likely Kamala Harris.
Speaker 2:What do you think, Tamar? I mean, it ain't a perfect world, as we say. Harris would be preferable to Trump.
Speaker 5:I mean, I stopped anticipating stuff. It's just too difficult. I mean, who knows, Trump was following the wave of his supporters or his, you know, indoctrinators. Now he doesn't really. Maybe he doesn't care enough. He has no next elections, Maybe he will change his mind. He's changed his mind on abortion the past week since you know, several times, I think.
Speaker 5:Harris has a next election to think about, and I fear I'm not saying it's not preferable. I fear we've been bitten from this hole before. Twice I obsessed about Obama winning the elections in 2008. And then he ended up bombing the hell out of civilians. For eight years I wanted Biden to win, and he's now, you know, in a plausible genocide. He's the godfather of it.
Speaker 5:Do we want to sit here and wait until we're disillusioned yet again? I don't know. I don't know what's preferable and I fear that we won't know until we're disillusioned yet again. I don't know. I don't know what's preferable and I fear that we won't know until we know. And until then, geneva is one of the singular places and I don't think even New York as a center of a UN is capable of that. It's way too political One of the few places where you can intersect people who work on multiple issues related to international politics, not from the political angle, from the IT, from the communication, from the health, from the displacement and so on. There's a conversation that is possible here in Geneva, that is not possible almost anywhere else and that might be a form of multilateralism that needs to be supported and encouraged as well.
Speaker 2:That is a delightfully optimistic point to make, tamam, so I'm glad you made it in what was largely a relatively gloomy program. But, yes, let's tip a hat to Geneva and indeed, the types of conversations which happen here, which are always aiming for the best, but often incredibly practical and realistic as well. Now, danny, I'm going to give, as our US citizen, the last word to you. Does it matter to Geneva who's in the White House?
Speaker 1:There are over 30 cities in the United States called Geneva because the Geneva Bible was on the Mayflower. Because the Geneva Bible was on the Mayflower. I don't think in the United States today, geneva, switzerland is high on the agenda in this election, but I'll try and be optimistic with Tamar. There are things going on here that traditional Democrats and Republicans understand the importance of. One can only hope that there will be some reasonables returning to the United States after this election.
Speaker 2:Okay, well, a bit of, like I said, some optimism to end on. That's it for this edition of Inside Geneva. My thanks to Daniel Warner, gunilla von Hohl and Tamam Aloudat for your insights. Brutally realistic all of you, but I think we all need that. And just maybe stay with with tamam for my final words. It's maybe better in the climate we live in not to try to anticipate too much. Thank you all for listening. A reminder you've been listening to Inside Geneva, a Swissinfo production. You can email us on insidegeneva at swissinfoch and subscribe to us and review us wherever you get your podcasts. Check out our previous episodes how the International Red Cross unites prisoners of war with their families. How the International Red Cross unites prisoners of war with their families, or why survivors of human rights violations turn to the UN in Geneva for justice.
Speaker 1:I'm Imogen Folks. Thanks again for listening.
