Mark Tooley: The next speaker also is quite excellent. Another old friend, Oliva Enos, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, an expert on East Asia, democracy, religious freedom, and perhaps most importantly, a graduate of Patrick Henry College, a few of whose students are in the room. Please give her a round of applause.

Oliva Enos: I think I’m a little shorter than the last speaker. Hi, everyone. Good morning. I’m Olivia Enos, and I’m really delighted to be here. It’s fitting that Mark started off with introductions about me having gone to Patrick Henry because the start of my talk is about my time at Patrick Henry.

When I was a Junior, I took a course on the negative impacts of communism worldwide. It was an elective, and within that class, we were assigned a tome of a book. Some of you may be familiar with it. It was called The Black Book of Communism. That book details the tactics that communist regimes were using all throughout the world and doesn’t just stop there. It also talks about the outcomes of communism. 

I remember being shocked because Asia, in particular, stood out. This book covered the entire globe and the entire history of communism, but Asia stood out because there were so many regions where communism was still alive and well, and in particular, North Korea stood out because I was so shocked that it took me all the way to my junior year in college to realize that there were individuals inside political prison camps today.

The the figures that we have to suggest the number of people that are there are likely outdated. They’re from ten years ago, and hopefully they’ll get updated through a UN report thats forthcoming next September. But they estimate that there are between 80,000 to 120,000 individuals held hostage by the Kim regime in these political prison camps.

I remember from growing up whenI learned about the history of the Holocaust, hearing the plight of the Jewish people, and reading Anne Frank’s Diary of a Young Girl. As I was reading about North Korea, I couldn’t help but wonder, who are the Anne Franks that we have yet to hear from. Perhaps there are some that we have, but their stories that are not especially popular. They’re not in the media every single day. We don’t hear their plight. They’re often a forgotten people. 

But I don’t want us here today to forget because even as aspiring policymakers, we have to remember people are the reason why it is so important that we get policy and policy decision making right.

The story of North Korean Christian Hyeona Ji stands out very vividly in my mind. She was a North Korean Christian woman who attempted to flee North Korea on four separate occasions. It took four times for her to successfully leave. On one of her attempts to escape, she was found pregnant by a Chinese man who she had been forcibly married off to. Upon discovery that she was both Christian and pregnant with a Chinese man’s child, she was beaten and tortured, taken down to a police station, and forcibly subjected to an abortion without any anesthesia and without any medication.  

The loss of that child stands out in her mind very vividly, and even though the Lord has redeemed her story—she now lives in South Korea and has a child of her own—the memory of the child that was taken from her by the Kim regime is not easily forgotten. And the Lord has redeemed her story because Miss Hyeona Ji bravely speaks out on behalf of the North Korean people knowing that are many people not called as lucky as she to have made it beyond the borders.

North Korea is one matter. I’m even further dismayed that I thought what had happened to North Korean people being put in political prison camps was relegated to the history books. Since I started my career over a decade ago, yet another people group is being subjugated in a similar and arguably more expeditious manner.

And that’s the Uyhur people in China. Today, the CCP holds an estimated 1.8 million individuals inside political re-education camps. Their detentions have occurred so quickly, so rapidly. And when we hear about their individual stories, I think it brings all of it to light.  

I’m reminded, in particular, of the story of Tursunay Ziawudun, a brave Uyghur woman, who survived rape and sexual violence in the camps. She bravely spoke to the BBC a few years back, and she provided the first of its kind personal account of the forms of rape and sexual violence that Uyghur women experienced in the camps.  

In her own words to the BBC, she said that after experiencing rape you can’t tell anyone what happened. You can only lie down quietly. It is designed to destroy everyone’s spirit. I think that last sentence there really typifies what motivates a lot of communist regimes: a desire to tamp down on the individual spirit because there’s a real fear within communist regimes of the people themselves.

So, today, I want to take a look at what China and North Korea have in common and think about what implications that has for U.S. policy when it comes to tackling the threats, which are very multifaceted, that the US faces from North Korea, China, and a lot of other communist regimes.

The main thing I want to focus on today is that both the Chinese Communist Party and the Kim regime use human rights abuses in order to maintain their grip on power. It’s an essential element of their ability to maintain that grip on power. If this is the case, and we truly believe that power politics are the rules of the road in government foreign policy, then why is it that U.S. foreign policy does not do more to ameliorate and to address human rights concerns in its overarching strategy towards the Indo-Pacific? I hope that we can go a long way toward answering that question throughout my comments today.  

First, I want to do a deep dive on China and North Korea. I want to tease out this idea that these regimes use human rights violations in order to maintain power. And then I’m going to look at some of the ways that a next administration that cares about human rights could really put human rights into an overarching strategy to address these challenges.  

First, we’ll take a look at China. Before we look at the CCP’s human rights violations, I think it’s first important to understand what motivates Chinese foreign policy. When I was at Georgetown, I took a class on that subject exactly, and we were assigned a book that I would recommend to everyone in this room. It’s called China’s Search for Security by Andrew Nathan and Andrew Scobell. It essentially outlines what the core interests are of the party. They argue that it’s twofold:  

One, the CCP desires to ensure domestic stability. Second, it seeks to safeguard sovereignty.

I would add a third that both of those domestic motivations, because they are principally insular and domestic, have to do with the CCP’s paramount interest in maintaining the party’s preeminence and ensuring that any threats to the party’s reign are ameliorated.  

This means that issues the U.S. government typically would put human rights on—issues like the ongoing genocide facing the Uyghurs or the situation in Tibet, whats happening in Taiwan even at different points, and of course whats happening in Honk Kong—often these issues are viewed as tangential and put in a separate bucket from the broader security challenges and the economic interests we’re facing. But these are far from tangential for the CCP.  

In fact, all of the areas where the CCP engages in persecution are directly because they believe the people in these different groups threaten the party’s core interests. In order to illustrate this, I wanted to do a deep dive into two specific situations in China—first, the situation facing the Uyghurs and second, Hong Kong.  

For Uyghurs, on the last day of the Trump administration, they determined that Uyghurs faced an ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity. This was an incredibly important determination to rightly recognize the severity of the conditions Uyghurs face, and it has now been affirmed by the Biden administration.  

I want to be clear that genocide is not a word to just be bandied around. It has very specific definitions in international law, and the hardest element of genocide to prove is the intent to destroy in whole or in part a people group on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, etc. There can be no doubt in my mind that that is what Uyghurs face.  

As I mentioned at the outset, there are at least 1.8 million Uyghurs inside political reeducation camps today. Some have suggested that figure could be as high as three million. I guess we will know perhaps in the future, but regardless, its a massive scale. Uyghurs are not just subject to indoctrination, torture, rape, and sexual violence once in the camps. They are also subject to various forms of forced labor, both inside and outside of camps.  

Those who are subject to forced labor are estimated to be around three million, by the fabulous scholar Adrian Zenz. I would commend his work to everyone; he works at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. It is the largest state-sponsored forced labor program in the world. Three million people. Many of those individuals are sent outside of the Uyghur region or outside of Xinjiang. This is an effort to further collectivize while also serparting and uprooting Uyghurs from their home area.

The basis for the atrocity determination, although, of course, the fact that there are in the camps and in forced labor are significant, has to do with forced abortions and forced sterilizations. Similarly, Adrian Zens did incredible work and found firsthand CCP documentation saying that the CCP has a desire to forcibly sterilize Uyghur women of childbearing age to the tune of 80-90 percent of Uyghur women.

That means they are seeking to eliminate not just the current generation of Uyghurs but future generations of Uyghurs as well. I see this as a part of the CCP’s attack on the Uyghur family unit. This is a common thread that comes up within communist regimes. If communism does get one thing right it is that it recognizes the importance of the family unit. In an effort to destroy it, they seek to undermine the family unit at every conceivable level.

Many children are sent away from their parents to live in so-called kindergartens. In part this is because parents may be in the camps and in part because they may be sent away to labor. But principally, the CCP desires to reeducate them so that they can become good, little communists that can adhere to what the CCP believes is right.

I remember, actually, when I was on maternity leave with my firstborn son, he’s eighteen months old. I saw a video of Uyghur little boys ages five to nine from a source called Bitter WInter. The little boys were asked by CCP officials, “What do you want to be when you grow up?”

Every little boy said, “I want to be a good member of the Chinese Communist Party, and I want to join the People’s Liberation Army or the People’s Liberation Navy.”

I was so struck by this because I realized that even at the most fundamental human level, the CCP was seeking to replace the dreams of little kids with the goals and aims of the party. It was just so shocking to me.  

All this is incredibly intentional. I don’t think anyone should doubt why the CCP does this. And I think a common theme within communist countries and communist governments is that where there are units of trust, the party will seek to undermine them—whether that’s friendships or neighbor-to-neighbor, students-to-teacher, or family and parent-to-child. You see an effort to replace those things that make human life truly worth living with the government instead.  

So the CCP specifically targets Uyghurs, and I would say that it’s falsely, because they believe that Uyghurs threaten their core interests, which we talked about at the beginning. They believe that Uyghurs are a threat to sovereignty. They label them falsely as terrorists simply on the basis that they’re Muslim, and they use that as justification to be able to target them at these mass scales.  

The next issue that I want to cover—and I promise I’ll cover this a little more briefly—but the Uyghur issue is just so hard. I think we all have to think about it really deeply.  

We all bore witness to what happened in Hong Kong in 2020. In Hong Kong, the CCP saw what they thought was a threat to their core interests, and they clamped down. Millions of Hong Kongers peacefully took to the streets in 2020 because the Hong Kong legislature had introduced legislation that would make it possible to extradite someone in Hong Kong back to the PRC to be tried for so-called political crimes and the like. They saw this as a huge threat to their liberties, and they took to the streets.  

After the protest, the CCP implemented what’s now known as the National Security Law, which fundamentally changed Hong Kong. Once the freeist economy in the world, Hong Kong today is barely recognizable, especially when it comes to civil and political liberties and the rule of law. In its wake, Hong Kongers have seen at least 1,900 individuals taken hostage as political prisoners. Many of them were even household names, like Jimmy Lai, Joshua Wong, or Gwyneth Ho, who were all seen as very bright lights for liberty standing for principles that many of us would say should absolutely be defended.  

We also saw the closure of Apple Daily and of Stan News. This was the onslaught of the CCP—the long arm reaching into Hong Kong and reclaiming control in very vivid ways. But I think it’s not just Hong Kongers who are experiencing the impacts of the CCP. I think it can be easy to think of this as an insular issue, and, of course, the CCP would love that.

In its wake, we have seen bounties issued by the Hong Kong government against even friends of mine, like Francis Hoy, Anna Kwok, and Joey Hsu—all individuals who were outspoken during the democracy movement, who have found refuge here in the U.S., or in the U.K., or in Australia. And they now have bounties on their heads. They’re wanted by the Hong Kong government. It’s truly, truly shocking.

We’ve even seen, in the U.K., the beating of a Hong Kong pro-democracy protester, Bob Chin, on British soil at the Chinese Manchester consulate. It was absolutely shocking to see that happen. And beyond that, we’ve seen severe degradations in the rule of law that have resulted in Hong Kong going from this free and open economic center to an increasingly risky place to do business—where they are now evading sanctions, involved in money laundering, setting up shell companies, and undermining the free and open business environment, not just in Hong Kong, but globally.  

There’s a really amazing report by a freind of mine named Sam Bicket that we wrote for the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation that details this substantially. Hong Kong is essentially unrecognizable because the Hong Kong people are seen as a threat to the CCP’s core interests. And I think Hong Kong is a good one for us to bear in mind because it has so many implications for us in general.  

Okay, so let’s transition to North Korea. I don’t want to only cover China because I want to demonstrate that many different regimes experience challenges and rely on human rights in order to maintain their power.  

I read a fabulous book called Becoming Kim Jong-Un by Jung Pak, who was the former assistant secretary of the Biden administration for East Asia and Pacific affairs. And she claimed in the book that nuclear weapons and human rights violations are two sides of the same coin for the Kim regime.  

The reason why she said this is multifaceted and I will just go into a few reasons here. The North Korean people, at minimum, face crimes against humanity according to the United Nations 2014 Commission of Inquiry Report. As I mentioned at the outset, 80,000 to 120,000 are held in political prison camps.  

Three generations of a family can be sent to a political prison camp for the so-called political crimes or sins of one. If you are in a society where three generations of your family can be sent to a political prison camp because your dad did something wrong, it discourages dissent at incredible levels.

The Kim regime backs that up with policies of mass purges that affect not just the ordinary people but also the elites. And then it further backs that up by carrying out public executions at a level that is just astronomical. I remember reading one study where an entire class of middle schoolers was taken to public executions as part of their school day, like a field trip. Could you imagine that?

But the regime instills fear at a very, very early age. The reasons why people could be sent to a political prison camp or be persecuted include things like failing to dust the mandatory portrait of the Kim regime on your household walls, watching a South Korean drama, or mere possession of a Bible. This is an invasion of privacy at such serious and heightened levels, and so it’s something we have to be concerned about.  

Forced labor is also a feature of the Kim regime. They not only engage in forced labor through political prison camps similar to the CCP but also by exporting individuals abroad. It is estimated that at least $500 million in profits are generated annually for the Kim regime to fill their private coffers from the forced labor that they perpetrate. 

There have even been allegations that there is a direct connection between the funds that are generated by the Kim regime through forced labor and the ability of the regime to continue development of their weapons programs.

There is an even more personal linkage between the development of their weapons programs and their human rights violations. Innocent North Korean populations—such as Kotjebi children who are orphan children, the elderly, or disabled individuals—have allegedly had chemical and biological weapons tested on them.  

My own research suggests that it is not just a crime against humanity in North Korea, but it may also be ongoing genocide, particularly for North Korean Christians. I have a Hudson Report on that for anyone who is interested in reading more about it.

It is clear to me that the regime would not be able to sustain itself without eliminating opposition in myriad ways that I just outlined and that even their nuclear weapons program is, in many ways, fortified by the ongoing abuses that we see taking place.

When the U.S. foreign policy community decides to ignore the clear linkages between these regimes’ maintenance of power and their perpetration of human rights violations, it leaves arguably very valuable diplomatic coverage on the diplomatic table. And as we are in the precipice of a new administration, I would urge future administrations—and also individuals like you all, who are aspiring policymakers—to consider these linkages as we craft future U.S. policies for China, North Korea, and all the other similar regimes that you are no doubt learning about today.  

To that end, I would love to look at four specific buckets of areas where the U.S. government could shore up policies or take greater action in a way that would help the people of North Korea and the people of China. Their government is certainly not going to come to their aid and help them themselves.

Number one: Sanctions and financial tools of engagement. There are new tools in the U.S. government toolbox, particularly through legislation and later an executive order that created the Global Magnitsky Sanctions authorities. It enables individuals and entities to be targeted, not just on national security grounds but on human rights grounds for perpetuating these types of violations.

I think it is very important not just from a symbolic name and shame perspective but to actually deny resources for those who are perpetrating these horrible abuses and violations of rights.

Second, I would urge policymakers within the sanctions regime to think about some of the tools that are reached for less frequently but have the ability to shift risk at much higher levels. This is especially relevant in Hong Kong, where their decision to engage in sanctions evasion including sanctions implemented on human rights grounds enable Hong Kong to operate as a free and open business center. The U.S. has the ability to designate Hong Kong—or certain elements within Hong Kong—as a primary money laundering concern. This has the potential to make the business community think twice about engaging in Hong Kong when the Hong Kong government has become virtually unrecognizable from the CCP.  

The third under the sanctions and financial tools of engagement is the forced labor tools at our disposal. I was so encouraged to see Congress pass the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which was be incredibly important legislation to tackle Uyghur forced labor. But I would love to see those tools strengthened further so that perpetrators of forced labor are directly punished, in addition to making sure that those goods do not find a home in U.S. markets.  

The second bucket of policy recommendations is that there should not be an atrocity determination.

Although Uyghurs had an atrocity determination, we discussed the strength of the atrocity determination issued by the Trump administration, it actually led to the passage, arguably, of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act  by Congress mere months after the determination.

But there is no such atrocity determination for North Korea, and I think there is a great case for it. The UN has already established crimes against humanity are happening, and I believe there is also genocide happening. 

When we clearly label something is improper and wrong, it is amazing how quickly action follows. Sometimes simply speaking truth actually results in a lot of following action.

The third is that we have to think of ways to support people who are incredibly brave and sticking their necks out while remaining in these countries, especially those who are political prisoners. Writing a report on US political prisoner advocacy, I was shocked to learn there is no central hub within the executive branch for securing the release of political prisoners, even though we know China is taking political prisoners at such a shockingly high rate. 

I think that should definitely change. I truly can think of no better way to provide support and to shift power away from the regime and towards the people than to extend support to human rights defenders and to political prisoners who are trying to facilitate change from within.

Fourth and finally, and this is probably my favorite one, is to extend refugee and asylum relief. I think this flows very naturally from our faith as Christians to extend safehaven to those communities that face hardship. There are a lot of different ways we can provide priority relief to communities that are facing ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity, who are the most persecuted so-to-speak. And to be able to offer them homes here so they can advocate for change within their country from without their country when it is no longer safe for them to stay.

I will end on a personal note. I have a friend in town for a baby shower for my second child this weekend, and my dear friend Ziba is a Uyghur American. Her mom has been held inside the political reeducation camps for going on seven years now. She had her daughter just before her mom was taken into the political reeducation camps and Ziba is a beneficiary of the refugee and asylum program here in the US.

She bravely speaks out in every context that she possibly can in order to advocate and secure the release of her mother. I have benefitted so immensely from her friendship. When we think of policy, we so often think about how to get things done, the deliverables, and we forget the intangible things and results of the policies. I almost feel selfish saying it but things like the incredible friendships I have with Ziba and other Uyghurs so bravely advocating for their cause.

To end, as believers we are motivated by what Christ calls us to do in our lives, to honor him, and to give him glory in and through all of our actions. I think keeping people as a central motivation, that’s why I started and ended with stories, is essential because the Lord has imbued each of us with human dignity at a level that is worthy of defense. So, it’s not just worthy of defense but of our best defense. For those of you aspiring to work in foreign policy, I would urge you absolutely to go into and work on security issues, on economic issues, but also remember there’s much critical work to be done on the human rights front too. 

Even if human rights is not your main focus, think critically and strategically about how it can be incorporated. As believers, the defense of human rights and values flows very naturally from our motivations to seek the glory of the Lord.

Thank you so much for having me, and I’m happy to answer questions.

Q&A

Question: Thank you. I’m Daisy from Asbury Theological Seminary, and I’m originally from China. Thank you for sharing about the Uyghur group. I think this is the successful brainwashing of the communist party. They do this to millions of Uyghur people. In China, they tell people they are all terrorists and we do this for your safety. And they say we do this for unity, for big families, and for the motherland. It’s all for your good.

And also, about the sanction part—the economy of China suffers a lot, and, of course, the people’s lives suffer too. The Chinese government tells these people, “Okay, it’s all the fault of Americans.” 

Answer: Yeah, this is a really common refrain that I hear on sanctions, actually, generally. To clarify, there are sanctions policies that used to exist more along the lines of trade embargos. I think that did have a more direct impact on ordinary peoples’ lives.

But the type of sanctions that the U.S. government reaches for now are called smart sanctions. They’re more targeted in nature, and so they’re designed to actually affect the bank account directly of the individual who has perpetrated human rights violations, security threats, and economic challenges.  

And personally, working on human rights issues, I prefer that. I think it’s far more just to hold directly accountable the individual or the entity that’s perpetuating human rights violations.  

Thank you so much for sharing your own experience and the ways that the party would manipulate US government actions to detract from the fact that the party is responsible for the suffering of the Chinese people. That’s really interesting. Thank you for sharing that.

Question: I also have a question about sanctions. I’m also a researcher in human rights issues in China and North Korea, especially in my field. 

I’m South Korean, but I’m working with the North Korean ministry. I also talk to missionaries and actual defectors, and I am very familiar with what you’re interested in—the story of human rights abuse in North Korea.  

But especially in North Korea, the person from China—I also actually agree with what you’re saying, but sanctions have made a kind of difference between China and North Korea. Sanctions are actually making hostility against the U.S. among North Koreans domestically. The North Korean situation is that sanctions make North Koreans want to violate human rights issues further.  

Of course, I don’t recommend cutting off the sanctions at all, but I see that U.S. sanctions have also created mutual support between Russia and North Korea. Sanctions also back trade to North Korea because North Korea has trade with China. Sanctions also back trade to the North Korean people.

That’s why I don’t see the sanctions effectively respond to the human rights of the North Koreans. So how do you see the result of the sanctions policy, which the U.S. has been implementing for over 30 years?  

Also, from my insight, for making a better relationship]for North Korea and China, it’s really up to the U.S. what kind of policy the U.S. takes for East Asia. Honestly, I don’t recommend the U.S. take the same human rights policy approach for North Korea and China because they have very different structures.  

Of course, they share communism, but they have different types of communism. Especially in China, they have Maoism, and in North Korea I don’t think they have that kind of communism. So I would like to hear all of your views. Thank you.  

Answer: Yeah, thank you. I think we probably disagree on the impacts of sanctions. My own work, when I was at Georgetown for my masters school program, looked at the unintended consequences of sanctions. I think one of the really common arguments against sanctions is that we’ve had sanctions against the Kim regime and they still have weapons programs etc.

But one of the really interesting things that I found in my own research was that, number one, when the U.S. and the U.N. implemented multilateral sanctions (principally security sanctions), it coincided with—perhaps correlated, I won’t claim causation—growth in the informal economy in North Korea.  

The informal economy has been an incredible lifeline for North Korean people to gain access to information and also access to outside goods in order to provide for their own livelihood. From cradle to grave, the Kim regime seeks to provide for the North Korean people and to restrict them.

They give them jobs, and they make it so that whatever they have or don’t have is predicated on the regime. And when the U.S. has, at various times, had lower levels of sanctions toward North Korea, I remember hearing reports from aid workers who would go and try to deliver food directly into North Korea. And at night, the regime would go by and collect, one by one, the rice rations that had been given by the U.S. government directly to the North Korean people.  

So any claims made by the Kim regime that sanctions are the reason why North Koreans are suffering—in my mind—are entirely false because the regime consistently redistributes wealth away from the people and towards the regime to fortify their nuclear programs and maintain their power.

I know there are different views on sanctions, and I appreciate those. I don’t think that sanctions are a fail-safe or even a principal baseline for a policy. And I also agree with you that there are different policy positions in the U.S. toward North Korea as opposed to China.  

But I don’t think that we agree that sanctions are the reason North Korea is supporting Russia or is good friends with China. I think we are good friends because they share common interests in threatening the core interests of the U.S. and of the free world. And I don’t think sanctions are the reason for that, but I do appreciate your thoughts and insights. 

Question: Thank you for your talk. My name is Maria Barnell and I’m fro Wyoming Catholic College. The history and rise of communism in China is very interesting. Specifically, compared to other communist regimes, how Mao was able to twist it into telling everyone that communism equals China and China equals communism.

And looking at the few counties that we have successfully seen the fall of communism in—one of the main attributes for successful toppling of communism is the freedom or the ability of individuals to communicate with each other, to print documents and spread the information around. And then they still get mad, but they’re still able to communicate.  

With China today, because of technology, they are able to surveil people to a greater degree than was possible in the past with other communist nations. So I guess my question is, how can the U.S.—how can the companies, especially social media companies, that are based in the U.S.—actually assist in decoupling this idea of China equals communism by undoing some of the communist firewalls they have up? Because China doesn’t really have access to the free world on the internet.

How can the U.S., by legislation or by executive order, force these social media companies to give the Chinese people more education.  

Answer: That’s a great question and a great point. I think access to information is absolutely essential, and we’ve seen this both come up in the east of North Korea as well as in the case of China. There is really incredible work being done by “Radio Free Asia” in particular, and some elements of the U.S. government are responsible for improving information access in very closed countries.  

I think making better use of those tools in ensuring that they stay funded is very important, especially for individuals who have access to VPNs to be able to access outside information. But also, to make sure that ordinary people who are brave—because it takes a lot to be able to read outside information that’s contradictory to any communist regime—it’s very brave.  

You don’t think about when you sit down to read that it might be an act of bravery, but for many Chinese and North Korean people, it is. I think there’s a role also—we didn’t cover this because I was focused so much on government elements—but there are a lot of roles for civil societies in order to get information into closed societies. There are some small networks that are built amongst churches, that are built amongst NGOs, that are built amongst civil societies, that are essential in order to get access to information.  

I think this is an area that needs greater work, especially in the U.S. government because I think the US government is a bit antiquated in the different ways we promote information access. Some of the slower means are very important, but we should be thinking about how some of the bigger tech companies could provide ways to disrupt and break down the firewall for those who would seek outside information. Thank you for your point on that.

Thank you so much everybody.