The MVP of Success – Minimum Viable Product: Crash Course Business Entrepreneurship #6


Hi! My name is Anna. I like long walks on the beach and curling
up with a good book. I grew up all over, but I’m loving life
in LA, where I’m an actress and writer. My favorite summer activities include soaking
up the sun and spending time with my 6 cats. I’m hoping to meet someone who’s fun to
be around and is open to running 5Ks on Turkey day! Let’s grab coffee sometime. Imagine if the only videos on YouTube were
people looking for love. That could have been the world we lived
in! Before it had 1.9 billion users per day, YouTube
started as a video-based dating service, complete with the truly excellent catchphrase: “Tune
in, Hook Up.” If you look, you’ll find tons of these quirky
origin stories behind some of the most successful companies. But why? The reason they didn’t flop is because they
were willing to listen and fundamentally change their business when their original idea didn’t
meet the needs of their market. They were clever observers and nimble enough
to pivot. Today we’ll look at the bare minimum we
need to make an idea a business reality, also known as our minimum viable product. And we’ll be ready to pivot if things fall
flat. Don’t worry, it’ll be way easier than
maneuvering a couch up a stairwell. I’m Anna Akana, and this is Crash Course
Business: Entrepreneurship. [Opening Music Plays] I don’t know about you, but I tend to dream
big. My vision for any of my projects is in vivid
technicolor. And it’s great! I know where I want to go and pretty much
what an idea will look like in the end. But especially when it comes to entrepreneurship,
we want to take that vision of a product or service and break it up into smaller steps. Use the mantra: dream big, start small. We’ve done all the research we can in the
idea stage, so now we have to take the risky leap to the next level. Thinking strategically, we want to focus our
energy and our money on what creates value for customers, so they support us! The first iteration of our product or service
should be our minimum viable product — the simplest version that will attract customers
and maximize our learning as we launch our business. It’s called an MVP for short. And there are 3 key parts to a good MVP: It has enough value that customers want to
start using it It hints at what we’ll produce in the future
to keep customers interested, and It gives us feedback to learn from as we refine
our product or service. Basically, the MVP is like a really useful
first draft. Our goal isn’t perfection — and honestly,
it’s never going to be perfection in entrepreneurship, but more the goal is to produce a great first
offering that enables learning. Once we’ve launched a product or service,
we can start gathering feedback and implementing changes, so we can deliver more value to customers
faster than competitors. Let’s make our MVP the MVP! …*finger gun noises* To see this iteration in action, let’s go
to the Thought Bubble! Your friend Gretchen is very into fashion. And the hot new trend is special occasion
hats — wedding fedoras, Valentine’s Day fezes, Canada Day bonnets, pink berets to
wear on Wednesdays. It’s so fetch! Gretchen has been making her own whimsical
hats and wants to sell two of them on Etsy. She’s never sold anything before, but she
knows her costs per hat will include materials, basic marketing artwork, shipping, and her
time. After doing a bunch of math with some help
from her friend Kevin G — and scoping out the competition — she plans on selling each
hat for $28. They’re not the cheapest on the market,
but not the most expensive either. These two hats are good representations of
her skill and designs, they’re already popular with her friends, and Etsy allows lots of
communication between buyers and sellers (including reviews and customization requests). So with confidence that these two hats are
her minimum viable product, she takes the risk to post them! Gretchen gets feedback through comments and
reviews, and she notices that customers only seem to buy only one of her hats and wish
it had more customization options — like veils, ribbons, or feathers. She continues offering both hats, even though
only one is selling, and she ignores customer requests because their “uninformed suggestions”
don’t speak to her “creative sensibilities.” Soon her Etsy profile is a ghost town. Even though she had a solid MVP, she didn’t
learn from it. So even though hats are everywhere, no one
is wearing Gretchen’s. Thanks, Thought Bubble! To make an effective MVP and turn it into
a successful business, it’s important to put customers front and center and think about
People having an Experience. In buzzword lingo, this is applying a human-centered
approach to design-thinking. The good news is, all the entrepreneurial
thinking we’ve been doing so far is human-centered. We’re all humans [to the best of my knowledge],
and we all have small wishes about products and services that could make our days a little
easier — like wishing there was already a coaster on the bottom of every cup, or that
we could somehow reuse our favorite notebook forever. Those passions, complaints, and nagging “I
can do better than that!” feelings from our egos give us the seeds of ideas. Plus, we consider the jobs, pains, and gains
of our customers to make sure our ideas have value. Doesn’t get much more human-centered than
that! Design-thinking experts emphasize that coming
up with a good idea isn’t a linear process. It’s a jumble of loops that include steps
like: finding problems, brainstorming solutions, prototyping, testing, getting feedback, and
making changes. And I know Crash Course Business: Entrepreneurship
has been teaching these concepts in a pretty linear way, but entrepreneurship totally isn’t
a linear process. Every entrepreneur comes to the table with
different knowledge, skills, and expertise. Sometimes we recognize an idea but it takes
years to take the financial risk to start a business. Or we never do anything with the idea at all. When it comes to sketching out all the details
of our business, we have different interests too. Someone whose passion is marketing may have
cool branding, but they aren’t excited about choosing a legal structure. Or an accountant may start thinking about
the costs of their future business before investigating the competition, so they have
to circle back. Everyone’s starting point can be different! But we want to stay focused on a human-centered
approach to design-thinking as we create any product or service — especially our MVP. For example, despite great strides in global
health, some countries are still struggling to prevent parental death during pregnancy. So in rural India and Bangladesh, innovators
came up with the idea of a smart bangle — a water-resistant, plastic bracelet that gives
important pregnancy info twice a week for 10 months, without needing to be charged. The bangle also monitors carbon monoxide,
a gas that we can’t see or smell but is extremely toxic if it builds up in our blood. The bangle alerts the wearer when they’re
exposed to unhealthy levels of carbon monoxide, like possibly when they’re cooking over
wood-burning stoves. If the entrepreneurs hadn’t talked to the
women they were trying to help, they might have designed a culturally insensitive wearable,
rather than something that matches the patterns, colors, and cultural nuance of jewelry in
India. If nobody wanted to wear the bangle, it wouldn’t
help! You might assume that all successful entrepreneurs
have this process down. They’re changing the world, making money,
and living the dream, right?! But we all have biases and limitations, and
big mistakes happen. Maybe not enough research or testing was done,
or there was oversight. For example, the most common crash test dummy
was designed around a statistically average male body, from height and weight to muscle
distribution. So cars and seatbelts have historically been
much less safe for people whose bodies aren’t like that. Power tools are easier to hold if your hand
is a larger size. And personal protective equipment, like safety
goggles and body armor, doesn’t always come in the sizes that people need. And this unfortunately happens a lot across
medicine too. Like, the dosage of the morning-after contraceptive
pill is barely effective in people who weigh more than 165 pounds. So design-thinking is complicated — especially
when it comes to health and safety — and it takes a lot of work to make a thoughtful
MVP and consider all the different types of people who might use it. But no matter how well-researched or user-friendly
your MVP is, people just might not want it. That feeling stinks as a new entrepreneur. But all is not lost! Instead of burning everything to the ground,
you might be able to pivot. That’s the business way of saying: make
a big change to a product or service based on customer feedback, because they don’t
like or need it. In fact, many of the brands we know and love
(or at least use) today were born from pivots. Take Instagram, for example, which started
as Burbn — a check-in slash gaming slash planning slash photo-sharing app named after
alcohol. It was a lot. And it wasn’t popular. But instead of [drowning their sorrows in
Jim Beam, and] quitting, the founders used their app analytics to see how people were
using Burbn. No one cared about the check-in or gaming
features, but they loved to share photos. And thus: Instagram was born. Simple, intuitive, and now with over 1 billion
users. The key to a good pivot is listening. As you test your MVP, are you paying attention
to what your customers are telling you? You may uncover a job, pain, or gain that
you didn’t know about before. Then the question becomes: can you change? Change is hard! It’s easy to think you can handle it before
you’ve gone through the emotional rollercoaster of a new entrepreneurship venture. Of course I’d be able to
adapt! I’m super flexible, and I love hearing other
people’s ideas. But really listening to feedback can be rough. And it’s easy to disregard useful feedback
as worthless because you think you know best. This business idea is my BABY. I spent all this time listening and working
and making this thing that you SAID you wanted. Why don’t you love it?! How dare you! This kind of thinking can mean the death of
a fledgling — or even a mature — business. The best thing for your idea is to have a
critical eye and a hard heart: pay attention to what customers are using and let go of
what isn’t serving them. And it’s so important to get feedback early
on. Even though you’ve still put in hard work,
time, and money into an idea — it’ll be easier to pivot when you’re less attached. You know, I really thought the cat waterbed
was a good idea. But I guess it’s better to switch things
up now, before I paid to mass-produce them… oh ya, claws… that makes sense. The bottom line is: be flexible. You want your minimum viable product to draw
in customers, who provide lots of feedback, so you can adapt. And if you need to, pivot! Figure out what parts of your idea people
like and use, and focus on them. Next time, we’ll talk more detailed strategies
for getting this product feedback out of your customers, so that you can pivot before getting
in too deep. Thanks for watching Crash Course Business,
which is sponsored by Google. Thanks also to our animation team, Thought
Cafe! If you want to help keep Crash Course free
for everybody, forever, you can join our community on Patreon. And if you want to take a break from concrete
ideas and learn about the philosophy of design and aesthetics, check out this video:

We’re Using Stem Cells to Reverse Baldness and It’s Actually Working


Some very hairy mice are bringing us another
step closer to un-LOCKing a way to regenerate a full head of hair. Did somebody say a pun?! About 50% of men and 25% of women experience
at least partial hair loss by the age of 50, whether due to age, medical treatments, or
disease. Current options for those looking to reverse
this loss include things like medications that may slow hair loss and transplants from
hair follicles elsewhere on the body. But neither have the often desired effect
of restoring a thick and full volume of hair. Researchers have been optimizing techniques
for culturing “hair follicle germs” in a dish for years. There are 2 key types of cells that help hair
follicles develop before we’re born — epithelial cells that help us create skin, and mesenchymal
cells that help us create a variety of connective tissues — so researchers copied this strategy
from the embryo into the lab and they got hair follicles to grow! Though, these techniques were never high yield
enough to produce the amount of follicles needed to restore a full head of hair — to
its previous luxurious glory — until now… Recently, Japanese researchers made improvements
to this protocol, and then designed a special, oxygen-permeable mini-chip to scale up the
farming of follicles, growing up to ~5000 at once. The “chip” isn’t like a computer chip
— it’s a tiny polymer structure with little wells in it. They grow the follicles, add a collagen and
mesh layer for easy handling, and transplant right to the head where hopefully, it takes
hold and grows like normal hair. They showed that transplanting these follicles
onto immunodeficient mice led to lots of new hairs being formed within just 18 days! They could easily transfer cells from their
chip to a collagen matrix for uniform transplant with follicles nice and evenly spaced out,
which would make for practical harvesting when it comes time to transplant cells grown
with these chips onto humans. While these engineers made big progress in
the scale-up and efficiency of growing hair follicles on a chip, their tests WERE all
done with immune-deficient mice. But it’s not always a great idea to suppress
a human’s immune system. It leaves them vulnerable to infections. So, each patient would need their own personal
source of hair follicles… Fortunately, hair follicles contain stem cells
capable of regenerating new hairs, among other cells. Meaning that perhaps in the future instead
of transplanting follicles from another part of the body, scientists can take a few follicles
from a patient, expand them in culture, then transplant way more back onto your bald spot! So, for those waiting eagerly for solutions,
they’re coming! Keep putting sunscreen on the back of your
head. We have the machinery, scientists just need
a little more time to figure out the cells that’ll grow in them. Before you go, everyone. This is SAM! Sam is going to be on the channel more often
from now on, she’s amazing she studies neurobiology and I predict — like hair — she’s going to grow on you! That is an excellent/horrible pun. Hi everyone! I’m super excited, I will need to up my
pun game for sure. Your puns are great. You can also find sam on instagram Yep! I’m @Science.Sam and I talk about
my work in Neuroscience and other science communication topics all the time. Thanks for watching! Did you know that we shared our DNA with neanderthals? And they shared it with us too, if you know what we mean. Watch this video to learn more? Did you know theres a special word for something that produces hair? It’s called trichogenic, and insects and other arthropods have these cells too. Thanks again for watching Seeker!

Personalized Learning at Work: “What I Need” Sessions in Henry County, Ga.


– When I first came to sixth
grade, it was depressing. It was all online. And it was really confusing. When I was afraid of
the classes and grades, I didn’t wanna come to school. Sometimes, I would fake just being sick. So then that’s when WIN came in. It’s called WIN Monday
also What I Need Day. My Mondays are different
because we get choose what classes we go to. Academics, for instance, let’s
say that we’re failing math. We get to go to math. You can twice or even three
times if you need too. I usually have math because
I have a lot of issues at it. So I need to be on the WIN
Monday class to catch up. If we didn’t have WIN, I would
probably just have stayed home today, just to catch up on work. – All right, where do we
after grouping symbols? Jailyn, exponents. After we do all the grouping
symbols and all the exponents, where do we go next? – [Hailey] Sometimes
it feels like tutoring if the class is small and
you’re in a small group. And then if you get a question right, it’s like that one part of
you basking in the glory of you getting the question right. – [Teacher] Can you tell me,
the first thing we’re gonna do in this problem? Quinton. – Exponents. – [Teacher] Quinton thinks exponents. – I’m not the person to
ask for help because they always think, oh I can
do it if I just try. And I also thought that if I asked then the other people around me would be like, oh wow, she’s
so dumb, she doesn’t know that so that’s why I
personally like, well love WIN because I don’t have to
ask, I can just sign up. – Mm-hmm. – That’s right. – You can add it. You know more than you think you know. – So when classes mean
that we don’t have any fear anymore to ask the
teachers, since everyone needs help in the WIN class,
I don’t think it’s bad to ask because they’re
all the same as you, they need the help as well,
so if you ask a question, you might be helping the
kids that don’t wanna ask the question at the same time. I did addition before subtraction. – You did addition, okay, so remember, here’s the special thing. With addition and subtraction,
you have to do the one that comes first in the problem. – [Boy] Subtract. – Subtract. All right, I want you guys to try this while I go see if I can quiet
down that group in the back. So everybody try number three. – [Hailey] The teachers are
starting to pay attention like how the students
feel towards the work. They weren’t until I
was actually failing it. In sixth grade, I wouldn’t
really care about my teachers or in seventh grade, I would
care about this teacher but not that teacher. I’m friendly now with my teachers. It’s like if you help me,
I’ll be friendly with you because I’m getting the help I needed. I usually look forward
to coming to school now on Mondays because that’s the WIN class and the rest of the week,
I’m like, slowly going down because it’s more work
piling up for the next WIN. I think I passed sixth
grade and seventh grade mostly because of the WIN. When you’re not afraid to go to school, you just go there, you get your work done, and then you get the good grades, and everything turns out A-okay.

Small business still selling Skowhegan Indians apparel


MOVING MOVING FORWARD MOVING FORWARD WITH MOVING FORWARD WITH IT’S MOVING FORWARD WITH IT’S SCHOOL MOVING FORWARD WITH IT’S [email protected] MOVING FORWARD WITH IT’S [email protected]
YEAR MOVING FORWARD WITH IT’S [email protected]
YEAR WITHOUT MOVING FORWARD WITH IT’S [email protected]
YEAR WITHOUT A MOVING FORWARD WITH IT’S [email protected]
YEAR WITHOUT A NEW MOVING FORWARD WITH IT’S [email protected]
YEAR WITHOUT A NEW MASCOT. MOVING FORWARD WITH IT’S [email protected]
YEAR WITHOUT A NEW MASCOT.
THE MOVING FORWARD WITH IT’S [email protected]
YEAR WITHOUT A NEW MASCOT.
THE SCHOOL MOVING FORWARD WITH IT’S [email protected]
YEAR WITHOUT A NEW MASCOT.
THE SCHOOL BOARD MOVING FORWARD WITH IT’S [email protected]
YEAR WITHOUT A NEW MASCOT.
THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS MOVING FORWARD WITH IT’S [email protected]
YEAR WITHOUT A NEW MASCOT.
THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS YET MOVING FORWARD WITH IT’S [email protected]
YEAR WITHOUT A NEW MASCOT.
THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS YET TO YEAR WITHOUT A NEW MASCOT.
THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS YET TO YEAR WITHOUT A NEW MASCOT.
THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS YET TO
REPLACE YEAR WITHOUT A NEW MASCOT.
THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS YET TO
REPLACE IT YEAR WITHOUT A NEW MASCOT.
THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS YET TO
REPLACE IT AFTER YEAR WITHOUT A NEW MASCOT.
THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS YET TO
REPLACE IT AFTER THE YEAR WITHOUT A NEW MASCOT.
THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS YET TO
REPLACE IT AFTER THE BOARD YEAR WITHOUT A NEW MASCOT.
THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS YET TO
REPLACE IT AFTER THE BOARD [email protected] THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS YET TO
REPLACE IT AFTER THE BOARD [email protected] THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS YET TO
REPLACE IT AFTER THE BOARD [email protected]
TO THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS YET TO
REPLACE IT AFTER THE BOARD [email protected]
TO REMOVE THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS YET TO
REPLACE IT AFTER THE BOARD [email protected]
TO REMOVE IT THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS YET TO
REPLACE IT AFTER THE BOARD [email protected]
TO REMOVE IT EARLIER THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS YET TO
REPLACE IT AFTER THE BOARD [email protected]
TO REMOVE IT EARLIER THIS THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS YET TO
REPLACE IT AFTER THE BOARD [email protected]
TO REMOVE IT EARLIER THIS YEAR. REPLACE IT AFTER THE BOARD [email protected]
TO REMOVE IT EARLIER THIS YEAR. REPLACE IT AFTER THE BOARD [email protected]
TO REMOVE IT EARLIER THIS YEAR.
BUT REPLACE IT AFTER THE BOARD [email protected]
TO REMOVE IT EARLIER THIS YEAR.
BUT THE REPLACE IT AFTER THE BOARD [email protected]
TO REMOVE IT EARLIER THIS YEAR.
BUT THE CONTROVERSIAL REPLACE IT AFTER THE BOARD [email protected]
TO REMOVE IT EARLIER THIS YEAR.
BUT THE CONTROVERSIAL INDIAN TO REMOVE IT EARLIER THIS YEAR.
BUT THE CONTROVERSIAL INDIAN TO REMOVE IT EARLIER THIS YEAR.
BUT THE CONTROVERSIAL INDIAN
NICKNAME TO REMOVE IT EARLIER THIS YEAR.
BUT THE CONTROVERSIAL INDIAN
NICKNAME IS TO REMOVE IT EARLIER THIS YEAR.
BUT THE CONTROVERSIAL INDIAN
NICKNAME IS STILL TO REMOVE IT EARLIER THIS YEAR.
BUT THE CONTROVERSIAL INDIAN
NICKNAME IS STILL FRONT TO REMOVE IT EARLIER THIS YEAR.
BUT THE CONTROVERSIAL INDIAN
NICKNAME IS STILL FRONT AND BUT THE CONTROVERSIAL INDIAN
NICKNAME IS STILL FRONT AND BUT THE CONTROVERSIAL INDIAN
NICKNAME IS STILL FRONT AND
CENTER BUT THE CONTROVERSIAL INDIAN
NICKNAME IS STILL FRONT AND
CENTER IN BUT THE CONTROVERSIAL INDIAN
NICKNAME IS STILL FRONT AND
CENTER IN TOWN, BUT THE CONTROVERSIAL INDIAN
NICKNAME IS STILL FRONT AND
CENTER IN TOWN, EVEN BUT THE CONTROVERSIAL INDIAN
NICKNAME IS STILL FRONT AND
CENTER IN TOWN, EVEN THOUGH BUT THE CONTROVERSIAL INDIAN
NICKNAME IS STILL FRONT AND
CENTER IN TOWN, EVEN THOUGH IT NICKNAME IS STILL FRONT AND
CENTER IN TOWN, EVEN THOUGH IT NICKNAME IS STILL FRONT AND
CENTER IN TOWN, EVEN THOUGH IT
IS NICKNAME IS STILL FRONT AND
CENTER IN TOWN, EVEN THOUGH IT
IS ILLEGAL NICKNAME IS STILL FRONT AND
CENTER IN TOWN, EVEN THOUGH IT
IS ILLEGAL AT NICKNAME IS STILL FRONT AND
CENTER IN TOWN, EVEN THOUGH IT
IS ILLEGAL AT SCHOOLS NICKNAME IS STILL FRONT AND
CENTER IN TOWN, EVEN THOUGH IT
IS ILLEGAL AT SCHOOLS [email protected] CENTER IN TOWN, EVEN THOUGH IT
IS ILLEGAL AT SCHOOLS [email protected] CENTER IN TOWN, EVEN THOUGH IT
IS ILLEGAL AT SCHOOLS [email protected]
THE CENTER IN TOWN, EVEN THOUGH IT
IS ILLEGAL AT SCHOOLS [email protected]
THE STATE. IS ILLEGAL AT SCHOOLS [email protected]
THE STATE. IS ILLEGAL AT SCHOOLS [email protected]
THE STATE.
NEWS IS ILLEGAL AT SCHOOLS [email protected]
THE STATE.
NEWS [email protected] IS ILLEGAL AT SCHOOLS [email protected]
THE STATE.
NEWS [email protected] MAINE’S IS ILLEGAL AT SCHOOLS [email protected]
THE STATE.
NEWS [email protected] MAINE’S SEAN THE STATE.
NEWS [email protected] MAINE’S SEAN NEWS [email protected] MAINE’S SEAN [email protected]@ [email protected]@
STACKHOUSE [email protected]@
STACKHOUSE EXPLAINS. STACKHOUSE EXPLAINS. STACKHOUSE EXPLAINS.

YOU STACKHOUSE EXPLAINS.

YOU WON’T STACKHOUSE EXPLAINS.

YOU WON’T SEE STACKHOUSE EXPLAINS.

YOU WON’T SEE THE STACKHOUSE EXPLAINS.

YOU WON’T SEE THE LOGO STACKHOUSE EXPLAINS.

YOU WON’T SEE THE LOGO ON STACKHOUSE EXPLAINS.

YOU WON’T SEE THE LOGO ON SCHOOL YOU WON’T SEE THE LOGO ON SCHOOL YOU WON’T SEE THE LOGO ON SCHOOL
GROUNDS… YOU WON’T SEE THE LOGO ON SCHOOL
GROUNDS… BUT YOU WON’T SEE THE LOGO ON SCHOOL
GROUNDS… BUT AS YOU WON’T SEE THE LOGO ON SCHOOL
GROUNDS… BUT AS
YOU YOU WON’T SEE THE LOGO ON SCHOOL
GROUNDS… BUT AS
YOU HEAD YOU WON’T SEE THE LOGO ON SCHOOL
GROUNDS… BUT AS
YOU HEAD THROUGH YOU WON’T SEE THE LOGO ON SCHOOL
GROUNDS… BUT AS
YOU HEAD THROUGH TOWN, YOU WON’T SEE THE LOGO ON SCHOOL
GROUNDS… BUT AS
YOU HEAD THROUGH TOWN, THE GROUNDS… BUT AS
YOU HEAD THROUGH TOWN, THE GROUNDS… BUT AS
YOU HEAD THROUGH TOWN, THE
SKOWHEGAN GROUNDS… BUT AS
YOU HEAD THROUGH TOWN, THE
SKOWHEGAN INDIAN GROUNDS… BUT AS
YOU HEAD THROUGH TOWN, THE
SKOWHEGAN INDIAN IS YOU HEAD THROUGH TOWN, THE
SKOWHEGAN INDIAN IS YOU HEAD THROUGH TOWN, THE
SKOWHEGAN INDIAN IS
EVERYWHERE. SKOWHEGAN INDIAN IS
EVERYWHERE. SKOWHEGAN INDIAN IS
EVERYWHERE.
THERE’S SKOWHEGAN INDIAN IS
EVERYWHERE.
THERE’S A SKOWHEGAN INDIAN IS
EVERYWHERE.
THERE’S A LOT SKOWHEGAN INDIAN IS
EVERYWHERE.
THERE’S A LOT OF SKOWHEGAN INDIAN IS
EVERYWHERE.
THERE’S A LOT OF SUPPORT SKOWHEGAN INDIAN IS
EVERYWHERE.
THERE’S A LOT OF SUPPORT IN SKOWHEGAN INDIAN IS
EVERYWHERE.
THERE’S A LOT OF SUPPORT IN THIS EVERYWHERE.
THERE’S A LOT OF SUPPORT IN THIS EVERYWHERE.
THERE’S A LOT OF SUPPORT IN THIS
CENTRAL EVERYWHERE.
THERE’S A LOT OF SUPPORT IN THIS
CENTRAL MAINE EVERYWHERE.
THERE’S A LOT OF SUPPORT IN THIS
CENTRAL MAINE AREA, EVERYWHERE.
THERE’S A LOT OF SUPPORT IN THIS
CENTRAL MAINE AREA, SKOWHEGAN THERE’S A LOT OF SUPPORT IN THIS
CENTRAL MAINE AREA, SKOWHEGAN THERE’S A LOT OF SUPPORT IN THIS
CENTRAL MAINE AREA, SKOWHEGAN
SPECIFICALLY, THERE’S A LOT OF SUPPORT IN THIS
CENTRAL MAINE AREA, SKOWHEGAN
SPECIFICALLY, TO THERE’S A LOT OF SUPPORT IN THIS
CENTRAL MAINE AREA, SKOWHEGAN
SPECIFICALLY, TO KEEP THERE’S A LOT OF SUPPORT IN THIS
CENTRAL MAINE AREA, SKOWHEGAN
SPECIFICALLY, TO KEEP THIS CENTRAL MAINE AREA, SKOWHEGAN
SPECIFICALLY, TO KEEP THIS CENTRAL MAINE AREA, SKOWHEGAN
SPECIFICALLY, TO KEEP THIS
INDIAN CENTRAL MAINE AREA, SKOWHEGAN
SPECIFICALLY, TO KEEP THIS
INDIAN [email protected] SPECIFICALLY, TO KEEP THIS
INDIAN [email protected] SPECIFICALLY, TO KEEP THIS
INDIAN [email protected]
SUPPORT SPECIFICALLY, TO KEEP THIS
INDIAN [email protected]
SUPPORT THAT’S SPECIFICALLY, TO KEEP THIS
INDIAN [email protected]
SUPPORT THAT’S [email protected] SPECIFICALLY, TO KEEP THIS
INDIAN [email protected]
SUPPORT THAT’S [email protected] MORE INDIAN [email protected]
SUPPORT THAT’S [email protected] MORE INDIAN [email protected]
SUPPORT THAT’S [email protected] MORE
CUSTOMERS INDIAN [email protected]
SUPPORT THAT’S [email protected] MORE
CUSTOMERS THAN INDIAN [email protected]
SUPPORT THAT’S [email protected] MORE
CUSTOMERS THAN EVER INDIAN [email protected]
SUPPORT THAT’S [email protected] MORE
CUSTOMERS THAN EVER TO INDIAN [email protected]
SUPPORT THAT’S [email protected] MORE
CUSTOMERS THAN EVER TO MAINE SUPPORT THAT’S [email protected] MORE
CUSTOMERS THAN EVER TO MAINE SUPPORT THAT’S [email protected] MORE
CUSTOMERS THAN EVER TO MAINE
FIRE SUPPORT THAT’S [email protected] MORE
CUSTOMERS THAN EVER TO MAINE
FIRE EQUIPMENT SUPPORT THAT’S [email protected] MORE
CUSTOMERS THAN EVER TO MAINE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY. SUPPORT THAT’S [email protected] MORE
CUSTOMERS THAN EVER TO MAINE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY. OWNER CUSTOMERS THAN EVER TO MAINE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY. OWNER CUSTOMERS THAN EVER TO MAINE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY. OWNER
TODD CUSTOMERS THAN EVER TO MAINE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY. OWNER
TODD SMITH CUSTOMERS THAN EVER TO MAINE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY. OWNER
TODD SMITH ALSO CUSTOMERS THAN EVER TO MAINE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY. OWNER
TODD SMITH ALSO SERVES CUSTOMERS THAN EVER TO MAINE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY. OWNER
TODD SMITH ALSO SERVES AS CUSTOMERS THAN EVER TO MAINE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY. OWNER
TODD SMITH ALSO SERVES AS A FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY. OWNER
TODD SMITH ALSO SERVES AS A FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY. OWNER
TODD SMITH ALSO SERVES AS A
SCHOOL FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY. OWNER
TODD SMITH ALSO SERVES AS A
SCHOOL BOARD FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY. OWNER
TODD SMITH ALSO SERVES AS A
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY. OWNER
TODD SMITH ALSO SERVES AS A
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER FOR TODD SMITH ALSO SERVES AS A
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER FOR TODD SMITH ALSO SERVES AS A
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER FOR
SKOWHEGAN TODD SMITH ALSO SERVES AS A
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER FOR
SKOWHEGAN AND TODD SMITH ALSO SERVES AS A
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER FOR
SKOWHEGAN AND SURROUNDING TODD SMITH ALSO SERVES AS A
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER FOR
SKOWHEGAN AND SURROUNDING [email protected] SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER FOR
SKOWHEGAN AND SURROUNDING [email protected] SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER FOR
SKOWHEGAN AND SURROUNDING [email protected]
TOWNS… SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER FOR
SKOWHEGAN AND SURROUNDING [email protected]
TOWNS… HE’S SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER FOR
SKOWHEGAN AND SURROUNDING [email protected]
TOWNS… HE’S SEEN SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER FOR
SKOWHEGAN AND SURROUNDING [email protected]
TOWNS… HE’S SEEN [email protected] SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER FOR
SKOWHEGAN AND SURROUNDING [email protected]
TOWNS… HE’S SEEN [email protected] FOR SKOWHEGAN AND SURROUNDING [email protected]
TOWNS… HE’S SEEN [email protected] FOR TOWNS… HE’S SEEN [email protected] FOR [email protected] [email protected]
THESE [email protected]
THESE SHIRTS [email protected]
THESE SHIRTS COMING [email protected]
THESE SHIRTS COMING FROM [email protected]
THESE SHIRTS COMING FROM AS [email protected]
THESE SHIRTS COMING FROM AS FAR [email protected]
THESE SHIRTS COMING FROM AS FAR
AS [email protected]
THESE SHIRTS COMING FROM AS FAR
AS CALIFORNIA. THESE SHIRTS COMING FROM AS FAR
AS CALIFORNIA. THESE SHIRTS COMING FROM AS FAR
AS CALIFORNIA.
WHETHER THESE SHIRTS COMING FROM AS FAR
AS CALIFORNIA.
WHETHER THEY’RE THESE SHIRTS COMING FROM AS FAR
AS CALIFORNIA.
WHETHER THEY’RE NATIVE THESE SHIRTS COMING FROM AS FAR
AS CALIFORNIA.
WHETHER THEY’RE NATIVE AMERICAN AS CALIFORNIA.
WHETHER THEY’RE NATIVE AMERICAN AS CALIFORNIA.
WHETHER THEY’RE NATIVE AMERICAN
OR AS CALIFORNIA.
WHETHER THEY’RE NATIVE AMERICAN
OR NOT, AS CALIFORNIA.
WHETHER THEY’RE NATIVE AMERICAN
OR NOT, THEY AS CALIFORNIA.
WHETHER THEY’RE NATIVE AMERICAN
OR NOT, THEY GREW AS CALIFORNIA.
WHETHER THEY’RE NATIVE AMERICAN
OR NOT, THEY GREW UP AS CALIFORNIA.
WHETHER THEY’RE NATIVE AMERICAN
OR NOT, THEY GREW UP IN WHETHER THEY’RE NATIVE AMERICAN
OR NOT, THEY GREW UP IN WHETHER THEY’RE NATIVE AMERICAN
OR NOT, THEY GREW UP IN
SKOWHEGAN WHETHER THEY’RE NATIVE AMERICAN
OR NOT, THEY GREW UP IN
SKOWHEGAN AS WHETHER THEY’RE NATIVE AMERICAN
OR NOT, THEY GREW UP IN
SKOWHEGAN AS A WHETHER THEY’RE NATIVE AMERICAN
OR NOT, THEY GREW UP IN
SKOWHEGAN AS A SKOWHEGAN WHETHER THEY’RE NATIVE AMERICAN
OR NOT, THEY GREW UP IN
SKOWHEGAN AS A SKOWHEGAN INDIAN OR NOT, THEY GREW UP IN
SKOWHEGAN AS A SKOWHEGAN INDIAN OR NOT, THEY GREW UP IN
SKOWHEGAN AS A SKOWHEGAN INDIAN
AND OR NOT, THEY GREW UP IN
SKOWHEGAN AS A SKOWHEGAN INDIAN
AND THEY OR NOT, THEY GREW UP IN
SKOWHEGAN AS A SKOWHEGAN INDIAN
AND THEY WANT OR NOT, THEY GREW UP IN
SKOWHEGAN AS A SKOWHEGAN INDIAN
AND THEY WANT [email protected] SKOWHEGAN AS A SKOWHEGAN INDIAN
AND THEY WANT [email protected] SKOWHEGAN AS A SKOWHEGAN INDIAN
AND THEY WANT [email protected]
REMEMBERENCE. SKOWHEGAN AS A SKOWHEGAN INDIAN
AND THEY WANT [email protected]
REMEMBERENCE. THEY SKOWHEGAN AS A SKOWHEGAN INDIAN
AND THEY WANT [email protected]
REMEMBERENCE. THEY WANT SKOWHEGAN AS A SKOWHEGAN INDIAN
AND THEY WANT [email protected]
REMEMBERENCE. THEY WANT THAT AND THEY WANT [email protected]
REMEMBERENCE. THEY WANT THAT AND THEY WANT [email protected]
REMEMBERENCE. THEY WANT THAT
BALLCAP, AND THEY WANT [email protected]
REMEMBERENCE. THEY WANT THAT
BALLCAP, THEY AND THEY WANT [email protected]
REMEMBERENCE. THEY WANT THAT
BALLCAP, THEY WANT AND THEY WANT [email protected]
REMEMBERENCE. THEY WANT THAT
BALLCAP, THEY WANT THE AND THEY WANT [email protected]
REMEMBERENCE. THEY WANT THAT
BALLCAP, THEY WANT THE SHIRT, REMEMBERENCE. THEY WANT THAT
BALLCAP, THEY WANT THE SHIRT, REMEMBERENCE. THEY WANT THAT
BALLCAP, THEY WANT THE SHIRT,
THEY REMEMBERENCE. THEY WANT THAT
BALLCAP, THEY WANT THE SHIRT,
THEY WANT REMEMBERENCE. THEY WANT THAT
BALLCAP, THEY WANT THE SHIRT,
THEY WANT SOMETHING REMEMBERENCE. THEY WANT THAT
BALLCAP, THEY WANT THE SHIRT,
THEY WANT SOMETHING THAT REMEMBERENCE. THEY WANT THAT
BALLCAP, THEY WANT THE SHIRT,
THEY WANT SOMETHING THAT SAYS BALLCAP, THEY WANT THE SHIRT,
THEY WANT SOMETHING THAT SAYS BALLCAP, THEY WANT THE SHIRT,
THEY WANT SOMETHING THAT SAYS
THIS BALLCAP, THEY WANT THE SHIRT,
THEY WANT SOMETHING THAT SAYS
THIS IS BALLCAP, THEY WANT THE SHIRT,
THEY WANT SOMETHING THAT SAYS
THIS IS WHO BALLCAP, THEY WANT THE SHIRT,
THEY WANT SOMETHING THAT SAYS
THIS IS WHO I BALLCAP, THEY WANT THE SHIRT,
THEY WANT SOMETHING THAT SAYS
THIS IS WHO I AM. THEY WANT SOMETHING THAT SAYS
THIS IS WHO I AM. THEY WANT SOMETHING THAT SAYS
THIS IS WHO I AM.
BUT THEY WANT SOMETHING THAT SAYS
THIS IS WHO I AM.
BUT DESPITE THEY WANT SOMETHING THAT SAYS
THIS IS WHO I AM.
BUT DESPITE COMMUNITY THEY WANT SOMETHING THAT SAYS
THIS IS WHO I AM.
BUT DESPITE COMMUNITY CONNECTION THIS IS WHO I AM.
BUT DESPITE COMMUNITY CONNECTION THIS IS WHO I AM.
BUT DESPITE COMMUNITY CONNECTION
AND THIS IS WHO I AM.
BUT DESPITE COMMUNITY CONNECTION
AND SUPPORT THIS IS WHO I AM.
BUT DESPITE COMMUNITY CONNECTION
AND SUPPORT OF THIS IS WHO I AM.
BUT DESPITE COMMUNITY CONNECTION
AND SUPPORT OF THAT THIS IS WHO I AM.
BUT DESPITE COMMUNITY CONNECTION
AND SUPPORT OF THAT [email protected] BUT DESPITE COMMUNITY CONNECTION
AND SUPPORT OF THAT [email protected] BUT DESPITE COMMUNITY CONNECTION
AND SUPPORT OF THAT [email protected]
LOGO, BUT DESPITE COMMUNITY CONNECTION
AND SUPPORT OF THAT [email protected]
LOGO, SOME BUT DESPITE COMMUNITY CONNECTION
AND SUPPORT OF THAT [email protected]
LOGO, SOME BELIEVE BUT DESPITE COMMUNITY CONNECTION
AND SUPPORT OF THAT [email protected]
LOGO, SOME BELIEVE IT BUT DESPITE COMMUNITY CONNECTION
AND SUPPORT OF THAT [email protected]
LOGO, SOME BELIEVE IT SHOULDN’T AND SUPPORT OF THAT [email protected]
LOGO, SOME BELIEVE IT SHOULDN’T AND SUPPORT OF THAT [email protected]
LOGO, SOME BELIEVE IT SHOULDN’T
BE AND SUPPORT OF THAT [email protected]
LOGO, SOME BELIEVE IT SHOULDN’T
BE THEIRS AND SUPPORT OF THAT [email protected]
LOGO, SOME BELIEVE IT SHOULDN’T
BE THEIRS TO AND SUPPORT OF THAT [email protected]
LOGO, SOME BELIEVE IT SHOULDN’T
BE THEIRS TO [email protected] LOGO, SOME BELIEVE IT SHOULDN’T
BE THEIRS TO [email protected] LOGO, SOME BELIEVE IT SHOULDN’T
BE THEIRS TO [email protected]
BEHIND. BE THEIRS TO [email protected]
BEHIND. BE THEIRS TO [email protected]
BEHIND.
THEY’VE BE THEIRS TO [email protected]
BEHIND.
THEY’VE TAKEN BE THEIRS TO [email protected]
BEHIND.
THEY’VE TAKEN THIS BE THEIRS TO RA[email protected]
BEHIND.
THEY’VE TAKEN THIS HISTORY BE THEIRS TO [email protected]
BEHIND.
THEY’VE TAKEN THIS HISTORY OF BEHIND.
THEY’VE TAKEN THIS HISTORY OF BEHIND.
THEY’VE TAKEN THIS HISTORY OF
THE BEHIND.
THEY’VE TAKEN THIS HISTORY OF
THE TOWN BEHIND.
THEY’VE TAKEN THIS HISTORY OF
THE TOWN AND BEHIND.
THEY’VE TAKEN THIS HISTORY OF
THE TOWN AND REALLY BEHIND.
THEY’VE TAKEN THIS HISTORY OF
THE TOWN AND REALLY APPLIED BEHIND.
THEY’VE TAKEN THIS HISTORY OF
THE TOWN AND REALLY APPLIED IT THEY’VE TAKEN THIS HISTORY OF
THE TOWN AND REALLY APPLIED IT THEY’VE TAKEN THIS HISTORY OF
THE TOWN AND REALLY APPLIED IT
TO THEY’VE TAKEN THIS HISTORY OF
THE TOWN AND REALLY APPLIED IT
TO THEMSELVES THEY’VE TAKEN THIS HISTORY OF
THE TOWN AND REALLY APPLIED IT
TO THEMSELVES WHEN THEY’VE TAKEN THIS HISTORY OF
THE TOWN AND REALLY APPLIED IT
TO THEMSELVES WHEN REALLY THEY’VE TAKEN THIS HISTORY OF
THE TOWN AND REALLY APPLIED IT
TO THEMSELVES WHEN REALLY IT’[email protected] THE TOWN AND REALLY APPLIED IT
TO THEMSELVES WHEN REALLY IT’[email protected] THE TOWN AND REALLY APPLIED IT
TO THEMSELVES WHEN REALLY IT’[email protected]
NOT THE TOWN AND REALLY APPLIED IT
TO THEMSELVES WHEN REALLY IT’[email protected]
NOT THEIR THE TOWN AND REALLY APPLIED IT
TO THEMSELVES WHEN REALLY IT’[email protected]
NOT THEIR IDENTITY, THE TOWN AND REALLY APPLIED IT
TO THEMSELVES WHEN REALLY IT’[email protected]
NOT THEIR IDENTITY, THEY’RE TO THEMSELVES WHEN REALLY IT’[email protected]
NOT THEIR IDENTITY, THEY’RE TO THEMSELVES WHEN REALLY IT’[email protected]
NOT THEIR IDENTITY, THEY’RE
NOT TO THEMSELVES WHEN REALLY IT’[email protected]
NOT THEIR IDENTITY, THEY’RE
NOT INDIGINOUS TO THEMSELVES WHEN REALLY IT’[email protected]
NOT THEIR IDENTITY, THEY’RE
NOT INDIGINOUS PEOPLE. NOT THEIR IDENTITY, THEY’RE
NOT INDIGINOUS PEOPLE. NOT INDIGINOUS PEOPLE. PENOBSCOT PENOBSCOT NATION PENOBSCOT NATION AMBASSADOR PENOBSCOT NATION AMBASSADOR
MAULIAN PENOBSCOT NATION AMBASSADOR
MAULIAN DANA PENOBSCOT NATION AMBASSADOR
MAULIAN DANA WAS PENOBSCOT NATION AMBASSADOR
MAULIAN DANA WAS
AT PENOBSCOT NATION AMBASSADOR
MAULIAN DANA WAS
AT THE PENOBSCOT NATION AMBASSADOR
MAULIAN DANA WAS
AT THE FOREFRONT PENOBSCOT NATION AMBASSADOR
MAULIAN DANA WAS
AT THE FOREFRONT OF PENOBSCOT NATION AMBASSADOR
MAULIAN DANA WAS
AT THE FOREFRONT OF THE PENOBSCOT NATION AMBASSADOR
MAULIAN DANA WAS
AT THE FOREFRONT OF THE MOVEMENT MAULIAN DANA WAS
AT THE FOREFRONT OF THE MOVEMENT MAULIAN DANA WAS
AT THE FOREFRONT OF THE MOVEMENT
FOR MAULIAN DANA WAS
AT THE FOREFRONT OF THE MOVEMENT
FOR SKOWHEGAN MAULIAN DANA WAS
AT THE FOREFRONT OF THE MOVEMENT
FOR SKOWHEGAN TO MAULIAN DANA WAS
AT THE FOREFRONT OF THE MOVEMENT
FOR SKOWHEGAN TO DROP MAULIAN DANA WAS
AT THE FOREFRONT OF THE MOVEMENT
FOR SKOWHEGAN TO DROP IT’S AT THE FOREFRONT OF THE MOVEMENT
FOR SKOWHEGAN TO DROP IT’S AT THE FOREFRONT OF THE MOVEMENT
FOR SKOWHEGAN TO DROP IT’S
SCHOOL AT THE FOREFRONT OF THE MOVEMENT
FOR SKOWHEGAN TO DROP IT’S
SCHOOL MASCOT… AT THE FOREFRONT OF THE MOVEMENT
FOR SKOWHEGAN TO DROP IT’S
SCHOOL MASCOT… SAYING AT THE FOREFRONT OF THE MOVEMENT
FOR SKOWHEGAN TO DROP IT’S
SCHOOL MASCOT… SAYING IT’S AT THE FOREFRONT OF THE MOVEMENT
FOR SKOWHEGAN TO DROP IT’S
SCHOOL MASCOT… SAYING IT’S AN FOR SKOWHEGAN TO DROP IT’S
SCHOOL MASCOT… SAYING IT’S AN FOR SKOWHEGAN TO DROP IT’S
SCHOOL MASCOT… SAYING IT’S AN
OFFENSIVE FOR SKOWHEGAN TO DROP IT’S
SCHOOL MASCOT… SAYING IT’S AN
OFFENSIVE REPRESENTATION SCHOOL MASCOT… SAYING IT’S AN
OFFENSIVE REPRESENTATION SCHOOL MASCOT… SAYING IT’S AN
OFFENSIVE REPRESENTATION
OF SCHOOL MASCOT… SAYING IT’S AN
OFFENSIVE REPRESENTATION
OF NATIVE SCHOOL MASCOT… SAYING IT’S AN
OFFENSIVE REPRESENTATION
OF NATIVE AMERICANS… SCHOOL MASCOT… SAYING IT’S AN
OFFENSIVE REPRESENTATION
OF NATIVE AMERICANS… SHE OFFENSIVE REPRESENTATION
OF NATIVE AMERICANS… SHE OFFENSIVE REPRESENTATION
OF NATIVE AMERICANS… SHE
THINKS OFFENSIVE REPRESENTATION
OF NATIVE AMERICANS… SHE
THINKS SMITH’S OFFENSIVE REPRESENTATION
OF NATIVE AMERICANS… SHE
THINKS SMITH’S SHIRTS OFFENSIVE REPRESENTATION
OF NATIVE AMERICANS… SHE
THINKS SMITH’S SHIRTS ARE OFFENSIVE REPRESENTATION
OF NATIVE AMERICANS… SHE
THINKS SMITH’S SHIRTS ARE TOO. OF NATIVE AMERICANS… SHE
THINKS SMITH’S SHIRTS ARE TOO. OF NATIVE AMERICANS… SHE
THINKS SMITH’S SHIRTS ARE TOO.
I OF NATIVE AMERICANS… SHE
THINKS SMITH’S SHIRTS ARE TOO.
I THINK OF NATIVE AMERICANS… SHE
THINKS SMITH’S SHIRTS ARE TOO.
I THINK THERE’S OF NATIVE AMERICANS… SHE
THINKS SMITH’S SHIRTS ARE TOO.
I THINK THERE’S A OF NATIVE AMERICANS… SHE
THINKS SMITH’S SHIRTS ARE TOO.
I THINK THERE’S A WAY OF NATIVE AMERICANS… SHE
THINKS SMITH’S SHIRTS ARE TOO.
I THINK THERE’S A WAY THEY OF NATIVE AMERICANS… SHE
THINKS SMITH’S SHIRTS ARE TOO.
I THINK THERE’S A WAY THEY [email protected] THINKS SMITH’S SHIRTS ARE TOO.
I THINK THERE’S A WAY THEY [email protected] THINKS SMITH’S SHIRTS ARE TOO.
I THINK THERE’S A WAY THEY [email protected]
HONOR THINKS SMITH’S SHIRTS ARE TOO.
I THINK THERE’S A WAY THEY [email protected]
HONOR THAT THINKS SMITH’S SHIRTS ARE TOO.
I THINK THERE’S A WAY THEY [email protected]
HONOR THAT HISTORY, THINKS SMITH’S SHIRTS ARE TOO.
I THINK THERE’S A WAY THEY [email protected]
HONOR THAT HISTORY, AND THINKS SMITH’S SHIRTS ARE TOO.
I THINK THERE’S A WAY THEY [email protected]
HONOR THAT HISTORY, AND FEEL I THINK THERE’S A WAY THEY [email protected]
HONOR THAT HISTORY, AND FEEL I THINK THERE’S A WAY THEY [email protected]
HONOR THAT HISTORY, AND FEEL
PRIDE I THINK THERE’S A WAY THEY [email protected]
HONOR THAT HISTORY, AND FEEL
PRIDE IN I THINK THERE’S A WAY THEY [email protected]
HONOR THAT HISTORY, AND FEEL
PRIDE IN THEIR I THINK THERE’S A WAY THEY [email protected]
HONOR THAT HISTORY, AND FEEL
PRIDE IN THEIR TOWN I THINK THERE’S A WAY THEY [email protected]
HONOR THAT HISTORY, AND FEEL
PRIDE IN THEIR TOWN WITHOUT HONOR THAT HISTORY, AND FEEL
PRIDE IN THEIR TOWN WITHOUT HONOR THAT HISTORY, AND FEEL
PRIDE IN THEIR TOWN WITHOUT
MISSAPROPRIATING HONOR THAT HISTORY, AND FEEL
PRIDE IN THEIR TOWN WITHOUT
MISSAPROPRIATING THE HONOR THAT HISTORY, AND FEEL
PRIDE IN THEIR TOWN WITHOUT
MISSAPROPRIATING THE INDENTITY PRIDE IN THEIR TOWN WITHOUT
MISSAPROPRIATING THE INDENTITY PRIDE IN THEIR TOWN WITHOUT
MISSAPROPRIATING THE INDENTITY
AND MISSAPROPRIATING THE INDENTITY
AND MISSAPROPRIATING THE INDENTITY
AND
DISRESPECTING MISSAPROPRIATING THE INDENTITY
AND
DISRESPECTING THE MISSAPROPRIATING THE INDENTITY
AND
DISRESPECTING THE CULTURE MISSAPROPRIATING THE INDENTITY
AND
DISRESPECTING THE CULTURE OF AND
DISRESPECTING THE CULTURE OF AND
DISRESPECTING THE CULTURE OF
ANOTHER AND
DISRESPECTING THE CULTURE OF
ANOTHER [email protected] DISRESPECTING THE CULTURE OF
ANOTHER [email protected] DISRESPECTING THE CULTURE OF
ANOTHER [email protected]
BUT DISRESPECTING THE CULTURE OF
ANOTHER [email protected]
BUT SMITH DISRESPECTING THE CULTURE OF
ANOTHER [email protected]
BUT SMITH DOESN’T DISRESPECTING THE CULTURE OF
ANOTHER [email protected]
BUT SMITH DOESN’T SEE DISRESPECTING THE CULTURE OF
ANOTHER [email protected]
BUT SMITH DOESN’T SEE IT DISRESPECTING THE CULTURE OF
ANOTHER [email protected]
BUT SMITH DOESN’T SEE IT THAT DISRESPECTING THE CULTURE OF
ANOTHER [email protected]
BUT SMITH DOESN’T SEE IT THAT [email protected] ANOTHER [email protected]
BUT SMITH DOESN’T SEE IT THAT [email protected] ANOTHER [email protected]
BUT SMITH DOESN’T SEE IT THAT [email protected]
WAY… ANOTHER [email protected]
BUT SMITH DOESN’T SEE IT THAT [email protected]
WAY… NOTHING ANOTHER [email protected]
BUT SMITH DOESN’T SEE IT THAT [email protected]
WAY… NOTHING PREVENTS ANOTHER [email protected]
BUT SMITH DOESN’T SEE IT THAT [email protected]
WAY… NOTHING PREVENTS HIM ANOTHER [email protected]
BUT SMITH DOESN’T SEE IT THAT [email protected]
WAY… NOTHING PREVENTS HIM AS ANOTHER [email protected]
BUT SMITH DOESN’T SEE IT THAT [email protected]
WAY… NOTHING PREVENTS HIM AS @ BUT SMITH DOESN’T SEE IT THAT [email protected]
WAY… NOTHING PREVENTS HIM AS @ BUT SMITH DOESN’T SEE IT THAT [email protected]
WAY… NOTHING PREVENTS HIM AS @
SCHOOL BUT SMITH DOESN’T SEE IT THAT [email protected]
WAY… NOTHING PREVENTS HIM AS @
SCHOOL BOARD BUT SMITH DOESN’T SEE IT THAT [email protected]
WAY… NOTHING PREVENTS HIM AS @
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER BUT SMITH DOESN’T SEE IT THAT [email protected]
WAY… NOTHING PREVENTS HIM AS @
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER OR BUT SMITH DOESN’T SEE IT THAT [email protected]
WAY… NOTHING PREVENTS HIM AS @
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER OR A BUT SMITH DOESN’T SEE IT THAT [email protected]
WAY… NOTHING PREVENTS HIM AS @
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER OR A SMALL WAY… NOTHING PREVENTS HIM AS @
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER OR A SMALL WAY… NOTHING PREVENTS HIM AS @
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER OR A SMALL
BUSINESS WAY… NOTHING PREVENTS HIM AS @
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER OR A SMALL
BUSINESS OWNER WAY… NOTHING PREVENTS HIM AS @
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER OR A SMALL
BUSINESS OWNER FROM WAY… NOTHING PREVENTS HIM AS @
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER OR A SMALL
BUSINESS OWNER FROM [email protected] SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER OR A SMALL
BUSINESS OWNER FROM [email protected] SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER OR A SMALL
BUSINESS OWNER FROM [email protected]
PRODUCING SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER OR A SMALL
BUSINESS OWNER FROM [email protected]
PRODUCING THESE SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER OR A SMALL
BUSINESS OWNER FROM [email protected]
PRODUCING THESE SHIRTS… SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER OR A SMALL
BUSINESS OWNER FROM [email protected]
PRODUCING THESE SHIRTS… AND BUSINESS OWNER FROM [email protected]
PRODUCING THESE SHIRTS… AND PRODUCING THESE SHIRTS… AND SEES SEES IT SEES IT AS SEES IT AS A SEES IT AS A FORM SEES IT AS A FORM OF SEES IT AS A FORM OF TOWN SEES IT AS A FORM OF TOWN PRIDE. SEES IT AS A FORM OF TOWN PRIDE.
IF SEES IT AS A FORM OF TOWN PRIDE.
IF AND SEES IT AS A FORM OF TOWN PRIDE.
IF AND WHEN SEES IT AS A FORM OF TOWN PRIDE.
IF AND WHEN SKOWHEGAN SEES IT AS A FORM OF TOWN PRIDE.
IF AND WHEN SKOWHEGAN CHOOSES SEES IT AS A FORM OF TOWN PRIDE.
IF AND WHEN SKOWHEGAN CHOOSES A SEES IT AS A FORM OF TOWN PRIDE.
IF AND WHEN SKOWHEGAN CHOOSES A
NEW SEES IT AS A FORM OF TOWN PRIDE.
IF AND WHEN SKOWHEGAN CHOOSES A
NEW MASCOT, SEES IT AS A FORM OF TOWN PRIDE.
IF AND WHEN SKOWHEGAN CHOOSES A
NEW MASCOT, WE’LL IF AND WHEN SKOWHEGAN CHOOSES A
NEW MASCOT, WE’LL IF AND WHEN SKOWHEGAN CHOOSES A
NEW MASCOT, WE’LL
TRANSITION IF AND WHEN SKOWHEGAN CHOOSES A
NEW MASCOT, WE’LL
TRANSITION PRODUCTION IF AND WHEN SKOWHEGAN CHOOSES A
NEW MASCOT, WE’LL
TRANSITION PRODUCTION INTO IF AND WHEN SKOWHEGAN CHOOSES A
NEW MASCOT, WE’LL
TRANSITION PRODUCTION INTO THE NEW MASCOT, WE’LL
TRANSITION PRODUCTION INTO THE NEW MASCOT, WE’LL
TRANSITION PRODUCTION INTO THE
NEW NEW MASCOT, WE’LL
TRANSITION PRODUCTION INTO THE
NEW MASCOT. NEW MASCOT, WE’LL
TRANSITION PRODUCTION INTO THE
NEW MASCOT. I’M NEW MASCOT, WE’LL
TRANSITION PRODUCTION INTO THE
NEW MASCOT. I’M NOT NEW MASCOT, WE’LL
TRANSITION PRODUCTION INTO THE
NEW MASCOT. I’M NOT GOING NEW MASCOT, WE’LL
TRANSITION PRODUCTION INTO THE
NEW MASCOT. I’M NOT GOING TO TRANSITION PRODUCTION INTO THE
NEW MASCOT. I’M NOT GOING TO TRANSITION PRODUCTION INTO THE
NEW MASCOT. I’M NOT GOING TO
SAY TRANSITION PRODUCTION INTO THE
NEW MASCOT. I’M NOT GOING TO
SAY WE’LL TRANSITION PRODUCTION INTO THE
NEW MASCOT. I’M NOT GOING TO
SAY WE’LL EVER TRANSITION PRODUCTION INTO THE
NEW MASCOT. I’M NOT GOING TO
SAY WE’LL EVER DO TRANSITION PRODUCTION INTO THE
NEW MASCOT. I’M NOT GOING TO
SAY WE’LL EVER DO AWAY TRANSITION PRODUCTION INTO THE
NEW MASCOT. I’M NOT GOING TO
SAY WE’LL EVER DO AWAY WITH TRANSITION PRODUCTION INTO THE
NEW MASCOT. I’M NOT GOING TO
SAY WE’LL EVER DO AWAY WITH THE TRANSITION PRODUCTION INTO THE
NEW MASCOT. I’M NOT GOING TO
SAY WE’LL EVER DO AWAY WITH [email protected] NEW MASCOT. I’M NOT GOING TO
SAY WE’LL EVER DO AWAY WITH [email protected] NEW MASCOT. I’M NOT GOING TO
SAY WE’LL EVER DO AWAY WITH [email protected]
INDIAN NEW MASCOT. I’M NOT GOING TO
SAY WE’LL EVER DO AWAY WITH [email protected]
INDIAN MERCHANDISE, SAY WE’LL EVER DO AWAY WITH [email protected]
INDIAN MERCHANDISE, SAY WE’LL EVER DO AWAY WITH [email protected]
INDIAN MERCHANDISE,
BECAUSE SAY WE’LL EVER DO AWAY WITH [email protected]
INDIAN MERCHANDISE,
BECAUSE IF SAY WE’LL EVER DO AWAY WITH [email protected]
INDIAN MERCHANDISE,
BECAUSE IF PEOPLE SAY WE’LL EVER DO AWAY WITH [email protected]
INDIAN MERCHANDISE,
BECAUSE IF PEOPLE WANT SAY WE’LL EVER DO AWAY WITH [email protected]
INDIAN MERCHANDISE,
BECAUSE IF PEOPLE WANT IT, INDIAN MERCHANDISE,
BECAUSE IF PEOPLE WANT IT, INDIAN MERCHANDISE,
BECAUSE IF PEOPLE WANT IT,
THAT’S INDIAN MERCHANDISE,
BECAUSE IF PEOPLE WANT IT,
THAT’S WHAT INDIAN MERCHANDISE,
BECAUSE IF PEOPLE WANT IT,
THAT’S WHAT WE’RE INDIAN MERCHANDISE,
BECAUSE IF PEOPLE WANT IT,
THAT’S WHAT WE’RE GOING INDIAN MERCHANDISE,
BECAUSE IF PEOPLE WANT IT,
THAT’S WHAT WE’RE GOING TO BECAUSE IF PEOPLE WANT IT,
THAT’S WHAT WE’RE GOING TO BECAUSE IF PEOPLE WANT IT,
THAT’S WHAT WE’RE GOING TO
PRODUCE. THAT’S WHAT WE’RE GOING TO
PRODUCE. THAT’S WHAT WE’RE GOING TO
PRODUCE.
TONIGHT THAT’S WHAT WE’RE GOING TO
PRODUCE.
TONIGHT MARKS THAT’S WHAT WE’RE GOING TO
PRODUCE.
TONIGHT MARKS THE THAT’S WHAT WE’RE GOING TO
PRODUCE.
TONIGHT MARKS THE FIRST THAT’S WHAT WE’RE GOING TO
PRODUCE.
TONIGHT MARKS THE FIRST HOME PRODUCE.
TONIGHT MARKS THE FIRST HOME PRODUCE.
TONIGHT MARKS THE FIRST HOME
FOOTBALL PRODUCE.
TONIGHT MARKS THE FIRST HOME
FOOTBALL GAME PRODUCE.
TONIGHT MARKS THE FIRST HOME
FOOTBALL GAME FOR PRODUCE.
TONIGHT MARKS THE FIRST HOME
FOOTBALL GAME FOR SKOWHEGAN TONIGHT MARKS THE FIRST HOME
FOOTBALL GAME FOR SKOWHEGAN TONIGHT MARKS THE FIRST HOME
FOOTBALL GAME FOR SKOWHEGAN
AREA TONIGHT MARKS THE FIRST HOME
FOOTBALL GAME FOR SKOWHEGAN
AREA HIGH TONIGHT MARKS THE FIRST HOME
FOOTBALL GAME FOR SKOWHEGAN
AREA HIGH SCHOOL TONIGHT MARKS THE FIRST HOME
FOOTBALL GAME FOR SKOWHEGAN
AREA HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, TONIGHT MARKS THE FIRST HOME
FOOTBALL GAME FOR SKOWHEGAN
AREA HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, AND FOOTBALL GAME FOR SKOWHEGAN
AREA HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, AND FOOTBALL GAME FOR SKOWHEGAN
AREA HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, AND
WHILE FOOTBALL GAME FOR SKOWHEGAN
AREA HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, AND
WHILE YOU FOOTBALL GAME FOR SKOWHEGAN
AREA HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, AND
WHILE YOU WILL FOOTBALL GAME FOR SKOWHEGAN
AREA HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, AND
WHILE YOU WILL NOT FOOTBALL GAME FOR SKOWHEGAN
AREA HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, AND
WHILE YOU WILL NOT SEE FOOTBALL GAME FOR SKOWHEGAN
AREA HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, AND
WHILE YOU WILL NOT SEE INDIANS AREA HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, AND
WHILE YOU WILL NOT SEE INDIANS AREA HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, AND
WHILE YOU WILL NOT SEE INDIANS
ON AREA HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, AND
WHILE YOU WILL NOT SEE INDIANS
ON THE AREA HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, AND
WHILE YOU WILL NOT SEE INDIANS
ON THE FIELD AREA HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, AND
WHILE YOU WILL NOT SEE INDIANS
ON THE FIELD OR AREA HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, AND
WHILE YOU WILL NOT SEE INDIANS
ON THE FIELD OR ON AREA HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, AND
WHILE YOU WILL NOT SEE INDIANS
ON THE FIELD OR ON THEIR WHILE YOU WILL NOT SEE INDIANS
ON THE FIELD OR ON THEIR WHILE YOU WILL NOT SEE INDIANS
ON THE FIELD OR ON THEIR
JERSEYS, WHILE YOU WILL NOT SEE INDIANS
ON THE FIELD OR ON THEIR
JERSEYS, YOU WHILE YOU WILL NOT SEE INDIANS
ON THE FIELD OR ON THEIR
JERSEYS, YOU MAY WHILE YOU WILL NOT SEE INDIANS
ON THE FIELD OR ON THEIR
JERSEYS, YOU MAY JUST WHILE YOU WILL NOT SEE INDIANS
ON THE FIELD OR ON THEIR
JERSEYS, YOU MAY JUST SEE WHILE YOU WILL NOT SEE INDIANS
ON THE FIELD OR ON THEIR
JERSEYS, YOU MAY JUST SEE IT WHILE YOU WILL NOT SEE INDIANS
ON THE FIELD OR ON THEIR
JERSEYS, YOU MAY JUST SEE IT UP ON THE FIELD OR ON THEIR
JERSEYS, YOU MAY JUST SEE IT UP ON THE FIELD OR ON THEIR
JERSEYS, YOU MAY JUST SEE IT UP
IN ON THE FIELD OR ON THEIR
JERSEYS, YOU MAY JUST SEE IT UP
IN [email protected] JERSEYS, YOU MAY JUST SEE IT UP
IN [email protected] JERSEYS, YOU MAY JUST SEE IT UP
IN [email protected]
STANDS. JERSEYS, YOU MAY JUST SEE IT UP
IN [email protected]
STANDS. IN JERSEYS, YOU MAY JUST SEE IT UP
IN [email protected]
STANDS. IN SKOWHEGAN, JERSEYS, YOU MAY JUST SEE IT UP
IN [email protected]
STANDS. IN SKOWHEGAN, SEAN IN [email protected]
STANDS. IN SKOWHEGAN, SEAN IN [email protected]
STANDS. IN SKOWHEGAN, SEAN
STACKHOUSE, IN [email protected]
STANDS. IN SKOWHEGAN, SEAN
STACKHOUSE, NEWS IN [email protected]
STANDS. IN SKOWHEGAN, SEAN
STACKHOUSE, NEWS CENTER STANDS. IN SKOWHEGAN, SEAN
STACKHOUSE, NEWS CENTER STANDS. IN SKOWHEGAN, SEAN
STACKHOUSE, NEWS CENTER
[email protected] STACKHOUSE, NEWS CENTER
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

SKOWHEGAN [email protected]

SKOWHEGAN AREA [email protected]

SKOWHEGAN AREA SUPERINTENDENT SKOWHEGAN AREA SUPERINTENDENT BRENT BRENT COLBRY BRENT COLBRY TELLS BRENT COLBRY TELLS NEWS BRENT COLBRY TELLS NEWS CENTER BRENT COLBRY TELLS NEWS CENTER
MAINE BRENT COLBRY TELLS NEWS CENTER
MAINE HE’S BRENT COLBRY TELLS NEWS CENTER
MAINE HE’S NOT BRENT COLBRY TELLS NEWS CENTER
MAINE HE’S NOT ABLE BRENT COLBRY TELLS NEWS CENTER
MAINE HE’S NOT ABLE TO BRENT COLBRY TELLS NEWS CENTER
MAINE HE’S NOT ABLE TO COMMENT BRENT COLBRY TELLS NEWS CENTER
MAINE HE’S NOT ABLE TO COMMENT
ON BRENT COLBRY TELLS NEWS CENTER
MAINE HE’S NOT ABLE TO COMMENT
ON SMITH’S BRENT COLBRY TELLS NEWS CENTER
MAINE HE’S NOT ABLE TO COMMENT
ON SMITH’S BUSINESS BRENT COLBRY TELLS NEWS CENTER
MAINE HE’S NOT ABLE TO COMMENT
ON SMITH’S BUSINESS [email protected] MAINE HE’S NOT ABLE TO COMMENT
ON SMITH’S BUSINESS [email protected] MAINE HE’S NOT ABLE TO COMMENT
ON SMITH’S BUSINESS [email protected]
DECISIONS, MAINE HE’S NOT ABLE TO COMMENT
ON SMITH’S BUSINESS [email protected]
DECISIONS, BUT MAINE HE’S NOT ABLE TO COMMENT
ON SMITH’S BUSINESS [email protected]
DECISIONS, BUT AS MAINE HE’S NOT ABLE TO COMMENT
ON SMITH’S BUSINESS [email protected]
DECISIONS, BUT AS A MAINE HE’S NOT ABLE TO COMMENT
ON SMITH’S BUSINESS [email protected]
DECISIONS, BUT AS A MATTER MAINE HE’S NOT ABLE TO COMMENT
ON SMITH’S BUSINESS [email protected]
DECISIONS, BUT AS A MATTER OF ON SMITH’S BUSINESS [email protected]
DECISIONS, BUT AS A MATTER OF ON SMITH’S BUSINESS [email protected]
DECISIONS, BUT AS A MATTER OF
POLICY, ON SMITH’S BUSINESS [email protected]
DECISIONS, BUT AS A MATTER OF
POLICY, CAN’T ON SMITH’S BUSINESS [email protected]
DECISIONS, BUT AS A MATTER OF
POLICY, CAN’T ENDORSE ON SMITH’S BUSINESS [email protected]
DECISIONS, BUT AS A MATTER OF
POLICY, CAN’T ENDORSE IT DECISIONS, BUT AS A MATTER OF
POLICY, CAN’T ENDORSE IT DECISIONS, BUT AS A MATTER OF
POLICY, CAN’T ENDORSE IT
EITHER. POLICY, CAN’T ENDORSE IT
EITHER. POLICY, CAN’T ENDORSE IT
EITHER.
HE POLICY, CAN’T ENDORSE IT
EITHER.
HE SAYS POLICY, CAN’T ENDORSE IT
EITHER.
HE SAYS HIS POLICY, CAN’T ENDORSE IT
EITHER.
HE SAYS HIS MAIN POLICY, CAN’T ENDORSE IT
EITHER.
HE SAYS HIS MAIN FOCUS POLICY, CAN’T ENDORSE IT
EITHER.
HE SAYS HIS MAIN FOCUS IS POLICY, CAN’T ENDORSE IT
EITHER.
HE SAYS HIS MAIN FOCUS IS ON EITHER.
HE SAYS HIS MAIN FOCUS IS ON EITHER.
HE SAYS HIS MAIN FOCUS IS ON
MOVING EITHER.
HE SAYS HIS MAIN FOCUS IS ON
MOVING FORWARD EITHER.
HE SAYS HIS MAIN FOCUS IS ON
MOVING FORWARD AS EITHER.
HE SAYS HIS MAIN FOCUS IS ON
MOVING FORWARD AS A EITHER.
HE SAYS HIS MAIN FOCUS IS ON
MOVING FORWARD AS A DISTRICT. HE SAYS HIS MAIN FOCUS IS ON
MOVING FORWARD AS A DISTRICT. HE SAYS HIS MAIN FOCUS IS ON
MOVING FORWARD AS A DISTRICT.
[email protected] MOVING FORWARD AS A DISTRICT.
[email protected]

In What Circumstances are Tribunals Successfully Employed for Dispute Resolution in Maritime Cases?


– We had two terrific panels this morning. I’m sure this afternoon
will be equally interesting. And we start off with
a more detailed inquiry into the one we began
when we asked for remarks by Judge Owada and Professor Kingsbury. I noticed that on our
first panel this afternoon, a theme that seems to unite our speakers is they all have more than a whiff of real experience with the topic. And of course, Paul
Reichler was the lawyer who initiated the Philippines Arbitration against China in 2013. I think I’ve told him, not
knowing him at that point, January 2013, that when I
read his initial document submitted to the UNCLOS
Arbitration Tribunal, I thought, legal documents can
occasionally be a work of art. Because this was one of the most beautiful
legal pieces I’d ever read. It was so adroitly shaped in order to fit within the jurisdictional
limits of the Tribunal. And it was so well-written that I thought, this could be a model for any of us trying to deal with adjudication,
arbitration, et cetera. And Paul has been a very
generous collaborator with various exercises we have held. Peter Dutton, as many of you know, and I, have taught a seminar together
for the last few years and it’s been a great experience for me. He’s much better at getting
students to talk than I am. And he’s a very articulate
dynamic knowledgeable expert. Jonathan Odom I haven’t
seen in recent years, I was thrilled when he could
accept coming here to join us. He has spent years in actual dealings with China and the rest of Asia from his military naval
experience based in Hawaii. And I’m thrilled to see him back in action after he and I shared something, we both had a similar
medical crisis years ago and we’re among the living, Tim Gilatt is not, unfortunately. Henry Bensurto has been the guiding light for the Philippines
with respect to settling its disputes with China,
involving the South China Sea. For many years, he’s
been the Consul General for the Philippines in San Francisco. And I was very happy to see that, despite the change in
administration in the Philippines, he’s still able to take
part in our discussion. So we’ve got a terrific group. I won’t delay any further, beginning, only to say that I
regarded the arbitration brought by the Philippines as the most important challenge to the People’s Republic of China, concerning international
law in my lifetime. I held my breath for the 30 days that the PRC had to make up its mind whether or not to join the arbitration. And like many experts from within China who are not able to voice their views, I was, of course, profoundly disappointed. And the struggle is still on to see what is the meaning of that arbitration? But we’ll know more after
we hear from our experts. So Paul, would you take over? And we’re really delighted
that you’re here. – Good afternoon everybody. This is really a special occasion for me, because I get to salute two of my heroes. Two absolute giants in the field of public international law. I have long been a great
admirer of both of them. And, at least with regard to one of them, this is the first change that
I can appropriately say so. And of course, I’m
referring to Professor Cohen and to Judge Owada. Jerry knows what I think of him. I’ve had occasion to tell him before, but I have had the honor,
the distinct honor, of appearing before Judge Owada, I don’t know how many times. He probably thinks it’s too many. Got tired of hearing from
me, but many, many cases. And I had to resist the
urge, fortunately I did, in the middle of my presentation, to just say how much, how deeply, I respect and admire you as a judge, as a diplomat, as a human being. And it was never appropriate
for me to do this. Even in meetings that I
would have with Judge Owada because they were all during
the pendency of the case and, I don’t know, it
just doesn’t sound good to go up to a judge who’s
about to decide your case and say, “I just think you’re terrific.” (audience laughs) As sincere as you might be, the judge might have
some doubt about that. So now we have no cases pending, you’re not wearing the black robe, and I just want to say what a
distinct honor and privilege it is to know you and I’m blessed to have had the opportunity
to appear before you. The topic of this panel and I
will follow my instructions, in what circumstance is a
tribunal successfully employed for dispute resolution in maritime cases? When I am invited to
conferences like this, it’s usually as a litigator,
and tell us something about how these cases
are actually litigated. But this is a higher-minded topic and it causes me to think bigger thoughts. And pretend, although I’m not,
pretend that I’m a scholar. And try to interpret events and to give some
observations and conclusions. So I hope I can live up
to Jerry’s expectations. What I have done is I’ve prepared a list. This is not a complete list, there are one or two cases missing. I listed, for example,
Malaysia, Singapore once, it should actually be listed
twice, once under the ICJ. But it’s a pretty complete list of all of the maritime
disputes over the last 15 years that have been resolved either by the ICJ, by ITLOS, or by Annex VII Tribunals and one conciliation panel, under the Law of the Sea Convention. And I think it’s interesting when we’re talking about
in what circumstances are these types of cases
successfully resolved, to have an idea, to know exactly what cases we’re talking about. So I’ve listed 20 cases, we
can add another one or two, but let’s work with 20. 15 of these have been
resolved successfully, if we define successfully as there’s been an order or
an award or a judgment and the parties have complied with it. Two of them are still
pending and only three have resulted in total or
partial noncompliance so far. So before I get to those, what we can say is that respondent states, even though they’re
unhappy about being sued, have, in the vast majority of cases, have accepted their obligations
under the instruments that brought them within the jurisdiction of an International Tribunal. They have participated fully in the case and they’ve accepted the outcome. And in most of these
cases, not all of them, one of the parties was not entirely pleased with the outcome. But nevertheless accepted. And what’s interesting is
that 12 of these cases, 12 of the 15 cases that I’m
calling successfully resolved, occurred because of the
compulsory jurisdiction of either the ICJ or
the Annex VII Tribunal. And I think that’s a remarkable record. It might also be of interest to look at what the geographic distribution of the respondent states has
been in these compulsory cases. Six of them have been from Latin America. The reason that Latin America is so disproportionately represented is because Nicaragua has been
in three or four of those. But in two cases involving Asian states, two involving African states, two involving Western Europe or Australia. So what we can see is there is a very good geographic
distribution in compliance. I took this a step further because this is a conference on Asia and
East Asia in particular. And if we go a little bit beyond the limits of maritime cases, that is maritime boundaries,
maritime entitlements, or sovereignty over islands, the following members of
ASEAN have participated in binding third-party dispute resolution with another state: Philippines, of course,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Myanmar, Timor,
Laos, Thailand, and Cambodia. So that’s eight states, that’s a considerable
majority of the ASEAN states, have participated in binding
third-party dispute resolution of disputes with other states. And in East Asia, of
course, we have Japan. So that’s nine, not even Asian states, because we have Bangladesh,
India, Pakistan, et cetera, and Qatar, Bahrain, but in terms
of Southeast and East Asia, that’s quite a large population of states that have accepted, at least once, in some cases more than
once, submission of disputes, interstate disputes, to binding
third-party adjudication. And I think Judge Owada,
it was reported to me because unfortunately I couldn’t come here until this morning’s train from Washington and I missed a large
part of the presentation, but I understand Judge Owada said that we should not assume that
there a special reluctance to engage in third-party
dispute resolution in Asia or in East Asia. And I think the numbers underscore the accuracy of what Judge Owada has said. Now if we look to try to,
look out the outliers, where has dispute resolution of maritime cases not been successful? There are three cases. One is the Nicaragua, the
first Nicaragua-Columbia case, where Columbia participated in the case, even after the court overruled its jurisdictional objections. And then in the face of
a 17 to nothing judgment, unanimous judgment, 17
judges of the court, including Columbia’s own judge. Columbia rejected the judgment, insofar as it resolved
the maritime disputes, the maritime boundary disputes. I still feel that, this
was six years ago now, I still feel that at some point, Columbia will come into compliance. But at the time, and if anybody wants to ask me about that later, if you’re interested,
I’ll be happy to answer, but I don’t wanna get too far off the central theme here right now. But at the time, of course, Columbia was approaching the
climax of a prolonged civil war and the President of Columbia
was trying to hold together a coalition to negotiate a
peace agreement with FARC and needed the support
of nationalist elements who were most outraged by
Columbia’s perceived losses in the maritime aspects of that dispute. Judge Owada made an interesting comment about national honor being
a an obstacle to submission or acceptance of binding
third-party dispute resolution. This might be an example of that. The other two cases
involve Russia and China. In the Arctic Sunrise case,
it was both before ITLOS and also before an Annex VII Tribunal. Russia, at least formerly, refused to accept the authority of either, but the order of ITLOS to
release the seized vessel, the Greenpeace vessel and the crew, was ultimately complied with by Russia. Of course they claimed that they did it for political reasons, not
because of the order of ITLOS. But nevertheless, there is, at least some element of compliance there. In the case of China in
the South China Sea case, of course, we have, what
at least on the surface, appears to be an open
defiance of an arbitral award of a binding international
judgment in a maritime case. So I’ll talk a little bit more about that. But I think some
conclusions that we can draw is that a large majority of states with a wide geographic distribution, exhibit a special disregard
for UNCLOS, in particular, and respect for law of the sea in general. And are willing to accept
international adjudication or arbitration of maritime
disputes with neighboring states, even though they don’t want it, even though it’s been forced upon them. When a dispute resolution
provision of a treaty that they respect and
consider fundamental, like UNCLOS, subjects them
to compulsory jurisdiction. And even powerful states
like Russia and China, great powers if you will,
refrain from denouncing UNCLOS or from overtly rejecting
the fundamental rules and principles of the law of the sea, even as they are reluctant to accept binding third-party dispute
settlement under UNCLOS. I should mention the United States avoids being placed in the same situation, by choosing to remain outside UNCLOS. And while there are
numerous reasons for this, it’s possible that one of those reasons is the refusal to accept
UNCLOS’ provisions for third-party settlement. And this raises another
very important question. Is there a role for
international arbitration or adjudication for maritime disputes involving the most powerful states? Now as international
lawyers, including academics, practitioners like myself,
government officials, I think we have an obligation
not to give up on this, but to continue to find ways
to extend and strengthen the rules-based international order, even in these particularly
challenging times. And this means finding ways
to make third-party settlement less objectionable to
the most powerful states, or at least to make rejection
of it more costly to them, in terms of damage to reputation, loss of influence in the
international community. And I think the more that states, the more states that
participate willingly, even if reluctantly, in binding third-party dispute
resolution proceedings, whether it’s before the ICJ,
ITLOS or Arbitral Tribunals. The more the rules-based
system, the more the system of international adjudication
of disputes is strengthened and the more pressure
there is on other states, including those that are
among the most powerful, not to be outliers, not
to consider themselves, or at least allow themselves to be depicted as over or above the law. A few observations on China, in particular, and its noncompliance. And this is based on my
experience in the case. First, although China has
denounced the arbitral award in the South China Sea
case, it has, in fact, complied with an important part of it. It has stopped preventing
Philippine nationals from fishing at Scarborough Shoal. Now this might not appear, to the international community,
to be much of a concession, but it was one of the main reasons, perhaps even the last straw, that brought the Philippines
to consider arbitration. And, at least as of today,
China has continued, since the arbitral award,
to respect the rights of Philippine fishermen to
fish at Scarborough Shoal. China has also proposed to the Philippines that the resources, hydrocarbon
resources at Reed Bank, which is about 100 miles
northwest of Palawan, be exploited by means of a joint venture. Now some Philippine
experts might point out, as I’m sure by friend Henry Bensurto will, that Reed Bank is located
entirely in the Philippines EEZ, it’s part of their continental shelf, and China has no rights there,
under the arbitral award. But if we’re looking for hopeful signs, we can at least point out that China has not taken the position
that since Reed Bank is located within its
infamous Nine-Dash Line, it is exclusively Chinese and has kept the Philippines out of the area. Instead, it has invited the Philippines to participate in a
joint venture with them. I think that these and other actions show that China has been very cautious. Even though it’s been outspoken
in denouncing the award, and in verbally defying it, it’s been very cautious in
asserting or enforcing its claims within the Nine-Dash Line, not
only against the Philippines, but also against Vietnam and Indonesia, which vehemently and sometimes actively, as in the case of the Indonesian Navy, reject China’s claims and incursions within their 200-mile zones. Another interesting fact
is that although China has strengthened its hold on the seven or eight maritime
features in the Spratlys, that it occupied at the time
the arbitration was commenced, and it has gone so far as to build advanced military
facilities on some of them, it has refrained, thus far, from forcibly attempting to occupy any of the other dozens of features, including those long occupied by Vietnam and the Philippines. And while the Arbitral Tribunal ruled that China’s occupation of
Mystic Reef was unlawful, because it’s a low tide elevation within 200 miles of the Philippines, the Tribunal did not address, because it was beyond its jurisdiction, the lawfulness of China’s occupation of the other features where
it has sent military forces. So as to its presence at those features, China has not been found
to be acting unlawfully and its position is not
currently threatened in any legal proceedings. And finally, China has
been expressing interest in bringing to fruition the
long-stalled negotiations on a code of conduct
for the South China Sea. This might be lip
service, but if it’s real, there could be serious
multilateral negotiations aimed at resolving some of
the most critical issues. Where this leads me is here, notwithstanding its bitter rejection and denunciation of the arbitral award, China’s actual conduct has
been cautious thus far. Except for its continued
occupation of Mystic Reef, it has been careful, for the most part, not to violate, at least
not too flagrantly, the rights of the
Philippines under the award or the rights that other states, like Vietnam and Indonesia claim, under the same legal principles and interpretations
that underlie the award. In other words, the door to settlement, whether it via a series of
bilateral understandings or a multilateral agreement,
based on mutual respect for each other’s rights under UNCLOS, as defined in the arbitral
award, is not closed. In my opinion, at least
that door remains open. Nor should a settlement be
viewed as impossible to achieve. Of course it depends on the political will of the parties involved, including China. But what’s important to
underscore in this context is that the significance of the award has to do almost entirely, in its essence, with access to resources. The Tribunal did not address the most contested and difficult claims, regarding sovereignty over islands, issues of national honor, if you will. What it did, was to declare
unlawful China’s exaggerated and unlawful claims to exclusive access to all of the resources
within the Nine-Dash Line. Instead, it upheld the rights of China and all of the other states
that border the South China Sea, to their 200-mile exclusive economic zones and continental shelves under UNCLOS. What resources are we talking about? Well, there are two kinds under UNCLOS, the living resources, that is the fish, and the nonliving resources,
essentially hydrocarbons. Resources, unlike title
to islands, can be shared, they are divisible. And one would think there has to be a way for the coastal states in the region, including, of course, China, to negotiate an agreement on fishing. One that allows for the sustainable levels of all fish species and to set catch limits for
each of the relevant parties, that both assure sustainability
and adequate nutrition for the various peoples of the region. Not just abundance for one
and starvation for the rest. Similarly, hydrocarbons and
the revenues derived therefrom, can also be shared. China has a pivotal, in fact
indispensable role to play in supplying through
CNOOC, the needed financial and technical resources that
some of its neighbors lack. Resources that are essential for the exploitation of any
oil and gas under the seabed. And so the essential parameters
for sharing of resources through joint venture agreements, that allow for the exploitation under the rights of the coastal states within their 200-mile zones,
but with Chinese participation and a sharing of the rewards is within the grasp of
enlightened negotiators throughout the region. So it seems to me that
these critical issues can be resolved by negotiations using the principles of law
and the clarification of rights that were set out in the arbitral award. And such a settlement would be, of course, beneficial to China, as well
as all of the other states. But what if the parties cannot agree? Well this brings me back
to third-party settlement. Arbitration could be tried again, this time by Vietnam or Indonesia, because China has
remained a party to UNCLOS and it’s still subject to its provisions on dispute settlement. But this is, certainly now,
more likely to antagonize China and make a settlement less likely. So what’s left? Well what’s left, I suggest, is the example brought into reality by Timor-Leste and Australia,
conciliation under UNCLOS. It’s a case study that
deserves to be studied, where it was impossible for Timor-Leste to take Australia to
arbitration under UNCLOS because of Australia’s
reservation of rights in respect to boundary delimitation, but Timor-Leste invoked the compulsory conciliation provisions. Australia participated,
as was its obligation and the five conciliators
worked closely with the parties and ultimately, ultimately
produced a resolution that was satisfactory and
accepted by both parties. This is certainly worth
considering for the South China Sea in the event the parties are unable to come to an acceptable agreement on the sharing of resources. Let me make one more comment or at least raise a final question. And particularly in light of the fact that the next panel will address an equally difficult issue
in the East China Sea and that is the islands
disputed by Japan and China and raising the question, is there a role for
third-party settlement there? I would suggest that
third-party settlement is worth considering,
based on these two aspects. First, that the parties agree to set the issue of sovereignty aside, that is, of course, the most
difficult issue to resolve. It’s one that affects national
honor, public opinion, is most ardent about it,
and it’s not divisible. Well I suppose if there
are several islands, you could distribute
them, one to the other, but I don’t think anybody would take that proposal very seriously. But if the issue of
sovereignty is set aside and as I’ve suggested
in the South China Sea, the focus is on resource allocation, because after all, it does not appear that any of the Senkaku
or Diaoyudao Islands, it doesn’t appear that any of
them has any intrinsic value, I may be wrong and the experts on the next panel may demonstrate that. But apart from national
pride or national honor, what these islands generate
are maritime zones, whether 12 miles or 200 miles. And the importance that attaches to them is access to resources. But as I mentioned in the
context of the South China Sea, resources, whether fish or hydrocarbons, are capable of division, of sharing. And I think it was Professor Kingsbury who said during the last panel that these don’t tend to be issues that arouse the greatest passions because when you’re talking about maritime rights or resources, it’s distributing something
that somebody hasn’t had before, you’re not taking anything away. So one way to look at how
third-party dispute resolution might play a role in the East China Sea is separating out the sovereignty issues from the issue of resource allocation and then using the Timor-Leste
and Australia model as a way to resolve that sharing issue, if it can’t be done
bilaterally by conciliation. And not through a binding procedure, which almost certainly China would reject. Well, those are some thoughts and I hope they’ve been
interesting to you. And at the appropriate time, I’m happy to answer any questions. Thank you. (audience applauds) – Now we’ll hear from Peter Dutton, who will introduce a new
project that we’ve undertaken with the cooperation of
some of the other experts you’ll be hearing from. – Well thank you very much. Thanks Alexis. I think it’s probably a perfect Segway into a discussion about the project that the U.S-Asia Law
Institute is undertaking over the course of the coming year. The examples and the real pithy ideas that Paul has offered us are, I think, a perfect way for beginning
to frame the issues, the things that it is that
we’re attempting to look at. The question really is, under what circumstances can
international arbitration or litigation or mediation, et cetera, in international institutional approaches to dispute resolution, be successful in resolving
maritime disputes. And as Paul said, one of
the best ways of thinking about that is when is it actually final, where both sides actually
respect the outcome of the case? It’s really instructive
to look at circumstances in which parties did not
actually accept the final result. In some way, perhaps even more instructive than when parties did accept the outcomes. That said, what we’ve
designed is a project that we’ll be working on all year and it’s got 10 different cases, 10 different lawyers are involved in assessing each of those cases, so we’ll have 10 case studies. And what we’ll do is, we
have a group of lawyers that are actually, who have
agreed to begin to serve as a sort of a steering committee, a group of senior lawyers who can help us to figure out some of the
real analytical components of understanding the common threads. When was it successful,
when was it not successful? Based on these 10 cases,
we’ll have an initial report by the end of the academic year. And I look forward, frankly, to making this a longer project. Because really, 10 case studies with a sort of a series of
common questions to respond to is really just the beginning of the way that this
question can be analyzed. It’s important though, of course, because what we’re really
focusing on is East Asia and in particular, many of the topics that we’ve already discussed today, about some of the unique ways in which East Asia approaches
international law issues. Sometimes they’re myths,
sometimes they’re not. But the degree to which East
Asia and is there, in fact, an East Asian approach that
we need to take into account? Of course in the East
and the South China Sea, these questions are highly contentious. We know that they’re highly contentious and therefore, some of the most dangerous, potentially dangerous areas of the world for real conflict to result. I mean, it’s not small
states off in the corner of the world, where
conflict is bad enough. These are strong states
in an essential component to the world, economically,
politically, and otherwise. Where instability can have
very serious consequences. And so it’s our aim to
begin to shed some light on what we can do to help minimize the potential for that conflict. And I have assigned
myself a case, I’m lucky, I got to assign the cases, and so I got to assign a case
that I had never read before, one that I knew I needed
to understand better. And so I assigned myself. This little corner of the
world here, actually, again, you might think this is
a little out of the way, tucked away corner of
the world, but in fact, this is one of the key
waterways on the planet. This is the Red Sea, right? And so this is one of the
major maritime sea lanes between, well frankly,
between Europe and Asia, but one of the major
global east-west sea lanes through this area. So this is the dispute
between Eritrea and Yemen over the islands that you see and don’t ask me to pronounce them all, because my Arabic is
worse than my Chinese, so I can’t pronounce them all. But the island groups in
sort of the funnel there where the Red Sea begins to
empty out into Gulf of Aden. This is an area where
it was quite contentious and so you’re familiar with the job, the picture is better
than my description of it. But if you think of the Red Sea as dumping out into the Gulf of Aden on its southeastern edge,
to the northwest is Egypt and the Suez Canal, right, and the entry into the Mediterranean. So this is an important
waterway, the Red Sea. And the history of these
particular islands is fascinating, I’m not gonna delve into
the history, don’t worry. But I do want to point out that it has sort of
premodern components to it. Prior to the Ottoman Empire’s period of control of that
region, there was, in fact, a sort of regional governance system that one of the parties,
Yemen in particular, tried to sort of bring into the process. Then of course, there
was the Ottoman Empire, which for centuries, ruled that area in various ways and in various degrees. At the end of the Ottoman Empire then, which came to a close at
the end of World War I, there was a period of
about six or eight years of treaty negotiations, that sort of finalized the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire and
immediately in the 1920s, that began about a 20-year period of colonization of that area. Libya, Egypt, and what
is now Eritrea, Yemen, these were all areas that
were colonized during the, or otherwise ruled from
outside by other countries during the interwar period, between World War I and World War II. So again, there’s multiple
parties and multiple moving parts as to who might control these
islands during this period. Then, of course, after
the colonial period, when initially, Eritrea was
part of the State of Ethiopia and Yemen had its independence but it was divided by civil war into two different countries. Ultimately Ethiopia and
Eritrea fought a civil war and finally, we end up in the
1990s, not until the 1990s, when these countries were stable enough to begin to interact with each other and to try to allocate those
islands amongst themselves. And what resulted was a
short but sharp conflict between the two of them. So this is an area with
a very complex history. Periods of time when neither country was able to pursue its
interests on its own. Periods when civil war interrupted the capacity of the states
to address their issues. Are any of these issues sounding familiar to Chinese circumstances or other circumstances in East Asia? All right, so there’s a
lot of resonance here, lots of deep, historical connections. Not just to the islands themselves, but to the resources around them. Again, sounding familiar? I think there’s a lot of things where we have commonality in this case to some of the significant
issues in East Asia. I’m not gonna give you
a whole case report, that’s not my job. But what I am going to do
is to give you four thoughts about some of the issues in this case that I found most interesting to begin to think about what it is that might make maritime
dispute resolution successful. And surprisingly, often in cases it’s the legal issues and the relationship between the legal issues and the facts that are the most interesting. And I will tell you,
much to my own surprise, I found the most interesting aspect of this case to be the procedure. It’s the procedure in
which I think you can find some of the most interesting observations about how to begin to
get parties off of no and out of conflict and
into all right fine, we will submit this issue to litigation. So the first observation that I had was that the procedures were incremental. There was a real effort over time, not only to incrementally bring
the parties out of conflict and into an institutionalized
process, this arbitration, but even within that process,
there were increments of, essentially, I think,
trust-building processes. And a substantial amount of control in each of those incremental
steps was left to the parties. It was a significant process by which, first of all, the
arbitration decision itself, was separated into two
separate parts, two components, one first with issues about sovereignty and then the second,
once those were resolved, they could begin to make decisions about boundary dispute resolutions. But beyond that, even
leading up to the process of the arbitration itself,
there were various, what I would call,
trust-building processes, smaller trust-building processes, that got them to the agreement to arbitrate in the first place. So it’s essentially a
negotiated facilitated process so that getting tot he point
where arbitration can begin. So that’s getting to yes, I
would say, is the first thing. Incremental, giving the
parties a lot of control along the way, and frankly, even the opportunity to
back out, if necessary. So the second point is, I would say getting to yes was a facilitated process, as I mentioned. And so the second issue
that I noticed is that it was all facilitated by the
good offices of France. You think about France. So France was not one
of the colonial powers in that region, that particular region. France is a permanent member
of the U.N. Security Counsel, and is a very active
country internationally, supportive of international law and international arbitration. But an active player in the region, in various periods of time, but not one that had been a colonizer. So it’s very interesting, I thought, that France was the one who
was able to bring the parties from conflict and to help
to resolve the conflict and bring them to the point
where they could, in fact, negotiate a series of arrangements to work through the facilitation
of the arbitration itself. So good offices, I thought,
of a trusted third-party who could facilitate that transition from rejection to acceptance,
I thought was here. Very good. The third interesting component here, and I need to learn more about it myself, is that there was, in
fact, a period before this where both sides had tried force. There had been a small
conflict in advance of this and it had left, essentially
had left a stalemate. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating that
as a step in this process, but I am saying that it is
one of those circumstances where sometimes countries
recognize that they’re just, there are power-based
dispute resolution processes and there are institutional
dispute resolution processes. And I hate to say it, but
in the international system, sometimes countries have to recognize that power-based options
are not going to work. And that ultimately can push them into institutional processes. And in this particular case, I actually think that was an
important component of it. The two countries,
essentially went into conflict immediately after they had
resolved their own civil wars and so they had powerful militaries that were perfectly, well
frankly, looking for a job to do. And so it was one of those moments in time when conflict was tried and failed and that did facilitate moving into an institutional process. Finally, I think I will touch briefly on some of the outcomes. And in this particular case, this was a case in which
historic fishing rights was in fact recognized as a
component of international law. A real transition, I think,
in bringing in the concept of historic rights and into
modern international law and giving it some standing
and an important way to help bridge between two cultures. Because what we have here, is very similar to the South China Sea. This is a place where there
really was no strong sense of Westphalian sovereignty
prior to the conflict. There was no period of time in which any particular party
controlled these islands alone. What was recognized was
that there was a fluid sense of international attachment, cultural attachment to
the islands themselves. Again, sounds familiar. It sounds very much
like the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. So I think what was very… The outcome was a very
thoughtful, respectful, and creative outcome that respected the particular culture and
the cultural approaches that had historically
been taken in that area. And so I thought that was a terrific thing that I would mention. Thanks very much. (audience applauds) – Now we’ll here from Jonathan Odom. – Good afternoon, it’s
82 degrees where I live and I’m supposed to engage in Thanksgiving travel
tomorrow to get back to Hawaii. Why would I do that? For these four individuals, the chance to speak with all four of them and just appear with them. I have utmost respect for
them, it’s not a roast, it’s not an event where I’m supposed to speak about all four, but I just have a high level of respect for each of these gentlemen individually. And so the chance to be associated with them is just awesome. But in particular, I wanna
thank Jerry for inviting me. As Jerry alluded to, Jerry
and I have a special bond and when he told the story
about Tim this morning and how Tim passed from a brain aneurism, that was me six years ago
and I was in the hospital and while in the hospital, I
received a message from Jerry saying yeah, I had one
of those when I’m 59, I’m glad you’re doing well, good luck. And so I’ll always share that with you, it’s a special kind of bond on that. But I particularly wanna thank Jerry for inviting Paul to speak on the panel so that during the question and answer, I will get absolutely no questions. (audience laughs) Because I am part of this project that Peter is honchoing
about these case studies and the case that I’ve
been asked to look at is the case of Croatia and Slovenia. Which, raise your hand if
you have any familiarity with the case between
Croatia and Slovenia. Excellent. So whatever I say is
ground truth, I love this. One of the things Peter does
to work here at NYU part-time is that he takes the
train from Boston often. And he rode, one time when he
was going from Boston to here, he sat beside David
McCullough, the historian. And he texts me while he’s on the train that he’s sitting beside David McCullough and I’m thinking, this is awesome, ’cause I love the Civil War Series and his voice is so soothing. But the only book I admittedly
read by David McCullough was the one on Truman. And a quote from that
book was, Truman said, “The purpose of history is to remind us “that the world didn’t
begin the day we were born.” And so I asked myself, why is it someone working
in Asia-Pacific region, comes to North America, to speak about a case
that happened in Europe? And part of it is to remind us that it is truly an
international rules-based order. And so the things that we talk about in, whether it be our Eritrea and Yemen, whether it be somewhere in East Asia, or somewhere in Europe, which is what I’ve been asked to look at. Hopefully that’s what it means. It is that it’s one
international rules-based order. And so as I started
looking closer at the case, and I’ll give you a little
background, quickly in a sec, but one thing I did notice is, I started, it was the first time I read the case, I was forced to read it, and as they list all of the participants at the very beginning, like
they do in every one of those, I see Paul’s name at the beginning. I’m like, we should just
have Paul break this case. Digging further what I realized is there are some maritime issues that were addressed by the Tribunal. I was talking to him at lunch and he said he worked
primarily the land issues. But I think what’s more
important for this project is, as Peter said, the
procedure was important and worth highlighting in that case. Very important to highlight in this case. And before you start going,
oh, I’m gonna go to sleep, the procedure is like a soap opera in this particular case. And so it is, to a certain
level, fascinating. I don’t have a chart or a
map showing where this is, but suffice it to say it’s about the northern
portion of the Adriatic Sea, up on the high part of the
calf of the Italian boot. Just think about that, okay? Adriatic Sea on the back of the boot and up in the top-right quadrant. What happened was when
Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia started dissolving in 1991, both Slovenia and Croatia
declared independence. And so at that point, they
started needing to sort out where the land boundary was and where their maritime boundary was. And so that was the
genesis for all of this. This all started in 1991, when they both declared
independence the exact same day. And then for the next 10 years or so, they started going into
negotiations to resolve it. And that’s kind of, if I give
you, essentially, up front, four takeaways from this case, for what it means for
resolving these disputes. That’s, the first one is the
process on these cases are long and winding roads and it can
be a very circuitous process. And that’s no surprise to Paul, as he’s been litigating
a number of these cases. But in this particular case, for example, once they started negotiating in 1992, they continued to try to negotiate and resolve it for another nine years. And it wasn’t until they
got to about 2001 and 2002, that they started realizing, okay, we aren’t gonna be able to
negotiate this between us, we need to go to some sort of third party. And so they, one party threw out the idea of potentially going to the ICJ, that was rejected by the other. They continued to posture. They tried to work
negotiations at every level, including the prime ministers, including the foreign ministers, including the legal experts,
and the technical experts. They just couldn’t reach an outcome. And then ultimately in 2009,
after a couple of years, they were able to negotiate
an arbitration agreement. And that’s the second
point that’s worth noting, and that’s because with
the use of arbitration instead of an established tribunal, it allows parties to
tailor the nature and scope of this institution or this
organization for this purpose. And so what happened in this case is that there were a number
of substantive issues that the arbitral tribunal
was given to look at and it was a hybrid. There were some land
territory border issues as well as some maritime boundary issues as well as some use of water space issues as to how was Slovenia gonna get out of the northern portion of the Adriatic, when there’s no high seas corridor. Okay? And so what happened in that case, was that they were allowed to craft, not only what were going to be the issues covered by
these arbiters, but also, what was going to be
the applicable standards that the arbiters were going to apply? And so as a result, for
a couple of the disputes, it said the arbitrators will be allowed to apply international law,
principles of international law. But then, with, for
example, the use issue, it said they’ll be allowed to apply law as well as equity, as well
as good neighborly relations. And so it gave them
latitude, the arbiters, to look at those, kind
of, and weigh things beyond just what does the hard
and fast black-letter law say or what does customary law say? So that gives the value of giving latitude for the parties to decide how
they want to approach this. The third key takeaway was the soap opera that I was talking about. And that is, some improper conduct that happened during the case. And essentially, once the
arbiters were appointed, they started setting the
schedule through procedural order and then, the first two
years of the litigation was kind of standard for a
number of these other cases, including the Philippines case. They set a deadline of
when the memorial’s due when the counter-memorial’s due when the supporting evidence is due and all of those, kind
of, standard practices. So everything was going fine
in those first two years and then the Slovenia Foreign Minister gave an interview in the
press in which they said that you know we’ve had some discussions with the Hague on this case and also said, and we’re
hearing that the arbiters are going to address the issue when it comes to use of the water space. So Croatia, immediately,
no surprise, said, how are you hearing these
inside baseball stories? They sent a letter to Slovenia
asking for explanation and then brought it to the
attention of the tribunal. And so then, at about that time, a newspaper in both Croatia, as well as a newspaper in Serbia, published transcripts of
these ex parte communications between the agent of
Slovenia and essentially, the primary lead officer for the Slovenia Government in the case. And the Slovenian-appointed arbiter on the five-member panel. And these transcripts,
essentially, did several things. It revealed that, hey,
what you should do is, when you’re talking to the
other four arbitrators, you should use these arguments
in your deliberations. And one of the other things was, hey, so use these two documents
and use these arguments. And meanwhile, the Slovenian
appointed arbitrator was sharing information back
as to what was being said by the other four,
during the deliberations. So once this came to light, obviously, Croatia was
significantly concerned. And then, as many of
you are familiar with, U.S. Constitutional Law, the
kind of Saturday Night Massacre dealing with the firing of
officials in the early ’70s. There was essentially,
about a week-long massacre of arbitrators leaving the case. And so the Slovenian
resigned from arbiter, the Slovenian agent resigned. The Slovenians appointed a
second arbiter in their place who was the President of ICJ. And at that point, that same week, Croatia announced that it was withdrawing from the arbitration. And at that point, the
Slovenian appointed arbiter, the ICJ President, said
I’m also withdrawing, because I agreed to do this, because I think there was going
to be a way to resolve this, and now I’m seeing this
not going to go that route. So it was a dynamic where
it still went forward. And at that point, from
a substance perspective, both sides had already submitted all of their memorials
and counter-memorials and so all of the evidence
to address the issues, the hearings had been all, all of that had taken place before the ex parte communications, and before this issue came to surface. So the arbiters were able
to look at all the substance and come forth with an award in the case and they addressed, in a
separate partial award, the issue of whether there
was a material breach in the arbitration agreements, which allowed Croatia to
leave, tribunal said no. They said we’ve addressed it, we’ve rebalanced the situation,
so we’re moving forward. And once they issued the arbitral award, which was kind of mixed, a lot of it was in favor of Slovenia, as a matter of law, but
it was a mixed award. At that point, Slovenia said, we’re going to follow
the arbitration agreement that says within six months, both sides will implement this award. Croatia, since it had already withdrawn from the arbitration, said
we’re not going to do that. So once you hit the six-month mark, which was December of last year, the prime ministers of both countries met and they essentially said the same thing, we’re going to follow it and the other one said we’re
not going to follow it. Now where do we go from there? That’s the fourth takeaway from this. And that is, parties trying
to find creative ways to effectively implement in
these types of situations. Because obviously the
system is consent-based. And it can be very fragile in whether there’s
actual justice going on. And we see Croatia pulling out of this, out of a concern of whether
justice can go forward. But on the fourth point, with regards to creative
ways to implement, what Slovenia has now
done, earlier this year, is they took that award and since both nations joined the EU in what was part of the negotiation of even having jurisdiction over the case in the arbitration, was
they agreed Slovenia was no longer gonna block
Croatia’s attempt to join the EU. But now that they are
both members of the EU, Slovenia in the past six months, has brought a case before
the EU Court of Justice, saying that Croatia is in
violation of a national law and violation of EU law, because it’s not following that rule. So obviously in each
case, it can be different as to what those creative ways are for implementing existing awards. And in the Asian way, there is not a common governmental body, such as the EU, that oversees
any of the claimants. You have ASEAN, but obviously, a number of these disputes between China and the other Southeast Asian nations and China not being a member of ASEAN. So it just goes to show, I
don’t know what the answer is as to what the creative
ways to implement are in some of these Asian disputes, but you have to think creatively because it is a consent-based system and you’ve gotta work with what you have. And so with that, I will wrap-up and turn it over to Henry. – Thank you very much. (audience applauds) We’re now gonna hear from Henry Bensurto, who knows as much about
the Philippine arbitration with China as anybody. And I hope he’s gonna tell us something that will be the most recent word about the Philippine attitude toward the enforcement of the award. Henry, we very much appreciate your making the trip from San Francisco and providing a few
slides for us to absorb. One of the questions
that we have, of course, with all the experience
and the innovations in public international law, that relate to the
South China Sea problem, what can be done? What solutions seem appropriate for this particular
South China Sea problem? We talk about Mischief Reef, nothing could be more appropriately named, than Mischief Reef. And the question is, can something be done to solve the problem? Henry, we look to you for an answer. – Yes. Well, good afternoon to all. I am Henry Bensurto. I am now the Consul
General in San Francisco and I was living there
for the last two years in comfort after the arbitration. But, it was very difficult
to say no to Jerry. When I received the email from Jerry, it put me in a dilemma
whether to go or not. But I thought, why not? If I can help be part of
the solution, why not? If I can be of help, in terms
of understanding the issue, so that we can use the
issue as a point of leverage in solving the problem, not
just in the South China Sea, but elsewhere, why not? And I think this advocacy of Jerry, and he’s just not an academic, but he’s very much an advocate of peace, and I thought it’s an honor to be part of that and to contribute,
and so I said yes. The second reason was that
Paul is here, obviously, and I really love to say thank you. And I say this not just me, in
person, but an entire nation. In fact, if I may, and I don’t
think this is exaggerating, the entire global system, the
current political structure that is anchored in rule of law has so much to say, thank you to Paul. And I would say that Paul
is not just an expert but is a man of honor
and integrity and ethics. And I think in this profession,
that’s very critical. In fact, I may say that I was
part of the selection process and that was the most
critical criterion for me. And that was the thing that really, I thought, was very important, if we’re going to embark
on the arbitration. And that’s who Paul is,
he’s just so humble. He will not say that, so
I will say it in public. Having said that, I come here, I will have to do the disclaimer that I come here, based
on my personal opinion. I don’t represent the government
in terms of this issue. I’ve been detached from the
issue after the arbitration and I come here, not in
any way to undermine, subvert, or interpret my
government’s current policy. But at the same time,
if I say the right thing then you can attribute
that to my government. But if I say the wrong
things, it’s me and me alone. I’d like to make that clear. I’d like to preface my
presentation by several points, because I thought the
conversation this morning was very good and I think
they’re very, very much part of the building block
in understanding rule of law. And I have my own
takeaway, which I thought is going to be very important also, as I make the presentation. One is that rule of law
is not just arbitration, it’s not just going to third-party, it’s not even just negotiation. For me, it’s much deeper than that. It’s a mindset, it’s a
virtue, it’s a way of life. What that means is that there has to be a reputation of good habits. Virtue is a reputation of good acts and when people are repeating
that, it becomes a habit. And this is what rule of law is about. It’s norm setting, and the arbitration in South China Sea is all about that. But when you look at it much deeper also, when you say reputation,
it talks about time. So have you have to give it time for that habit to set in and
mature and come to fruition. And I think this is another
point for discussion, but I would be very interested on that part of the discussion. The second point I’d like to
and I will take away from that, is that in the case of the Philippines, I remember, we didn’t like
to go to arbitration also. I must tell you that
it was a hard decision for us to go into that. In fact, we’ve been
through many negotiations, but only when we were completely resolved that we have to do it,
then we have to do it. In fact, I was given the
presidential authority to make the last effort,
a last ditch effort. And I had to back-channel
it with my counterpart. I will not say the name,
but I had a secret meeting and I laid out, let’s give
the discussion a chance. Because at the time, I remember in 2009 I was traveling all over
Southeast Asia and China, I was in Beijing many
times, and we created, generated a formula which
I called Zone of Peace, Freedom, Friendship, and Cooperation, which I thought was a good formula that was a win-win for all of us. A political solution at that. I will discuss that in much detail but just to give you
an idea what that was. I suggested at the time, in 2009, because of the submission for
extended continental shelf, how can we proceed with this submission if there are disputes? Maybe if I can, and I sought authority from the president at the time, maybe if I can have a
political settlement, by which all of us will agree to set aside our territorial disputes and somehow enclave the rocks
within 12 nautical miles, then this will allow everybody to submit extended
continental submissions. Vietnam was up front on
that, Malaysia was 50/50, but the most difficult
was China at the time. And so what came about was
a series of back-and-forth. And this led me to the conclusion that at the end of the day, power is something that’s
very difficult to let go. When you think you can ram yourself and you think you have that good shot, it’s very tempting to do it that way. And it’s very hard to
be humble, I thought. I will not elaborate anymore. But I think it came to
the point, therefore, that I guess we have to
do the arbitration now. We have no choice. There were two decision points, do we manage or do we resolve? We looked at the figures. Managing was a good, I would
say, was a good thing to do, ’cause you manage, if you
cannot resolve, you manage. But what we found out, we tried
to manage the issue in ’97, we thought it was done with
the DOC after Mischief Reef, but then it didn’t solve. A rebound became an issue. And so we come to the conclusion, management does not serve the purpose. We have to go now into resolution. Whatever we can resolve,
we’ll try to resolve. And so from management of disputes, we’ve come to the point of resolving whatever you can resolve. There are two issues there,
the territorial dispute and the maritime dispute. And this is where we desegregated
and analyzed the dispute and kind of classified the
maritime from the territorial. Territorial will take centuries to solve, maritime, we have a good shot. And then it came to play that
once we’ve come to the point where negotiation is not
going to bring fruits, then we decided on arbitration. Let me go there to arbitration
and the South China Sea. I will not bore you with technicalities because it’s meant for a real classroom. So I will give you, hopefully,
a more interesting than that. Because technicalities
will make you sleep. But I thought it’s better to show the map of South China Sea, because, I’ve been involved
in this issue since ’97 and what I have observed was that we keep on
going around in circles, we keep on talking of certain things, but at the end of the day, we really didn’t understand
what we were talking. Because we didn’t look at the map. We are showing the disputes as being there without going through and analyzing the reasons and cause and sources what exactly is the dispute? And so I thought the map should enable us to understand it better. My last point, sorry for this. The dispute between the Philippines and China and South China
Sea is far-reaching. Far-reaching because it does not involve only the two countries, the implication is much more than that. And the map, as I go
through it, will tell you. So I segmented it into three categories: South China Sea before
and after arbitration. Because for us to appreciate
arbitration and the effects and what is the move forward, we have to understand the past. What essentially was the dispute? What created the situation? And second, how did we get there? The content of the arbitration
that Paul prepared. And finally, what is the move forward? So let me go ahead. South China Sea is like a
bowl of spaghetti or noodles, it’s crisscrossing and that makes it very complicated and so complex. Why? Because the lines that you see there is the baseline of all the countries. That line that you see now, is
the 200 exclusive economics. I will not explain what these are, I assume that you know. And then you have the Nine-Dash Line that goes beyond the 200 nautical miles exclusive zone of China. And then you have this territorial dispute on those rocks that you see. And because each of these rocks, if they are rocks or islands, they will generate a maritime entitlement. And so these are the different territorial 12 nautical miles, in theory. And the different color signifies the various occupants of those rocks. And this is the theoretical 200-mile, if they are generated from each rock. And then if you are going to
treat it as an archipelago and the archipelago generates 200 miles. And so what you have here
is a crisscrossing lines, see how complicated it is. And the lack of clarity
there, this lack of clarity fuels the tension in the South China Sea. So perhaps, one way of
minimizing the tension is if we can somehow simplify these lines then we have a good chance at peace. And if we can reduce it to this point, which is now the case, after arbitration, we now have a good foundation of how to move forward in the future. Because arbitration is
not the end all, be all. It’s a tool, it’s just
a tool, a step forward on how to really achieve
lasting durable peace, not just for the Philippines, but for China and the entire
South China Sea literal states and also the region, essentially. Because I’ve said, East China Sea and South China Sea and Indian Ocean, is part of a continuing
sea lanes of communication. And so they are so interrelated. So this is before arbitration
and this after arbitration. That is the consequence
of the arbitration. But how did we get to this South China Sea where you don’t have those lines anymore, where the 200 nautical miles exclusive economic zones are very clear? I’ll forego. So Paul has a lot of things to say here, in terms of the 15
submissions that Paul did. One, submissions one and
two had something to do with the 200 nautical miles
exclusive economic zone of China and the Philippines and we also submitted
that the Nine-Dash Line, the historic rights, does not
have foundation in UNCLOS. And so the tribunals agreed
with that, with both. There’s no historic rights
on the Nine-Dash Line. Third submission was on Scarborough Shoal, that Scarborough Shoal was
not an island, but a rock. As a rock, it is only
entitled to 12 nautical miles and is not entitled to 200 nautical miles exclusive economic zone. The tribunal said, it is a rock. And therefore, it does not have 200. Submission four and five, Subi Reef, Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal, it will be argued that
these are not islands, neither are they rocks, they
are low tide elevations, and therefore as low tide elevations do not generate any maritime
entitlements at all, they’re subject to the proximity of which country has 200 over them. And the tribunal agreed. Submission number six, Gaven
and McKennan Reefs as rocks, we said they’re not islands as well and the tribunal said, agreed. Submission number seven, Fiery Cross Reef, Cuarteron Reef, Johnson Reef, we argued they are not
islands and therefore, not entitled to 200, but are entitled only
to 12 nautical miles. Tribunal agreed. Submissions eight and
nine, we are entitled to 200 nautical miles
exclusive economic zone, as well as 200 nautical
mile continental shelf. And that we have the
exclusive sovereign rights to explore and exploit the resources in accordance with UNCLOS and that China interfered
with those rights. And the court agreed. Submission number 10 is that, and this is what Paul
was referring to earlier, that Scarborough Shoal, I’m talking even within
that 12 nautical miles. Because, in theory, a state wants sovereignty
over a rock or a feature, you have 12 nautical miles,
which is territorial in nature. But in this case, regardless of who owns, by the way the tribunal
has no jurisdiction, nor did they decide on who
owns Scarborough Shoal, regardless who has
sovereignty over the rock, did mention that Scarborough
Shoal traditional fishing by Philippine fisherman should be allowed and that’s a reason why we were able to go in there and fish, not just within the 12 nautical miles, but even inside the lagoon. And on submission number 11, that there were marine
environmental destruction, this has something to do with the creation of the artificial islands
and the tribunal agreed. And therefore, China was engaging in unlawful destruction
of the marine environment. Mischief Reef, again, was
part of submission 12, that it is an artificial island, but if you go back when
it was undeveloped, it was but a low tide elevation and the tribunal agreed with that. – Let’s talk about Mischief
Reef, we’re running out of time. And the question before the
house is what can be done? Let’s just clarify Mischief Reef. As I understand it, it’s a reef. At high tide, it is not above water, therefore, it is not susceptible of being claimed as the
territory of any state. Nevertheless, China developed
it into an artificial island and has turned that into
a base of some kind. Is it a military base? – It is. – And it lies within the exclusive economic
zone of the Philippines. – Yes. – So this is what the United States and other western powers and maybe some Asian are up against. You have China taking a reef, turning it into an artificial island that becomes a military base, in the exclusive economic
zone of another country. And now we say that’s illegal. – Yes. – What can be done about it? Now we hear a range of international law, possibilities of settling other disputes. And one could think of
many possible solutions, one is Chinese could say,
we’ll respect the decision of the arbitration and we’ll leave. We’ll dismantle the
military base, et cetera. That doesn’t appear to be
on the cards at this point. China could say, well, we’ll
convert the military base into entirely peaceful uses, taking care of ships that run afoul or bad weather in the neighborhood. Or we’ll work on the environment or we’ll save the fish or something. Or China could say, we welcome
other countries to join us and we’ll internationalize this. China could say any number of things. International law seems
to be very imaginative if the parties are looking for a solution. What could be done here, that might settle at least that problem? I gather from what was said earlier, the other six bases that China
has recently constructed, are not susceptible of the same legal challenge at this point. But the problem is, can we do anything? Vice President Pence keeps
making these statements on behalf of the United States, we will not accept what China is doing. But realistically, what can be done? – I have an answer to that. – Good. I don’t think anyone else has. (audience laughs) – When I say answer, it
may not be the right one. But let me put it this way, the arbitration somehow
narrowed the issues. That’s a good point. So it narrowed on the Mischief Reef. So in effect, it has solved a significant percentage of the problem. And so we’re limited
now to specific issues, going down to the Mischief Reef and the other rocks where you
have activities happening. I will connect this to my
earlier thesis about rule of law as being non-creation,
habit-forming, matter of time. Certain things cannot be forced overnight, we have to be patient, but
we have to be committed, we have to be consistent. It’s the same way when
you rear your child, you bring him up, you teach him virtues, he doesn’t get the lesson in one day, sometimes it takes years, but you keep on repeating as a parent. And someday, hopefully, when he’s of a right
mind, that will come back. And that creates the right
environment now, for a solution. You don’t, you reverse the process, you don’t exercise your parental authority or parental obligation, that child is going to
grow up a spoiled brat. And time will come when he’s now very big, you cannot teach him anything anymore, because he’s stronger than you. So we have to find the
right teachable moments to be able to inject that right mindset and keep on repeating it
consistently, constantly. As they say, ram it down, but peacefully. (audience laughs) Peacefully all the time. And arbitration is a
peaceful way, by the way. Never is it a kind of aggression, it is still a peaceful way. I will not go to the specifics
of how to create that habit, but there has, it is
peaceful but forceful. Because sometimes, you have
to show resolve to your kid. I’m not saying China is a kid,
by no means am I saying that, but all of us, in a way, when
we are learning some virtue, we are, we operate in the same manner. Because habit is not necessarily
automatic, it’s acquired. It’s not something that’s
automatically god-given. So we have to do our part. And that’s why when I’m asked, is the arbitration,
can it be not enforced? Pardon me, I have a different
perspective on that. My take is that it is enforceable, but the manner by which an
international law is enforced is different from the manner by which it is enforced
in a domestic setting. Because the tools that
are available to you, in a domestic setting, is different from the
tools available to you in the international setting. And you have to be able
to use a mix of tools to be able to enforce
that, always peaceful. Back to the specifics. Let me jump, therefore
and go to the specifics in terms of solving. Because this is my
solution and I will always, I will go back to my perspective. Because for me, this is my solution. And this has something to do with Deng Xiaoping’s perspective
of setting aside disputes. And what the arbitration has done is set aside the sovereignty issue. We enclave it and those
areas within the… I don’t, do I have a… Then it allows us now
to engage in cooperation under part nine of UNCLOS, because fish stock in the South China Sea is not territorial, they straddle. And therefore, efforts to conserve, for example, has to be a regional effort. But the difference between now and then, in the past, the regulation of fishing has become a tool to exercise sovereignty. Now, with this clarification,
that cooperation, in terms of regulating over fishing, now has no sovereignty implications because Nine-Dash Line has been clarified, the characters of the
features have clarified. And therefore, transnational
or interstate cooperation is now much part of
international cooperation, sanctioned under UNCLOS. And at the same time, we now have to engage
in maritime delimitation because the clarification
made by the tribunal, now allow us all the the literal states, to engage in bilateral
maritime delimitation. For example, in the south, we can now have a maritime delimitation with Indonesia and Malaysia. In the eastern seaboard,
this will now allow us to have a maritime
delimitation with Palau. In the north, this will now allow us to have maritime delimitation with Taiwan and also with China. But China, because we’re one China policy. Sorry my friend from… (audience laughs) So we can have that delimitation already in our northern border
with China, essentially. What does this mean? This clarification of
overlapping is now durable. In the past, they were not durable, because of that lack of clarity. And finally, by enclaving
the territorial disputes, we can let this go on for as long as we’re able to enclave it. And that gives us
opportunity now to be clear in terms of how to do the code of conduct. The code of conduct now will have something to
do with Mischief Reef. For example, how do we
conduct our behavior, in terms so that we don’t generate, without giving that particular
feature 12 nautical miles? Maybe there are certain safety zones, for example, 500 meters. Something like that. I’m just giving some
examples so that you avoid also friction unnecessary encounters. When your ships are there and you are able to exercise freedom of navigation, you have to create a habit,
there should be no interdiction, there should be no granting of consent, there should be no
asking of consent on EEZ, something like that. And that code of conduct therefore, now becomes specific and
it creates the possibility for that code of conduct to be a real legally binding durable
specific acts or behavior. Finally, those enclaved areas, can now be areas for
joint marine cooperation for protected areas,
marine protected areas. Because the point of the matter is that these features are
actively marine sanctuaries, this is where tuna is able
to replenish its stocks and if we destroy the portals there, we endanger the coastal states in terms of their marine consumption. In the Philippines for one,
is about 80% of public, quintessential coastal town, more than 75% of our towns is less than 100 kilometers away or miles away from the coast. And therefore, a large
population of the archipelago and so is with other literal states are dependent on the marine production, on the marine resources. And this joint cooperation
among ourselves now, including the conception
of marine protected areas on those enclave areas, will now allow opportunities,
rather than opportunities. They now become opportunities
for joint cooperation. With that, I will end with saying, frontiers are the resource edge on which I hang suspended
the issues of war and peace. The sooner we’re able to clarify all of those overlaps, the better for us. Thank you. (audience applauds) – I’m delighted to hear this
vigorous, positive evaluation of the much maligned
Philippine arbitration award. And not from an armchair academic like me, but somebody who is an experienced,
knowledgeable diplomat. In October 2012, I published an article in the South China Post, calling for the use of
arbitration of disputes, in order to narrow the
issues, not to solve them. Negotiation is always essential. But I said arbitration
can often be useful. And a few retired American
diplomats criticized me, by saying, you don’t understand, arbitration is just
gonna make things worse. It’s the last thing we want, don’t interfere with our negotiations, after 20 years of
unsuccessful negotiations. Then you surprised us three months later by bringing this secret until you made the claim arbitration. And I was tremendously excited, ’cause I thought, these
are real diplomats. And now you tell us, despite everything that’s happened since
the award has come down, that there’s some good aspects of this. And it’s gonna be easier, perhaps, eventually, to solve
some of these questions. Now I like also, your emphasis
on a peaceful solution. But what are we Americans to think? Every other day, there’s
an item in the press about the U.S. going on one of these Freedom of Navigation things. We’re sending our Destroyer
nearby this island or that and then occasionally,
we have a close shave with the Chinese, that we
might have some other incident. What’s the utility of the
American military gestures? That seems to be the only
thing we feel we can do, other than just empty talk, challenging Mischief Reef
and what China has done? Should we use military maneuvers so that we can go within
12 miles of this reef? And China says, you’re
entering our territorial sea. And we say, you have no territorial sea, because you have no
territory on Mischief Reef. What’s the use? And here we have two
experienced Naval Officers. (audience laughs) How do you defend the U.S.
use of military maneuvers? Can’t we just make a
statement from the Pentagon? Why don’t we clarify it? The American public hasn’t
got any understanding of the implications of
these military maneuvers. – Yes. So this is where I include that disclaimer that I should’ve included in my remarks, that these are the views of me personally, and not of any agency,
the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. I think what’s important to understand is that there is a limited role for Freedom of Navigation operations. And Peter and I have often talked about that FON operations is not a strategy. I mean, I’m the first one to say that. But at the same time, you know, there’s several different types of territorial and maritime disputes existing in the South
China Sea at the same time. And so U.S. policy has long-standing been, we don’t take sides on competing claims. And so that was, you heard that a lot in
the arbitration case, where if the U.S. gave a public statement, it was saying something to that effect. We’re not siding with the Philippines and we’re not siding with China, this is something for them to sort out, who has sovereignty of these features, which was not subject to the arbitration. But where the U.S. did have an interest, is maintaining freedom in the air. And in accordance with what
international law says. And so when it came to
excessive maritime claims, that’s where the Freedom
of Navigation operation. So it’s essentially two
U.S. policies coexisting to address two different types of disputes that are in the South China Sea. So that’s where the Freedom
of Navigation operations come into play. If any coastal state
enacts or seeks to enact a maritime claim that’s in excess of what international
allows, then the U.S. is going to diplomatically
protest it, which we do. But they’re also gonna
operationally challenge it. Because that’s really the two key ways under international law for
state action to manifest itself. – Paul? – Well I don’t disagree with
anything Jonathan has said. In fact, I take that all as a given. But I think it shows the myopic approach and indeed self-defeating approach that the United States has taken. As Jonathan has said, there are a number of different disputes. Freedom of Navigation
deals with the ability of U.S. ships to navigate in these waters. But it doesn’t address the
issue of rule of law enforcement of the rule of law and
respect for the rule of law, in particular, respect
for an arbitral award that is under international law, legally bind and
obligatory to comply with. One would have hoped, maybe
I’m just too idealistic, but one would’ve hoped
that the United States would stand for the rule of law, for strengthening the rule of law, for strengthening a rules-based
international order. From time to time in our history, in our best moments, we
have done exactly that. – Aren’t we doing that
when we send a ship, a military vessel, within
12 miles of Mischief Reef? Aren’t we recognizing
the international law laid down by the Arbitration Tribunal? – In a very, very, only
in a very, very narrow, and as I said before,
self-defeating sense. What the United States, in my
opinion, they didn’t ask me, what the United States should be doing, is not taking a position that, well we have no interest in this. Yes, during the course of the arbitration, it was appropriate for the United States, which the Obama
Administration did, to say, we support the arbitral process, we support the peaceful
settlement of disputes, we support adjudication to
attain a final resolution here. But we don’t have an interest in whether the Philippines or China wins. That changes, or at least
it should’ve changed, once a unanimous arbitral award, by five of the world’s most respect international
jurists was issued. At that point, it became a
legally binding obligation, not only under the Law
of the Sea Convention, which the United States is not a party, but under general international law. And the United States is
certainly a part of that. And I think where the emphasis has been exactly where
Jonathan has described it and I think that’s where
U.S. policy is wrong. U.S. policy should be, rather
than antagonizing China, rather than provoking it
through an exclusive reliance on Freedom of Navigation exercises, which creates the threat
of the use of force, the United States ought to be
using all of its influence, which has diminished considerably
in the last two years, but the United States should also be using the force of all of its allies, which again, have diminished considerably, over the last two years, to
mount an international effort. Indeed, there are many countries in the region and throughout. We’ve mentioned Vietnam, Indonesia, we could mention Malaysia, Singapore, others, India, Australia, the EU, that would’ve been very happy to support and join the United States in an effort to promote the rule of law and peaceful resolution of disputes and compliance with
international obligations, including those emanating from international arbitral
awards in the South China Sea. I neglected to mention
Japan and South Korea, which undoubtedly would
be part of this effort. Yet, the United States has
abandoned its leadership role, it’s abandoned the area, it’s abandoned its respect
for the rule of law, and for the peaceful
resolution of disputes. This is an aberrant behavior
that is not only contrary to the interest of peaceful
settlement of disputes, the interests of the parties to the dispute in the South China Sea, it’s contrary to U.S. national interests in the short and in the long run. This is what makes being
an international lawyer or a believer in the rule of
law these days so challenging. But, none of us in this
room is going to give up, we’re not going to give up the fight, we’re going to continue our support, our belief in a rules-based
international order. And like my former, my mentor,
my late mentor, Abe Chaise, old friend of Jerry Cohen, used to say, “We have to hold America
to its own best standards.” And we can’t give up that effort. – I want Peter Dutton to
make the final comment, before we have a 10-minute break. And then we’ll renew this discussion in the context of the East China Sea, which isn’t simple either. – Yeah, I regret, I actually disagree with a lot of what you just said. Because we could do a whole
separate panel on this. – We should. – Yeah, that’s right, we should. One of the problems that
the United States has is regrettably, we are not a signatory, we are signatory, we
have not ratified UNCLOS. And so part of the reason for, it’s so particularly important that we do the Freedom
of Navigation operations is that we only enjoy
Freedom of Navigations as a matter of customary
international law. And in customary international law, if you don’t exercise your
rights, you lose them. It’s considered to be
acquiescent, so that’s number one. – Do we have to do it by a ship— – You do, yes you do. – Or can we do it by a statement? – You have to act in
consistent with the claim, act, not just a statement. A statement is not sufficient, over time, to preserve your rights. Second, I think we have
a much different policy over the last year, at least, than we’ve had in this
significant period of time. The policy of the U.S. Government
has changed significantly, and I think, Jerry, there’s been a tremendously different approach to the power dynamics in the region, because the fundamental
problem is the rest of us have been operating in
terms of legal dynamics and China has been operating
in terms of power dynamics. It’s a mismatch of policies. And so in order to make
the legal dynamic effective there has to be an effective
power dynamic to support it. That’s essentially what
Henry was saying earlier. And the bottom line is, there has been a much
different power dynamic in the South China Sea in the last year. Third, I disagree, I
think the U.S. actually, Secretary Mattis at Shangri-La,
in particular, I think, was quite eloquent in
support of rules-based order in the South China Sea and that’s exactly what
he was referring to. I can’t recall specifically
whether he said he referred to the
arbitration specifically, but he was clearly referencing
a rules-based order in the South China Sea in terms of American
policy for the region. And fourth, in terms of
the international effort to support the outcome of the award, I think what we’ve seen is a
tremendous operationalization of the international effort
to enforce the awards. If not necessarily always
referring to the award itself, but the outcome of the rights
in the South China Sea. So I actually think that there has been movement in this regard. I don’t think we’re going to see a change in the South China Sea until power and law operate together
in an effective way. – I’m in favor of greater clarification. Because so many gestures are
taking place, so many acts, and the American people are only vaguely aware
of the implications, what are the legal bases for doing this, what are the possible consequences, and how can we do better? But I think this discussion has amply ventilated some of these issues and I wanna thank the speakers very much and I look forward to the next round this afternoon, in 10 minutes. – All right, 10 minutes it is. (audience applauds)

Is Obamacare Working? The Affordable Care Act Five Years Later


Good morning Hank, it’s Tuesday- what is this
weird, non-airport background? Anyway, yesterday was the five year anniversary of the signing
of the Affordable Care Act, widely known as Obamacare, which made me wonder if it’s, ya’know,
like, uh… worked. So here’s the summary of what I found. In
the United States in 2009 more of my tax dollars went to healthcare than would if I lived in
Japan, or the United Kingdom, or Australia, and in exchange for all of that money we did
not get the universal health care that people in all of those countries enjoy. Five years later, in 2014, we spent about
the same percentage of our GDP on health care, and we still don’t have universal health care
but we do have less un-universal health care. By the way, I’m going to oversimplify here
a lot. For better information, you should check out “Healthcare Triage”. So here’s how it worked in the halcyon, pre-Obamacare
days of 2009: the government provided insurance to elderly people, through Medicare, and also
to some poor people, through Medicaid. Many other people got insurance through their jobs
or paid for it themselves, but this still left a lot of people out: like there were
44 million people without insurance. This was obviously a problem for those 44
million people, but it was also a problem for the rest of us because we did have a kind
of universal healthcare in the United States: like when uninsured people got sick and went
to the hospital, they did receive care and, if later, they couldn’t pay for that care,
those costs would be absorbed, either by the rest of us paying higher prices for healthcare,
or else by taxes, because the government had to subsidize public hospitals. But it wasn’t really Universal Healthcare,
because you can’t, like, go into an emergency department and get your week’s supply of insulin
if you’re diabetic. So in the US we didn’t, and still don’t, have real universal Healthcare,
we have, like, if-you-get-shot,-we-will-try-to-patch-that-up-for-you universal Healthcare. And this system was astonishingly inefficient.
Like, we spent more than 17% of our total Gross Domestic Product on healthcare. In countries
like Canada and France and Australia and the Netherlands, they spend less than 10% of their
GDP on healthcare, and they get similar, or in many cases better, health outcomes. Also, back in 2009, insurers could deny you
access to healthcare insurance if you had a “pre-existing condition”: a phrase intentionally
so broad that it encompassed, like, everything. For instance, Henry Reich of “Minute Physics”
was once denied insurance because he had the pre-existing condition of tinnitus, or ringing
in his ear. The only way to get around the pre-existing
condition clause was if you worked for a big company, you could get insurance through them.
And that, of course, incentivized people to work for big companies when they might otherwise
be doing different kinds of work, like…I don’t know, making “Minute Physics” videos. So, the Affordable Care Act sought to make
the labor market less bananas; decrease health related bankruptcies, the number one cause
of bankruptcy in the United States; and, ultimately, to insure those 44 million people without
insurance, while, at the same time, over time decreasing the amount of money we spend on
healthcare. It was going to solve the access problem by
creating these healthcare exchanges where private companies could compete for people’s
business, but they couldn’t discriminate based on gender or pre-existing conditions. The law also would expand Medicaid, which
would get insurance to more poor people, and it required companies with more than 50 employees
to provide affordable insurance to their employees, or else pay a gigantic penalty. This would all be paid for, more than paid
for, hopefully, by cost control measures. These range from getting tougher on Medicare
fraud, to incentivizing hospitals to keep elderly patients healthy so they don’t get
readmitted to the hospital. There’s also a new tax on, like, tanning salons,
and an increase in the Medicare payroll tax for income over $250,000 a year. But has it worked? YES – insofar as things are better than before.
And also…NO – insofar as we are nowhere close to a path to sustainable healthcare
spending. So the ACA was phased in slowly, and the real
meat of it didn’t get going until 2014. You’ll recall the roll-out of the healthcare exchanges
in late 2013 was…a complete disaster. The website, healthcare.gov, was plagued with
glitches and really just…didn’t work. Admittedly, buying private insurance in the
US before the Obamacare exchanges was arguably even worse than healthcare.gov. But it was
just terrible. I remember trying to sign up in those early months and it was truly awful.
What has not been widely reported is that, now, it’s really easy. In general, the exchanges now work very well
and more than 12 million Americans, including me, have signed up for insurance through them.
Insurance premiums are going up, on average, more slowly than they did before the exchanges,
and more insurers are participating, which means there will be more competition in the
market. Plus, the law is costing less than expected
because fewer employers than expected have dropped fewer people than expected off their
insurance. And, it doesn’t seem to be negatively affecting the job market. It certainly led to more freedom in the labor
market. For instance, Sarah Green could leave her insurance-providing museum job to start
an art show with PBS Digital. And certainly for people who can get insurance
now who couldn’t before, either because of pre-existing conditions or because they couldn’t
afford without the government subsidies, the ACA is a really big deal. And none of the
collapse of the healthcare system or “death panel” predictions have come to pass. Instead, uninsurance rates in the U.S. have
dropped dramatically, and early signs indicate that at least in some sectors the law is improving
health. By the way, sources for all this stuff in the doobly-doo. On the other hand, many millions of people
still don’t have insurance and under-insurance, where people technically have insurance but
still end up with medical bills they can’t afford is a huge problem. And while the growth of our healthcare costs
has slowed, we still spend over 17 percent of our GDP on healthcare. Most other developed
countries spend far less than that and still have citizens who live longer and healthier
lives than Americans. And before you say that’s because Americans
eat or drink or smoke or whatever more than British people: no, that’s simply not true!
Have you ever met an actual British person? I don’t mean like Jack or Finn or Charlie,
I mean a real one. So yeah, if nothing changes, healthcare costs
are still going to crush us in the long run, because the thing about the ACA is that it’s
not particularly radical. Like, the 12 million people who got insurance through the exchanges,
that’s less than 4% of Americans. For the vast majority of people, very little
has changed, and that means that the underlying problems haven’t really changed. We spend
way too much on healthcare, and we get too little in return. To take that seriously would require radical
change: government interventions like price controls, for instance. Or a single-payer
healthcare system, or a truly free market system where if you show up to the hospital
with a gunshot wound and you can’t pay for treatment, you don’t get treatment. So Hank, the old system definitely wasn’t
working, and the ACA is working, in so far as its job is to get health insurance to people
who don’t have it without disturbing the health insurance ecosystem for most people. But the ACA didn’t really replace an existing
system so much as it grew on top of it. Now the fact that so many insurers are bringing
more plans to the exchanges indicates that probably the ACA will continue to work, unless
the Supreme Court eviscerates it in a few months. But the ACA has not and will not solve the
long-term healthcare spending challenge that we face. Neither, of course, would repealing
the law, if anything the the healthcare spending problem was worse before Obamacare. Rather
than the endless discussions of repeal or defend we should be frank about the choices
before us. As healthcare economist and healthcare triage
host Aaron Carroll told me, trade-offs are messy. You can get reform more easily and
more cleanly, but not necessarily while preserving the private market. You can make healthcare
cheaper, but not without imposing even more regulation. You can insure more people and make it cost
less for everyone, but not without spending more tax dollars. Hank, healthcare policy
experts across the political spectrum seem to acknowledge this complex reality. It’s
our job now to make our politicians acknowledge it too. Again, for more information and lots of other
videos about healthcare, please check out Healthcare Triage. Hank, thanks for reminding me last week about
the many pleasures of being in a crowd, I will see you on Friday.

How do I deal with a bully, without becoming a thug? | Scilla Elworthy | TEDxExeter


Translator: Leonardo Silva
Reviewer: Masako Kigami I’m so delighted to be able to see you. In half a century
of trying to help prevent wars, there’s one question that never leaves me: how do we deal with extreme violence without using force in return? When you’re faced with brutality, whether it’s a child
facing a bully in the playground, or domestic violence, or on the streets of Syria today
facing tanks and shrapnel, what’s the most effective thing to do? Fight back? Give in? Use more force? This question,
“How do I deal with a bully without becoming a thug in return?”, has been with me ever since I was a child. I remember I was about thirteen, glued to a grainy,
black and white television in my parents’ living room, as soviet tanks rolled into Budapest. And kids not much older than me were throwing themselves at the tanks and getting mown down. And I rushed upstairs
and started packing my suitcase, and my mother came up and said,
“What on earth are you doing?” And I said, “I’m going to Budapest.” And she said, “What on earth for?”
And I said, “Kids are getting killed. There’s something terrible happening.” And she said, “Don’t be so silly.” And I started to cry. And she got it and she said,
“OK, I see it’s serious. You’re much too young to help.
You need training. I’ll help you,
but just don’t pack your suitcase.” (Laughter) And so, I got some training, and went and worked in Africa
during most of my twenties. But I realized
that what I really needed to know I couldn’t get from training courses. I wanted to understand how violence, how oppression works. And what I’ve discovered since is this: Bullies use violence in three ways. They use political violence to intimidate, physical violence to terrorize, and mental or emotional violence
to undermine. And only very rarely, in very few cases, does it work to use more violence. Nelson Mandela went to jail
believing in violence. And twenty seven years later, he and his colleagues
had slowly and carefully honed the skills, the incredible skills that they needed to turn one of the most
vicious governments the world has known into a democracy. And they did it in a total devotion
to non-violence. They realized
that using force against force doesn’t work. So, what does work? Over time, I’ve collected
about half dozen methods that do work —
of course there are many more — that do work and that are effective. And the first is that the change
that has to take place has to take place here, inside me. It’s my response,
my attitude to oppression that I’ve got control over, that I can do something about. And what I need to develop is self-knowledge to do that. That means I need to know how I tick, when I collapse, where my formidable points are, where my weaker points are. When do I give in? What will I stand up for? And meditation, or self-inspection,
is one of the ways — it’s not the only one — one of the ways of gaining
this kind of inner power. And my heroine here, like Satish, is Aung San Suu Kyi, in Burma. She was leading a group of students on a protest, in the streets of Rangoon. They came around a corner, faced with a row of machine guns. And she realized straight away that the soldiers, with their fingers
shaking on the triggers, were more scared
than the student protesters behind her. But she told the students to sit down, and she walked forward, with such calm and such clarity and such total lack of fear that she could walk
right up to the first gun, put her hand on it and lower it. And no one got killed. So, that’s what
the mastery of fear can do, not only faced with machine guns, but if you meet a knife fight
in the street. But we have to practice. So, what about our fear? I have a little mantra. “My fear grows fat on the energy I feed it. And if it grows very big, it probably happens.” So, we all know that
3-o’clock-in-the-morning syndrome, when something
you’ve been worrying about wakes you up. I see a lot of people. And, for an hour, you toss and turn,
it gets worse and worse, and, by 4 o’clock,
you’re pinned to the pillow by a monster this big. The only thing to do is to get up,
make a cup of tea and sit down with the fear,
like a child beside you. You’re the adult. The fear is the child
and you talk to the fear and you ask it what it wants,
what it needs. How can this be made better? How can the child feel stronger? And you make a plan and you say, “OK, now we’re going back to sleep. At half past seven, we’re getting up.
That’s what we’re going to do.” I had one of these
3-a.m. episodes on Sunday, paralyzed with fear
of coming to talk to you. (Laughter) So, I did the thing. I got up, made the cup of tea, sat down with a digital, and I’m here. Still partly paralyzed, but I’m here. (Applause) So, that’s fear. What about anger? Wherever there’s injustice there’s anger. But anger is like gasoline. And if you spray it around, and somebody lights a match, you’ve got an inferno. But anger as an engine,
in an engine, is powerful. If we can put our anger inside an engine, it can drive us forward, it can get us
through the dreadful moments, and it can give us real inner power. And I learned this in my work
with nuclear weapon policy-makers, because, at the beginning,
I was so outraged at the dangers they were exposing us to that I just wanted to argue, and blame, and make them wrong. Totally ineffective. In order to develop a dialogue for change, we have to deal with our anger. It’s OK to be angry with the thing, the nuclear weapons, in this case. But it is hopeless
to be angry with the people. They are human beings just like us, and they are doing
what they think is best, and that’s the basis
on which we have to talk with them. So, that’s the third one. Anger. And it brings me to the crux
of what’s going on, or what I perceive
is going on in the world today, which is that last century
was top-down power. It was still governments
telling people what to do. This century, there’s a shift. It’s bottom-up, or grass-roots power. It’s like mushrooms
coming through concrete. It’s people joining up with people — as Bandi just said — miles away, to bring about change. And Peace Direct spotted quite early on that local people,
in areas of very hot conflict, know what to do. They know best what to do. So, Peace Direct
gets behind them to do that. And the kind of thing they’re doing
is demobilizing militias, rebuilding economies, resettling refugees, even liberating child soldiers. And they have to risk their lives
almost everyday to do this. And what they realized is that using violence
in the situations they operate in is not only less humane, but it’s less effective than using methods
that connect people with people, that rebuild. And I think that the US military is finally beginning to get this. Up to now, their counter-terrorism policy has been to kill insurgents
at almost any cost. And if civilians get in the way, that’s written as “collateral damage”. And this is so infuriating and humiliating
for the population of Afghanistan that it makes recruitment
for Al Qaeda very easy when people are
so disgusted by, for example, the burning of the Qur’an. So, the training
of the troops has to change, and I think there are signs
that it is beginning to change. The British military
would have been much better at this, but there is one magnificent example for them to take their cue from, and that’s a brilliant US
left-tenant colonel called Chris Hughes. And he was leading his men down the streets of Nadjaf, in Iraq, actually. And, suddenly, people were
pouring out of the houses, on either side of the road, screaming, yelling, furiously angry, and surrounded these very young troops who were completely terrified, didn’t know what was going on,
couldn’t speak Arabic. And Chris Hughes strode into
the middle of the throng with his weapon above his head, pointing at the ground, and he said, “Kneel!”. And these huge soldiers,
with their backpacks and their body armour, wobbled to the ground. And complete silence fell. And after about two minutes, everybody moved aside and went home. Now, that to me is wisdom in action. In the moment, that’s what he did. And it’s happening everywhere now. You don’t believe me? Have you asked yourselves why and how so many dictatorships have collapsed over the last thirty years? Dictatorships in Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Mali, Madagascar, Poland, the Philippines,
Serbia, Slovenia… I could go on —
and now Tunisia and Egypt. And this hasn’t just happened, you know. A lot of it is due to a book written by an eighty-year-old man
in Boston, Gene Sharp. He wrote a book called
“From Dictatorship to Democracy”, with 81 methodologies
for non-violent resistance. And it’s been translated into
26 languages, it’s flown around the world, and it’s being used by young people and older people everywhere. Because it works. It’s effective. So, this is what gives me hope.
Not just hope. This is what makes me feel
very positive right now, because, finally,
human beings are getting it. We’re getting… practical, doable methodologies to answer my question, “How do we deal with a bully,
without becoming a thug?” We’re using the kind of skills
that I’ve outlined. Inner power, development of inner power
through self-knowledge. Recognizing and working with our fear. Using anger as a fuel. Cooperating with others. Banding together with others. Courage. And, most importantly, commitment to active non-violence. Now, I don’t just believe in non-violence. I don’t have to believe in it. I see evidence everywhere of how it works. And I see that we, ordinary people, can do what Aung San Suu Kyi, and Gandhi, and Mandela did. We can bring to an end the bloodiest century
that humanity has ever known. And we can organize
to overcome oppression by opening our hearts, as well as strengthening
this incredible resolve. And this open-heartedness is exactly what I’ve experienced
in the entire organization of this gathering,
since I got here yesterday. Thank you. (Applause)

How to Accomplish More at Work by Slowing Down | Angie McArthur


JENNIFER BROWN: Do you think relational intelligence
is more important than ever, given we live in very polarizing times? And I know that this is kind of bleeding into
the workplace and every client that I work with, where dialogue has really in some ways
stopped because I think people don’t have this kind of intelligence. Because these are the tools where we keep
the door open. These are the tools where we are curious with
no agenda about establishing a connection with others. And I think it’s difficult because feelings
are running high and that sort of “I’m going to square off against” is an easy
energy. I think the harder energy is “staying with
and staying in”. Something where you may feel there’s a disagreement
that feels personal or emotional, et cetera. So what kinds of advice do you find yourself
giving these days in particular, given that the stakes feel higher and it almost is the
toughest time I can remember to build bridges? ANGIE MCARTHUR: Yes, absolutely. I mean, I really feel this. I get, now—actually this is going to sound
very odd. I now get excited when I bump up against a
difference with someone, because it’s an opportunity to practice exactly what I preach,
which is stepping into the conversation, digging in. And the mantra that I carry that I would invite
anyone to use on any possible connection is: what can I learn from this experience? How can I grow from this experience? If I hold that in my mind I feel like I can
get through anything with anyone. And it takes this unbelievable courage to
step in and dig in and be willing to be—which we don’t like in this culture at all—confused. Which changes your mindset. I love confusion and often in the team setting
we don’t allow for confusion. And honestly when we bump up against differences
and when we start going, “Oh, gosh, what she said is terrible,” or, “That guy over
there…” you know. Often what happens in those circumstances
is because we’re looking for quick answers, we’re looking for people to be right all
the time. But any group or any team as they’re working
through decisions, or even in family systems, you need to allow for confusion and group
confusion: people being okay with, “Oh, I don’t quite get where she’s coming from,”
or, “God, what he said, you know, that doesn’t make sense to me.” That’s okay. Step into it. Move into it. Open up those doors. Ask them more. And so I think that’s a huge part of it,
is we’ve gotten very slick in how we expect people to be, with this “performance”
kind of mindset. And confusion is a really necessary part of
relating to one another well, because you won’t understand each other. Even people who have a huge amount in common,
they will bump up against each other’s differences. So it’s that willingness to discover, to
be awkward for a minute. That’s okay. I love awkwardness! Love confusion. So next time someone is sitting next to you
and you find yourself confused instead of judging yourself or judging them say, “Huh,
I wonder why that is.” JENNIFER BROWN: And it feels like the speed
of business is almost counter to what you’re talking about because you’ve got to leave
time to be confused and time to dive in and time to explore. And yet we live in this—like you said—a
performance-based expectation culture where we deliver, deliver, deliver. And I feel like it’s a binary. That’s so binary, and yet it leaves so much
behind. So we might make a decision but we might not
have heard all the input and we may not have dealt with the cognitive dissonance that—what
I call the “creative abrasion” between people. And we didn’t then give ourselves time to
develop the skills for the next time as well, to welcome different viewpoints and go through
the process of reconciliation. So it seems sort of at odds with the world
that we are being held accountable to be successful in. So how do we build-in time to practice relational
intelligence in this fast-paced, frenetic, fewer-resources kind of world? ANGIE MCARTHUR: I don’t think we can afford
not to, and it’s not even necessarily about time, it really is about our mindset and our
approach to one another. We all like to think we’re open-minded,
and to me I challenge us all: to be open-minded means openness of perspective, of not willing
to be so, “Okay, here’s the agenda item. Okay, we’ve got that decision made. Okay, this is done.” We get so much satisfaction about checking
things off the list that we don’t check those things off well and with attention. And so it’s not even necessarily a time
thing. It’s openness, and when you talk about diversity
of perspective it’s also giving time to really step back and say: what perspective
is missing? We tend to “tribe” and we tend to be on
this fast-track train, but I think the more people practice this—as I mentioned before,
I get excited when I bump up against a difference with someone, it can be a difference of anything
because it gives me a chance to practice this willingness to go, “I wonder what’s really
important to them in this moment. Are they willing to listen to what’s important
to me?” And while it seems to take time it actually
accelerates the effectiveness of the decision, the effectiveness of the outcome. So it’s retraining how we’re actually
thinking about time. It’s not such a linear process. It’s more of, okay, what does our engagement
here look like so we can produce the absolute best result we could? JENNIFER BROWN: It’s really quality over
quantity. It’s go slow to go fast. ANGIE MCARTHUR: Go slow to go fast. JENNIFER BROWN: And ultimately we go faster
together and the quality of our output is going to be better. And how we got there is going to feel that
we were honored versus making a decision going forward just for the sake of going forward. So I mean this is so classic, it’s a classic
business dynamic that really matters. It really matters.

The Deal with Protein


People like to say all kinds of things about protein, like, you need to eat lots of it to build muscle, and lose weight. But dietary science is way more complicated than that! You can’t just eat a bunch of one thing to get buff or to be healthy. In fact, eating too much of anything can be really unhealthy. Proteins are a group of macromolecules that do a lot of different things, like helping with chemical reactions or immune responses, Giving our tissue structure and even sending messages between cells. And by understanding the chemical basics of protein, we can understand why we need to eat it to keep our bodies working, so let’s dig in! Chemically, proteins are made up of long chains of amino acids. These organic compounds have an amine group and a carboxylic acid group Plus some other atoms that make up a side chain. These strings fold up because of interactions between the amino acids, making stable 3D structures that are ready to do things inside our bodies. And some proteins, like hemoglobin which ferries oxygen around our bloodstream are made up of more than one of these strings interacting. Our bodies use 21 different amino acids to make thousands of distinct proteins, So it’s important we have all of these building blocks for ourselves to work with. Amino acids can be broken down to three types: Essential, Non-Essential and Conditionally Essential. Essential amino acids are the ones that our bodies need to function but have no way of making. So that’s where food comes in, like meat, beans, nuts and eggs. The digestive system breaks down the proteins in food; first you basically untwist, or denature the 3D structure of the protein with stomach acid. Then, you chop the chains into chunks of one or two amino acids, using these specialized proteins called Proteases. These amino acids are absorbed into your bloodstream and your small intestine, and sent around your body to be assembled into new proteins. So what about the non-essential amino acids? We still need them and we can get them from food too, but our bodies can make them out of other chemicals that are hanging around. For instance, one of the intermediates from the energy making citric acid cycle Alpha Ketoglutarate can undergo chemical reactions to make four amino acids: Glutamate, Glutamine, Proline, and Arginine. So for the most part your body’s got you covered, Except when it’s still developing, sick, or injured, and can’t naturally produce enough of some of these amino acids. We call them conditionally essential. For example, pre-term infants can be deficient in Arginine, which causes a variety of health problems in the heart, lungs, brain, and intestines. And scientists think their still developing bodies aren’t synthesizing enough of the proteins that help with those chemical reactions that make the Arginine. So now that we know the basics, what’s up with all of these protein powders and shakes and bars and pills? Why do people have these expectations that they will build muscle? When people talk about building muscle, they’re probably talking about skeletal muscle the type that’s attached to your bones and you can voluntary move around like your quads and biceps. Skeletal muscle is made up of bundles of muscle fibers, which are basically a membrane surrounding these units called Myofibrils. And myofibrils are essentially bundles of these long proteins called Actin, which are thinner, and Myosin, which are thicker. When you contract a muscle, these protein filaments slide past each other, with myosin driving the movement. So your muscle tissue is constantly making and breaking down proteins, and your muscles grow when there’s more protein synthesis than breakdown. Exercise is just a way to stimulate chemical pathways that cause more protein synthesis. When you work your muscles harder than usual, the extra tension on the muscle fibers can cause these microscopic tears, either damage to the cell membrane, or the connections between actin and myosin filaments. And this damage can signal for more protein synthesis. When your body repairs muscle fibers and creates new tissue, it makes more actin and myosin too. But it’s not clear if you need to damage your muscle for growth. If you eat protein when you work out, your body mostly just has more amino acids hanging around to synthesize proteins in your muscles. And your body doesn’t really store extra amino acids for later. They get converted into other organic compounds, that are used in metabolic pathways, like glucose or Acetyl-CoA, or they get broken down and eliminated in urine. So that’s pretty much the basics of protein. They’re super important for all kinds of bodily functions, and you make them from amino acids, which you can synthesize on your own or get them from your food. And you cannot expect protein supplements to have magic muscle building powers. They’re pretty much just another way to take in sustenance, and for your body to absorb amino acids. Thank you for watching this episode of SciShow, which was brought to you by our patrons on Patreon®. If you would like to help support this show, you can go to patreon.com/scishow And if you want to keep getting smarter with us, don’t forget to go to youtube.com/scishow and subscribe!

How Chinese Debt & Business in China Have Evolved (w/ Fraser Howie)


FRASER HOWIE: My name’s Fraser Howie. I’m an independent analyst on China. And author of a number of books on the Chinese
financial system, in particular, Red Capitalism, and then before that, Privatizing China. So I’ve been in Asia for about 25 years, primarily
working in the financial sector– Hong Kong, Beijing, Hong Kong, again, and now I’m based
in Singapore. But always with a big focus on China, in terms
of my day job, but also my writing and commentary. It was actually myself, and a co-author, and
a colleague at a company called CITIC, which was the first Sino jointventure securities
company set up in China. About 15 years ago, we started writing about
the Chinese financial system, simply because we saw what was being written by China back
then, and this was in the late ’90s, 2000 or so. And frankly, we thought it was nonsense. We were on the ground in China. We saw what the securities markets were like. We saw what the stock market was like. And it was clear that the pundits in Hong
Kong were just far too optimistic about what China was. And then we thought, there’s a story to tell. That got us writing. It was actually on the back of a report we
wrote for the CICC at the time. And we wrote Privatizing China, which was
based on a look at what was then about 15 years of the stock markets in China. And really, just going right back to basics–
really in the late 70s, when reform started in China, fair share issuance in ’79, and
then the development of 4trading through the ’80s, listings– And they say that was privatizing
China. But then as the knot progressed, we realized
that we had more to say, and in particular, in the banking sector because if you remember–
go back to that time when we were writing Privatizing China and riding on the stock
markets. The Chinese banking system was basically bankrupt. In 1999 Zhu Rongji, the Premier at the time,
started a big bailout program where they set up bad banks, asset management companies in
China, and we saw that happening real time. It was a very long process. And so by ’05-’06 you started seeing these,
what were just previously, bankrupt banks being listed, raising multi-billions of dollars. And we thought, this is nonsense. These are Chinese banks. These aren’t Western banks. And they aren’t banks in the way we understand
them in the west. And we thought there’s a story there. So that was the genesis of Red Capitalism. And in Red Capitalism, which was eventually
published in late 2010, beginning of 2011, we went through that history of how banks
were reformed in China, how you took a bank or banking system and you made it into what
was, at the time, basically, the world’s most expensive banks. Valuation– I think it was something like
a quarter of a trillion dollars, $250 billion with all the Chinese banks. That’s an incredible figure remembering that
day declaring the system was bankrupt. So that was the genesis of Red Capitalism. Interestingly, the bulls thought it supported
their case, the bears thought it supported their case. We didn’t write it with any case in mind. We wanted to tell a story because we felt
that, again, so much of the hype, so much of the headline in China is superficial. In understanding China, you’ve got to get
away from the facade, the face of China. China is great at telling a story about how
it sees itself. And a lot of people buy into that because
China can be a very opaque and difficult place. But especially in the stock markets and then
in the capital markets in general, that almost certainly what it says on the tin isn’t what’s
in the tin. And so therefore, it’s important to understand
the background to these things, to understand the accountancy behind it, and this chicanery,
quite frankly, in a lot of the financial system. I think it’s really important if you want
to understand where we are in China now. It’s what I call the Olympic cycles. If you look back to the ’08 Beijing Olympics,
I would still maintain, although the economy was probably less than half the size it notionally
is now, I would say that’s the modern high point of China, frankly. That If you look before– the Beijing Olympics,
they put on this incredible show. They built so many subway lines. They did so many things which no other country
allegedly could do. It was a great catalyst for building across
the country. The economy was booming. Everything seemed to be going. Everyone was pandering to China. And I think that really was a high point. Of course, that was August in ’08. And then, of course, global financial crisis
and we all remember– or maybe we don’t remember now, but that last quarter of ’08 really was
dreadful. Things, literally, just fell off a cliff in
that last quarter. And that was very important in China’s case
as well because China was hugely affected by that. I think that everyone, of course, remembers
the output or the response to ’08, by the Chinese government, this huge stimulus program,
which started off a whole series of events, which we’ll come to. But I think, remember, before that, and the
real reason for that was not simply to keep global growth going, but China had, was it,
the headlines, 20, 30 million people unemployed, these migrant workers. This was the mainstay of the Chinese economy
that this migrant population was working in factories along the coast, and that just the
downturn in exports, the downturn in the global economy really impacted China. And so what you saw there– and this again
was absolutely central to why we wanted to tell the bank story– was because the response
of this stimulus was basically you turn on the credit taps. That after spending the better part of a decade
trying to reform the banking system, trying to make it into something that was something
at least approaching a market-based system where there was some degree of risk control,
some oversight, you basically had the rulers in Beijing reverting to their old practice
of using the banks as a piggy bank to basically fund growth. And so you turn on these credit taps, and
literally any warm body could get money in ’09. And so you had this huge expansion of credit. And of course you saw, guess what, a big rebound
in growth, which should not surprise anybody. Growth’s an output, not an input into these
models. And so you had this huge expansion of credit. But I think that was the start of something
that has taken China, as I say, before those Olympics, before that last quarter of ’08,
China was a growth story. There’s no question about it. It had been 20 years by then of double digit
growth. China could continue to grow for another two
decades, three decades, whatever it may be. And yet, that was a real turning point because
China’s gone from a debt story– or from a growth story to a debt story, which is just
staggering. And I think we forget about this because the
growth numbers have still remained high. And people say, yes, they’ve fallen from their
highs, but hey, they’re still doing 6 and 1/2% or 7% if you believe in those numbers. They say, it’s still much better than what
the West’s doing. But that’s incidental, because the real story
in China now is that the reason you’re still getting that growth is because credit is growing
at double the rate of GDP growth. And so that ’08, that response, that ’09 stimulus,
the early stimulus to keep growth going really set in motion an addiction to debt, and took
China– and let’s remember, well, there was clearly an impact from the global economy. It wasn’t necessarily a crisis per se. And so it’s interesting now that you look
and you compare Chinese growth numbers and the growth, particularly the build up of gross
debt in the economy, it gets compared to what the US is or what the UK is or Japan is or
Greece or whatever. You can take any of these countries. But these are all countries that have clearly
gone through crises. In China’s case, I don’t see there’s a crisis. Yes, there’s slowing growth. There’s lots of problems with their economy. There’s many areas in China you can look at
and say there’s real problems. But in terms of actual real fundamental financial
crisis, there isn’t one. There’s no real panic there. There’s still a lot of faith in the government. There’s still a lot of resources and capacity
of the government they can put to work. And so, you’ve had that huge credit build
up in spite of a real problem, which really makes me wonder when I think about future
issues, when you think, if a crisis does come in China, and given what’s happening in the
States with the new president, you can certainly see scenarios where you are going to get crises
coming, then will China have the wherewithal and resources? But coming back to that stimulus. So you had a positive response from China
in ’09. That obviously was lauded at the time that
this would support global growth, support global demand. At the same time, you also had a government
who started to acknowledge that there was fundamental imbalances in their economy, and
that this needed to be reformed. And of course there was lots of nice words
and nice talk about this, how we’re going to restructure, we’re going to move away from
this dependence on fixed asset investment. and we’re going to move more towards a consumer-driven
economy. And here we’re eight years on, an Olympic
cycle– two Olympic cycles later, and you think, this really is quite horrible. You’ve effectively had the growth rate halved
and the debt double, which hardly is really a successful formula in many ways. I think whether China becomes the world’s
largest economy is almost frankly irrelevant, because that’s just– that’s like just weighing
the health or measuring the health of your kids based on their weight. There are many other factors that are far
more important to think about than simply, are they simply getting bigger? Are they growing? And I think China has continually failed over
this past eight years or so to really grasp that reform process. And again, this isn’t just something from
the new leadership. This is something if you go back to about
five or six years, there was a big report from the World Bank, done in conjunction with
the Chinese government, called– I think it was China 2030, but need to restructure their
economy, move away from fixed asset investment. And it laid out a whole series of reforms
and steps to try and remove this dependency. But guess what? As the global economy has failed to recover,
as China’s own economy has started to stutter in many ways, there has been a continual dependency
on debt. And so what you’ve seen in China, you’ve seen
incredible innovation, but in the worst possible way. That instead of, whereas at the start of this
crisis in ’08 you still had 60% of debt in their economy- – or probably higher, certainly
a decade more or so ago, you had 80% of debt in China basically being from bank loans,
very simple. You can look at the amount of deposits they
had, and you looked at their bank loans, and you control that through a loan to deposit
ratio. So it was very easy to literally turn the
tap on and off. But what you’ve seen is a proliferation, over
the past eight years or so, of broadly called shadow banking. And I think that doesn’t even come close to
describing it, because it’s such a murky term by definition. But you have had incredible innovation, as
it were, of bankers and entrepreneurs and businessmen figuring out ways to get around
systems which are put in place by bureaucrats to try and limit credit. And the difficulty is that returns for much
of China’s business is low, and therefore they’re desperately trying to look for new
inventive ways. At the same time, as rates have fallen in
China, you’ve also got depositors who are saying, I want better returns. And so you’ve had this springing up of– and
we talked about this when we wrote Privatizing China. This was really just the start of this process,
of these wealth management products, short term products, guaranteeing better rates which
got immediate deposits, which weren’t necessarily carrying it under the loan to deposit ratio. But again, got around that, that lending restriction. We got depositors’ funds into the hands of
those who wanted it. And in some ways, it’s a good sign. It’s a liberalization of the currency or of
the interest rate market, which is always a very important thing in China. But effectively what’s happened is that much
of that control over the banking system has been lost. And where we had highlighted this at the end
of Red Capitalism, the system now has become so much more complex. Whereas you really could think previously
of a dozen banks or so controlling the bulk of the loans, you knew exactly where they
were going, and it was very manageable, you now have a highly opaque system of banks,
of shadow banks, of wealth management products, of trust funds, of corporate lending of what’s
called entrusted loans– it’s just loans being siphoned through banks– wealth management
products created by securities companies. And then mix into that guarantee companies,
which have sprouted up to try and guarantee these loans. You have then also things being sold on the
internet. You have pawn shops where– it’s almost endless. And I keep thinking, I should write down and
try and map this whole system out. And then I though, it’s like trying to map
the brain, that there’s almost so many connections and nodes that have appeared. And the difficulty is you don’t actually know
the connections from one to the other. And you’re so, am I double counting this debt? Is this a chain of debt that’s growing? Is this new debt? And so you can actually– and I read some
reports about estimating the size of debt in China. And I think, I have absolutely no idea if
that’s true or not. These are huge numbers. And again, argued that there must be some
double counting there. Clearly what you see when you actually speak
to our entrepreneurs, when you speak to businessmen on the ground, when you speak to banks, there
is, without question, an A lending to B lending to C lending to D, and this chain and this
node of connections. And then you think, this is clearly worrying. And it is worrying. But what no one seems to have any idea about,
including myself is, when is too much too much? And this is the real problem. We can talk about this problem. We can talk about this growing problem in
China. But frankly, I have no idea when the party
stops. And again, you can look back in history. A lot of cases, you know, the Ottomans probably
peaked in the 17th century and they were still going up until the end of the Second World
War. Things can go on– bad things can go on for
a long time. I think also that the greatest comfort that
China should take in its current debt situation is that Japan still exists. For my 25 years in finance, I started following,
like many, the Japanese warrant market. And you know, Japan had problems. Japan was falling. And then people thought, there was even people
in the early ’90s who thought the Nikkei was going back to 40,000. But it was actually on the way to 7,000. And Japan has largely been in recession for
the best part of 20 years or more. And you think, well, why can’t China pull
off a similar trick- – a different sort of trick. It’s clearly not as rich, clearly not as developed,
but you are ultimately still underpinning so much of this in China, even if you can
map this highly complicated system, which you can’t. Because into that you’ve got, is it local
government financing? Is it, like I said, the wealth management
products? Is it the regular bank business? Is it rich individuals? Is it overseas funding? OK, so let’s see you map it all. But who’s actually going to be the person
to pull their fingers out of the dyke and let the water fall through? Because in China, there is this continued
belief still that the government will underpin everything. And to some extent as a working model, I think
that probably makes sense. And again, anyone who is predicting the collapse
of China– first of all, I have no idea what that means. If your debt’s doubled and your growth’s halved,
that looks pretty much like a collapse in some ways already. The bullish case in China has now become it’s
not collapsing, which is a big turnaround from where we were five or six years ago. So, even if you can map all that, I still
think, yeah, you’ve got to look at the politics here as well. You’ve got to look at the mindset, the control
of information. So someone goes bankrupt? Why should I care about someone else’s bankruptcy? My wealth management paid back. Wealth management product is very difficult
to get someone out in the street protesting or really causing a stink for someone else’s
misfortune. And so therefore I think, how does this really
become a systemic crisis? And it’s not clear to me that it does. Telling me the numbers are getting bigger
still doesn’t tell me how you get a systemic crisis. What staggers me is that there are so many
people– and again, clever people, lots of smart people. And whether it be economists, hedge fund managers,
whatever, lots of smart people who will go on TV and talk about the economics of the
debt issues, et cetera. And I think, can’t really argue with any of
that. I’m not a trained economist. I may be right, may be wrong. But what does stagger me is that there is
often a willingness or a willful blindness on the politics of it. And I think nothing in China– you simply
cannot divorce economics from politics in China. And certainly if you’re worried about debt
situations, and from big picture– so if you’re looking at the stability of the banking system,
if you’re talking about the currency, if you’re talking about government debt, if you’re talking
about local government financing vehicles, bank bailouts, however you want to propose
it, the politics is absolutely essential. And to think that it’s somehow China– I would
say the law of economics works just as well– if they work at all, they work just as well
in China as they do outside of China. They don’t stop at the border. So in that sense, economics, yes, does work
in China. But at times people think, oh, somehow the
Chinese have got their own economics or it works differently. I say, well that’s because you’re not accounting
for it probably, because much of that other accounting is effectively the politics, and
you’ve got basically the government is standing there. And without question, I think that the right
view to take, certainly for the moment, is that the government will stand by. It’s certainly going to stand by the banks. You’re not going to get a Lehman Brothers
moment. One of the big banks, one of the big– I think
they technically have four and then seven what they call systemically important banks
in China. So none of those big banks are going under. Smaller rural banks, yeah, that’s possible,
but they will be merged in something else. But politics and political support is absolutely
essential. And to ignore that, you do so at your peril. I think the trouble there is though, I think
it was Churchill who said about Chinese politics, “It’s like two dogs fighting under a carpet.” You frankly got no idea what’s going on at
any given time. And I think the very rise of Xi Jinping, where
you may take the positive stance that this is a strong, powerful leader consolidating
power, and so can push through reform– you say, well frankly, that means we had everything
wrong about Chinese politics before. Because before he came into power, the consensus
across the board– there was just no.. China was now a consensus driven leadership
by committee type of model. There was not going to be a strongman again. That was not going to be a strong political
leader. So basically we have either completely misunderstood
things previously to allow Xi Jinping to come into place, or we just were just simply ignorant
of the fact in the first place. I think the mistake is that, to almost give
too much credibility to Chinese political institutions, that we have seen certain things
happen over and over since Tiananmen Square, so over the past 20 years. And we have assumed that these are institutionalized
processes of smooth transfer of power. And frankly they weren’t. There was a lot more fighting behind the scenes. Bo Xilai is an obvious example like that you
know. 2011, people were talking about Bo Xilai,
as of 2010, as a possible next leader. Very few people saw the Bo Xilai issue coming. Those that did were roundly abused to be certain. No, no, this could never happen in China. There is no sort of coup coming. There’s nothing like this. And clearly the behind the scenes machinations
were very active. So while I may say, the politics is important,
I’m also going to admit somewhat contradictory as well, I have no idea what’s going on in
politics half the time. And as I say, I think Xi Jinping, by the analysis
of five years ago, should never have come to power. His consolidation of so many titles– how
much power he’s got, there’s probably some debate. But certainly of titles, again, should never
have happened either. That was not supposed to be able to happen
in this consensus model. And so, you think, but even with that power,
what does he really want? I come back to even why we started writing. Even that phrase reformer in China– he’s
a reformist. He’s a reformer. I have no idea what that means in the Chinese–
I do have a– but what I tell you, it doesn’t mean what we think it means in a Western sense. And again, it’s not just like the Chinese
have their own way of doing things. But these names, just these labels have such
different meanings. And so when Xi Jinping wants reform in the
sense that he wants things to run better, he wants the Communist Party to run better,
he wants state-owned enterprises to be more efficient, he wants less dependency certainly
on the US dollar, certainly on the States. He wants less dependency on foreigners. He doesn’t want Western ideas seeping into
Chinese education, and so things like that. So if that’s reform, it’s reform. It’s a self-sufficiency that he wants. But the idea that he wants to embrace free
markets in any way, or even embrace the market as a decisive factor– which his own documents
have said– I think is highly misleading. This is a person who wants it– Reform so
often in the West is understood to be economic reform with the government pulling back, of
the markets taking a bigger hold and market forces taking a bigger hold, of bankruptcy
coming to the fore. Hey, your business is bankrupt. We’re going to bankrupt your business. We’re going to close this. We’re going to sell these assets. That’s not what the Chinese mean by reform. They’re talking about administrative reform. They don’t necessarily want to face all those
arbitrary things. And so when you look at what happens in the
markets, I think this is a classic. It’s, let’s go back. So we’re at the end of 2016. Let’s go back 10, 11 months and we saw the
renminbi collapsing. It moved a few percent, if that. It’s hardly a collapse. The renminbi in the past 18 months have moved
10%. I think the yen did it in about six weeks
recently, and sterling did it in about six hours. So this is hardly major market moves. But of course for China, these are are major
market moves. And I think if you go back to the beginning
of the year, January, February, when the currency started to get very weak, the panic in Beijing
simply wasn’t lower currency levels. It wasn’t that the moves had been so significant. They’re all well within any bands they themselves
have set. They’re well within historic ranges. But what they didn’t like was they didn’t
like the market pulling them. And this, I think, is the real fear. Because if you start having a market fall,
as the stock market did in 2015, as the currency started to do then later in the year and beginning
this year, as anyone who’s spent any time in a market knows, that takes on a dynamic
of its own and so on that forces people to come out and do something. They have to act because it will be even worse
tomorrow. And that’s of unexpected or that unknown reaction,
that being forced by the market to do something is what really worries the Chinese. Now we’re nearly touching seven. We’ve already had a PBOC fixing of 6.95 in
the past few weeks. And so in that sense, it’s not simply the
lower level which is the worry, but it’s the unexpected and the volatile nature of markets
that forces people to do things. Chinese leaders don’t like to be forced to
do anything. They certainly like to give the impression
they’re very much in control. And they themselves– This idea, I think one
of the things that sticks– there’s a number of things from, let’s say, the past 20 or
30 years in China that stick– or in Asia that stick with the Chinese leaders. 1997, the Asian financial crash really stuck
with them. I think they looked at Hong Kong. They looked at Thailand. And these sort of headlines, whether they
were true or not that a New York hedge fund manager presses a button and a billion dollars
leaves Thailand, and Thailand is decimated and people are unemployed and factories are
closing– very simple, very tabloid type of headline, but that’s exactly the type of thing
the Chinese government are desperate to avoid. And so that volatility of markets, the unexpected
nature of markets is something that they recoil against. So, where does that leave the currency? It’s going to get weaker. I don’t think that’s really any surprise. But do I see a great devaluation? No I don’t, because I don’t see how that plays
into the government’s favor. This idea of taking sort of tough medicine
early, getting the worst over with, I think sadly that’s passed. I think that’s the difficulty, that that time
has now passed for them. I think if they were to do that– And again,
we know markets overshoot. And again, if you were to say if the currency
is overvalued– and I don’t really care if it is overvalued or undervalued, I just know
it’s not market-driven. And I’m pretty big on market-driven forces. So, in that sense, I don’t know what the right
level is. But should you devalue 5%? Is 5% enough? Well, why 5.0%, 4.9%– well, 5.1%? Be a numbers snob, go for 9.9%. You know, is it 10%, 11%, 12%, 13%? I don’t know, is it 15%? Maybe it should go to 20%. Maybe it should go to 8.5%. I don’t know, what’s enough? What’s enough and what are you guys trying
to signal there? Because certainly if you were to go back to
8.3, where we were for best part of 15 years or so, then that sends a very bad signal of
course. That basically almost wipes out the past 11
years of currency movements and currency strength. And then you think, oh my God, China is like,
it’s really going back to some almost prehistoric economic environment as it were. So I don’t see them doing that because I think
it sends such a destabilizing signal. I think instead they’re going to waste more
reserves, waste a lot of time, a lot of effort by this slow depreciation. And it’ll come in fits and starts. It’s not going to be a straight line. But there’s going to be some fits and starts
on the way down. The argument that somehow they’re wasting
reserves, the Communist party has never been efficient. They’ve been– it’s efficacy, not efficiency. They achieve what their goal is. They’ve got lots of people. Their entire history is about wasting resources
to achieve some arbitrary goal they set on one day that the next day was no longer important. My God, this was a country that sent out schoolchildren
to clap all day to ensure that sparrows couldn’t land so they would die, thinking that that
would improve public health in Beijing. So in that sense, I get that somehow they’re
wasting resources. I don’t think that matters to them, because
what they’re focused on is maintaining control, and not necessarily being exposed to that
market volatility and that whiplash. Because goodness knows where that could take
you. Because if you lose confidence in the government–
and again, this is what underpins so much of what goes on in China. You can talk that, oh yes, they’re rebalancing. The growth rate’s coming down. You could argue their debt’s not too high. But everyone basically falls back on, but
the government’s in control. They’re still in control of all those levers,
whether it’s fiscally, whether it’s socially, whether it’s the internet, information flow,
whatever. And if you have that sort of shock to the
system, then I think that becomes highly destabilizing. When you’re talking about politics and risks
of China in the coming years, I think the risks are ultimately political, not actually
economic. Because the politics– and again, how can
anyone be sitting here at the end of 2016, while thinking ahead to next year, without
thinking about Donald Trump, because the rhetoric there, that relationship– which has always
been a bit of a love and hate relationship, going back for centuries– clearly will change. It’s already started to change. For better or for worse, we’ll find out. I think though what’s very clear is that Trump
is clearly going to take a much tougher stand on China. He’s certainly talking tougher on China. What his stand is on China when he’s in power
and we’ve been through six months, a year, then I’ll tell you what it is, because frankly
I have no idea what it’s going to be now. But you know he’s going to certainly try and
be tougher on China. I think there are a number of things that
are worrying about that though. Not that being tougher on China is a bad thing,
because I think if my complaint– and I’ve often been called about, I’ve been bearish
on China. And I think that’s a dreadful term. I think bulls and bears exist in the stock
market. I think they’re dreadful terms with trying
to talk about countries or bigger picture things. I’ve always seen myself as a realist in China
because I’ve spent a long time there. I’ve worked with Chinese companies. And I’m very realistic about the real limitations
of China, often that China, because of its sheer size of population, of financial reserves,
or whatever it may be, seems to be this behemoth which seems unstoppable. And yet the reality of dealing with Chinese
companies and often individual Chinese, or even the Chinese government, is much more
fractious and nowhere near as successful as the big picture would be. And so when I’ve been sort of negative and
critical in China, it’s because I think one of the first things is to start talking truthfully
to China about China and about your relationship with it. So in that sense, tough talking does no harm. I think because much of what China– I think
the frustration that people have often with China is that China doesn’t even live up to
its own promises, of whether it be reform, of market opening, market access, and things
like that. So in that sense, there’s lots of reasons
to be tougher with China. And that’s the good side, if you like, of
Trump. Although, is that what he’s going to do? I don’t know. What worries me more with Trump is that there
seems to be– he’s fighting the wrong battle. He’s fighting a battle from a decade ago or
from two decades ago, that somehow that the very basic model of American jobs moves somehow
direct from America straight to China, and that if only we are tough on China, put tariffs
on Chinese goods, that those jobs will come back. Well, if that simplistic picture was ever
true, it’s certainly not true now. And simply putting tariffs on Chinese goods
doesn’t solve that problem. So I’m worried that the– and certainly his
economic adviser Navarro, whether his economics even holds up, many economists would argue. But certainly his China policy doesn’t necessarily
seem to hold up. He seems to paint China as the great evil
in the world that’s responsible for all ills. And certainly China has a role to play in
many of those ills. And certainly Chinese policy has certainly
contributed to many of those apparent ills. And there’s things we should be tough on China
about. But simply this rather belligerent attitude
I don’t think is very conducive. Not that I’m annoyed or worried about upsetting
the Chinese. That’s almost an argument for saying those
things if you’re just upsetting the Chinese Communist Party. I have no problems with that at all. But you’re not necessarily going to achieve
the goals you want. I think that’s what you’re– Trump’s wanting–
needs wins, and he needs wins against China. The approach he’s taken, I’m not convinced
he’s going to be able to do that. What you have seen as well of course– and
this plays into Trump’s worldview, and others– is it China of course themselves have become
more and more belligerent over the past five years or so. And this has certainly increased under Xi
Jinping. It’s partly been to support their own economy. And this has come across a wide range of issues. One of course is of economic and the greater
focus on domestic production of certain goods, of restricting fair competition from foreign
companies or forcing foreign companies to onsource certain activities into China, particularly
in the technology space, which is obviously very worrying given the tight control that
China has over technology, et cetera. So there’s those sorts of aspects. But you’ve also seen them being nationalistically
much more belligerent. Obviously we’ve seen that in the East China
Sea. You’ve seen that in the South China Sea. And it’s China as the bully, China as the
big country and you’re the small country, get used to it type of model. Which, ultimately I think will backfire on
China. yes, we all know China’s a big country. We all know that all the countries in Asia
are very dependent on it. Economically they’re very linked with it. But China is– I’m not quite sure what it
thinks it’s setting itself up for, because it has no friends. I was once giving a talk in Europe and I said
that China has no friends. And a lady from the Chinese embassy came up
afterwards and say, “But that’s not true. We do have friends.” I said, “Well name one.” “We have a friendship treaty with Pakistan.” I went, “Ah, anyone else?” And she said, “Singapore.” I said, “Sorry, is that a question or a statement?” And so China doesn’t have friends. It goes out almost out of its way to alienate
countries in the region, certainly countries it should be cooperating with, countries that
have large Chinese diaspora as well. So they have natural affinities with them,
but they seem to be unable to build an inclusive type of model. And it becomes a very Han chauvinistic model. And this, I think, is ultimately an underlying
weakness in the politics in China. So, you look at those domestic sort of political
issues, that domestic inability to build friendships and alliances, even within Asia, its natural
community. You then bring into this Trump, who has almost
alienated everybody he meets. And then you think, this is clearly going
to be volatile for the coming years. Being tougher on China, not a problem. Is Trump the person to do it? I really have to doubt, because I can’t see–
he’s a man who revels in his own ignorance, and seems to have surrounded himself with
people who, again, are not necessarily think that simple solution to complex problems are
the way forward. I don’t think that’s necessarily is going
to be– it may be good for markets. There certainly will be volatility, as many
of my friends would say. But it’s not necessarily going to be good
outcomes I think. What is interesting– and obviously I work
in finance and I write about the Chinese financial system, but I don’t manage money. I thankfully don’t need to give people advice
to what to invest in China, although my default answer is, I’m sure there’s lots of good of
good business to invest in China. But I think what’s interesting or when I think
about China or how I think about it differently from others, or many of the people who would
be my peers or the readers of Red Capitalism, that I came to China because I was interested
in China. I didn’t come to China for the market because
it was a big market or there was a big stock market or there was business opportunities. And so I’ve often thought that’s given me
some advantage, perhaps, of trying to understand China or trying to just, maybe, just accept
some of the frustrations there. And I think of this particularly over the
past– since that Asian– or since the global financial crisis. So you look at over that long eight years,
those two Olympic cycles as I talk about, and you think about, lots of people have done
lots of work on debts and whatever, and this growing network of debt and all these notes
and look at these empty apartment buildings and whatever. And I said yes, that’s true, that’s very nice. And then they automatically then sort of jump
through on to, well this must stop, that this must come to an end, that default beckons
or whatever. And I think, that’s sort of true. Of course it’s true, and ultimately there
is a price to be paid. But I think in China, two of the things that
I always think about China– this is because I’ve been interested in China long before
the economics of it as it were– is that China is the land of the absurd and the arbitrary. And I think unless you understand or appreciate
that China is this absurd country in some ways that’s struggling to become modern, then
you come too quickly to these conclusions. Oh the bank’s accounting’s all hocus pocus. The bank must therefore go bust and I’m shorting
the banks. Well why would you do that? There’s no evidence banks are going to go
to zero. There’s no short sell report that’s going
to show– expose all. And so you’re almost looking for the wrong
sort of outcome. And I think it’s understanding this, of the
absurdity and the arbitrariness of it, that you simply, when you do your China analysis,
you are left with a lot of unanswered questions. You are left almost in dead ends. You think, but surely the next step means–
I say, well it does. I’m not saying it doesn’t. But who’s going to take that next step? Who’s going to force the bankruptcy? Who’s going to ask the difficult question? In Chinese, when you raise these types of
points, Chinese will say to you, semi-apologetically, but also in earnestness about just apologizing,
In China it’s like this. And you think, not again. And you know it’s true. But this, sadly, is– and I think if you’re
an investor, at all sorts of levels, not just whether you’re picking stocks or whether you’re
doing real business– and clearly people have made a lot of money in China. So it’s not as if it’s just a complete fiction
or fraud. But you simply end up with a lot of these,
like I say, loose ends and unfinished stories, that often sort of fizzle out in some way,
and it doesn’t come to a clean bankruptcy or something. But what you find is that the loss has been
socialized in some ways, that someone else bailed somebody else our or they borrowed
from here, and the story morphs into something else. And that’s very difficult, I think, to explain
a lot of the time. It’s a bit like the politics we talked about,
the politics and economics being tied up. But it’s often very difficult. If you focus just on the numbers, yes, the
numbers can expose a lot of sort of malfeasance or wrongdoing. But that’s only part of the story, because
there’s also then another parallel track of almost like back as it were or state support
or local support that carries on in the background that allows things to continue. And everyone sort of plays along with the
game. It’s in nobody’s interest to pull the rug
away in that sense. So I think once you understand that about
China, I think, does it make you a better investor? Maybe– maybe you get a bit less frustrated. Because again, people– even though I’m in
sort of financial markets, I was authorized. So I consult with various people on all sorts
of China topics. And I remember somebody came here doing a
big project, a big property deal, with a big blue chip Chinese name. And I was advising him over a glass of wine
as you do. And he said something like, “So, what did
you think of my Chinese partner?” And I said, “Well the first thing you need
to understand is that all Chinese partners are bad partners.” And he said, “Well what did you mean?” I said, “Well it’s not necessarily they’re
out to defraud you, but they’re almost certainly not what you think they are. And so even though this is a blue chip name
and they’re saying they’re going to invest X hundreds of millions of dollars with your
property project, do they have approval to bring the money out of the country?” “Well they’re a big Chinese name.” I said, “Do they have approval to bring–”
“We’ve not asked, but surely they’ll be able to get it.” “Why would they be able to get it? Aren’t you watching the news? Don’t you know how difficult it’s getting
money out of the country? Have they got approval to do the project in
the first place?” “Oh? You mean they may not?” “Well why would there? You cannot assume that.” So it’s not that they’re necessarily lying
to you. They may be very honest about doing this project. They may have the money in China. But you don’t need the money in China. You need it somewhere else. And so I think understanding the framework
in which China operates, partly you could argue is a good deal due diligence. But it’s also understanding how China operates,
how entities, how individuals operate, that will often speak well beyond their capabilities
because they’ll think something will turn up, that oh, we’ll figure out a way to do
it. And often, of course, they won’t figure out
a way to do it, which makes it very frustrating because you think, I’m dealing with a blue
chip Chinese name here. And then actually they are just as beholden
to the arbitrary regulations of the government as anyone else.