charindra chandrasena  00:11
Hello and welcome, everybody, to Advocata Studio. Today we have a very special guest with us, all the way from the UK. He is Dr. David Lansman OBE, a former senior British diplomat and a corporate executive who helps people in business understand the geopolitical sphere. He has been the UK ambassador to Albania and Greece, and also the Chargé d'Affaires in the former Yugoslavia. He was once the executive director of the Tata Group Holding Company in Europe, including Jaguar Land Rover and Tata Steel. He is currently the chair of British Expertise International and has a range of business and other interests in India, Europe, and in technology. We are very happy to have him with us. He's making a short trip to Sri Lanka, so we managed to catch him just in time. So welcome to the show, Dr. David Lansman.

Speaker 1  01:17
It's really good to be here in Colombo. Thank you for the invitation.

charindra chandrasena  01:20
Yeah, you're here for a short visit, but have you had a had a chance to go round?

Speaker 1  01:26
It's my first time in in Sri Lanka.

charindra chandrasena  01:28
Okay,

Speaker 1  01:29
and we arrived on Sunday evening. I've had a little time to see a little of what's in the city, but nothing like enough. So I think I'll have to come back.

charindra chandrasena  01:40
Yeah, you will definitely have to come back. Most of the beauty is outside Colombo, but yeah, we are we are really happy to have you here because we are in a in an interesting geopolitical moment right now.

Speaker 1  01:54
Very much so.

charindra chandrasena  01:55
And I'll just start based on your experience in the diplomatic sphere, Dr. David. Like, how important is it for a country to have a strong diplomatic corps and and a prudent foreign policy in a time like this? Just generally, not particularly one country, but what are the benefits that can be gained?

Speaker 1  02:24
It's a good question, and as I said, I arrived in Sri Lanka only on Sunday evening, so my comments will be general ones, nothing to do specifically in Sri Lanka. And I think you asked two different questions there: one about a strong foreign policy, and one about a strong diplomatic corps. So there's the what you want to do and the how you're going to do it, and the resources you're going to have. I think they're both really important. I think, as a country, in my view, a country needs to know what it wants to achieve, what its interests are, and it needs to have a realistic view of what capabilities it has. And this is any country, from the U.S. to China to Fiji to Britain to Spain. Anyone needs to know what are we trying to achieve, and what are our realistic resources for doing that? Now, every country, in one sense, wants the same things: it's security and prosperity. But you've got to be clear: what is it we need specifically? What are the threats that we see around us from which we need to be secure? What are the sources of our prosperity? And you need to have a kind of a strategy for that. And I think every country probably has some idea of what that strategy is. What do we, what do we want to do? And then the second part of that is, what realistically can we do? How strong are we? Who are our allies? What more can we do to, to build our alliances? Who's going to be good for

Speaker 2  04:03
us.

Speaker 1  04:03
Who can we work with? Who can we trade with? But also, who can we work with on our on our security? So, being realistic about what you want to do and what your resources are.

charindra chandrasena  04:15
Right. I mean,

Speaker 1  04:15
not many countries can challenge the U.S. or China. You've got to know where where your strengths lie, what you need to do, and then you came on to the question of a is it important to have a strong diplomatic service? I think clearly, first thing is to know what you want to do. But yes, get your voice heard with your allies, understand where the threats are, have a a voice that you can use when you need to in the United Nations, in New York, in any other alliances your country happens to be a member of. Have people who understand geopolitics, who understand the world, who can report back home. To the foreign ministry, to the government, what it is that's going on? Where can we take advantage of the situation? Who do we have to work with? And then, of course, the diplomats sitting in the ministry back home who need to understand all of that, put it all together, make some proposals to their government, to the ministers. So I think it's this is a moment at which a lot of countries feel that they can't rely on the status quo. They can't rely on their existing relationships. At least they've got to keep an eye on where things are moving to. So having people who can do that. Now there was quite a long time ago now, and you'll see from what I'm going to say, it was quite a long time ago. But someone in the UK said we don't really need diplomats anymore. All you need is the copy of the Financial Times and a fax machine. So this was a while ago, before the internet. But was that ever true? Because the Financial Times is a good newspaper, but it's not representing certainly not you know it's not reflecting British interests all the time. It's not its job. It doesn't have the access that a diplomat can have. It has different sorts of access, but you can't just rely on what you read in the press. You can't just rely on somebody faxing, or you can't just rely on looking at the internet and seeing what another government says publicly. You've got to get inside the inside the country. Try and get your relations inside those governments as as as as strong as you can. Understand what the pressures are. If you if you're trying to work with another country, what's the domestic situation? Are they free to do that? Is the government free to do whatever you want them to do, or do they have? So you've got to have people who really understand, and they have to understand from your point of view. So Sri Lanka needs diplomats who can understand Sri Lankan perspectives and Sri Lankan objectives, just as Britain needs diplomats who can understand British objectives.

charindra chandrasena  06:55
Absolutely, and and and how how important is subject knowledge, David? In terms of okay, so there are certain countries. Most countries' diplomatic efforts are very much driven towards economic outcomes. There are certain countries where it's more defence oriented, maybe. So, how important is subject knowledge when, if you take the economic example, do you need economists or people with economic background in the foreign service?

Speaker 1  07:27
That's a very good question,

charindra chandrasena  07:28
and and it could even be at the ministerial level.

Speaker 1  07:32
Yes, I think again. I think they're two slightly different things. There are certainly debates in the in the world of of diplomats about how specialised you need to be, and I think it's not one thing or the other. Yes, of course, if you're working on economic affairs or you're in a country where the economic relationship is important, you need to understand something about that. It may help if you're in, let's say a European country, if you've worked in a another European country before because you're used to the region, any part of the world that might be useful. But at the same time, if you're thinking ahead and you're saying, well, do we want our ambassadors just to know about one country or one region? I think not. I think you want. Do you want your permanent representative in New York only ever to have worked in Europe, or Latin America, or Asia? No, probably not. You want them to have a broad experience. So I think one needs to have a balance between specialist knowledge and and broad broader experience of the world and the way it all fits together, because if you're sitting in New York, you're going to have an interest in a whole lot of different things going on in different parts of the world. Now, sometimes it makes sense, and certainly in Britain, we do this. You have people in embassies around the world from the Trade Ministry, from the treasury, the finance ministry, from the agriculture ministry, wherever it might be, from the defence ministry, certainly. So you have some specialists who probably spent most of their careers in that sector, and that can also be useful. Now, you asked about ministers. Now this is different, and ministers are politicians one way or another. They are probably elected, perhaps in one or two cases. They may be appointed by the prime minister or whatever, depending on the way the country works. Some some ministers may have some specialist experience. Very often, not. They need good officials to advise them. They need good advisers that they may bring in with them. If I look at my own country, there have been a lot of a lot of most health ministers, for example, are not doctors. Most agriculture ministers are not. Farmers, it's not necessary provided you have an institutional system. Provided you have the right advices and the right advice, the political elements are different. Now you do find, of course, occasionally foreign ministers. Now happen, foreign minister of India, for example, Dr. Jayshankar is a very good example. He was a career diplomat. He was the most senior diplomat within the the ministry. He became he became foreign minister. Now, in my own country, the current foreign secretary, current foreign minister, she's not a career diplomat. I wouldn't, you know, in their own ways, each of those can do a very good job, and most of the we've had. I can only think in my time as a as a diplomat of one of our ministers who himself had been a diplomat a very long time ago. Douglas Heard. It's not necessary, right? But you do need an institutional underpinning of officials, whether they are in the treasury, the finance ministry, in the foreign ministry, wherever, who know what who know the detail.

charindra chandrasena  11:10
In terms of linguistic access, I would say, to to put it more bluntly, English because English is the global language. For countries where English is not the first language, how important is it for both at the ministerial level and and lower, but particularly at the ministerial level? How important is it for those ministers or those officials to have English fluency to deal with the world, and and you can you can take the UK out of the equation in the sense that I'm not asking you because you're from the UK, but generally with your diplomatic experience, what have you seen?

Speaker 1  12:01
Well, I should perhaps make a since I know Advocata is is believes in a sort of free and transparent market. I should make a declaration of interest here. My academic work was in linguistics, and I'm a great believer in people speaking languages. I'm a great believer in British diplomats who go around the world speaking the local language, even if everyone they meet speaks English not not always the case but even if that's the case I still think it is important I think for diplomats it's clearly very important if you're working pretty well anywhere in in in diplomacy particularly of course in let's say in the United Nations you need to speak English you probably need to speak French and I found around the world that most senior diplomats will do that. In fact, most diplomats will do that. It's clearly your diplomats need to be able to speak speak the language, speak English if they are working overseas. You can't expect, as a, I think as a diplomat, to have an interpreter around with you all the time. If you're a minister, again, it's a bit different. It's obviously a good thing if the minister does speak English. They can then speak to pretty well all their counterparts around the world. But again, because a minister is something special, they are they are a political appointee. They're democratically elected. If that's the choice, you you you you you you can work around that. They can have an interpreter. It can be done now. Clearly, I don't think anyone would deny it's easier for them if they do. But if you take, for example, the European Union, of course, Britain isn't in the EU anymore, but it was when I, most of the time, I was a was when I was diplomat. All the time, I was diplomat. There, if you have meetings of the EU ministers, their interpretation is available for those ministers. They don't have to speak; they can speak in their own language. If you're having a meeting of officials, at least when I was working, the meeting would either be in English or French, or people could speak in English or in French, and the officials would not be given interpretation, right? So, so you're saying at the

charindra chandrasena  14:15
officials level, many of them spoke the world language.

Speaker 1  14:18
You you have to you have pretty well, but

charindra chandrasena  14:20
at the ministerial level, you allow that that liberty of having an interpreter.

Speaker 1  14:25
No, I mean it's it it's certainly desirable, but if the if the person chosen as the minister to represent the country doesn't, you have an interpreter, and you you you you you work with that. So I mean I don't think that's the key issue. I think it's a, it's very much a nice to have, but it's not an absolutely essential element.

charindra chandrasena  14:48
Right. You you touched on this changing global order. I just want to go a little deeper into that now. People are. Talking about a multipolar or a bipolar world that's developing, and that we are we are at the infancy of of that world right now. Do you really think that and the country they are obviously talking about is China that China would come up to a stage where it would be a little like what the Soviet Union and the U.S. were during the 60s and 70s. Do you think China is going to get to a level where they could both politically, militarily, economically, and and in every other way be a competitor to the U.S.

Speaker 1  15:42
Well, I think that's a big question because it's you're asking about to predict the future. What I think we can say, looking at the present, is that clearly the U.S. regards China as a challenge. Yes, probably its principal challenge, which is new, and we are out of a period of a unipolar world, if you like, of a of a of a sense in which there's no one who can compete, and I think you can broadly explain what's going on now in terms of U.S. foreign policy as a reflection of that fact, that it feels that there is a competition. Now, how far that will go, how strong China will become, how assertive China will become-that's crystal ball gazing to some extent, because there are certainly different views that one hears. Some believe that that's absolutely the case. Others argue that China is perhaps for demographic and other reasons at the peak of its strength around now difficult to know. But where we are today, the U.S. is not behaving as though it is a unipolar. There is a unipolar world, and it is the only great power that counts. And indeed, if you read the U.S. national security strategy; it makes that point pretty explicitly, and that changes the world because what we've got is the U.S. seeing China as its principal rival, something it's really got to pay attention to. So that's different from this post-Cold War era. So in that sense, I think it's a mistake to draw comparisons too closely. We're not in the same sort of world as we were in during the Cold War, but it is clearly the case. The U.S. said it explicitly feels that it needs to protect its interests against threats or risks or whatever from China, but it is not really a bipolar world because there are a lot of other countries that need to be taken into account beyond the U.S. and China. Now, if you look back to the Cold War period, there was a quite strong, in some ways, non-aligned movement, but it was not. It was, I guess, if you were the U.S. and the Soviet Union, it was manageable. It was something you worked with, but it was in in lots of different ways, and there was there was diplomacy to do there. There were issues, interests to be taken into account, but there were not, for example, India, most obviously, but others as well, who are countries to be reckoned with. So it's not a pure. We're not moving from a unipolar world into a pure bipolar world. There are quite a lot of countries which have to be taken into account, which will not just side one side or the other, on the one hand, will just be kind of in a way. You're saying

charindra chandrasena  18:46
that there could be a neutral camp developing, which which doesn't want to align itself too closely with either.

Speaker 1  18:52
Yes, I mean I I think neutral's too soft a word, isn't it? Because I think there are a lot of countries with a lot of interests and capacities. We go back to what I said about interests and capacity, in a sense, that need to be taken account of. They will not be on one side or the other all the time. And I think it's becoming increasingly difficult for anyone to say to those countries, to the rest of the world, you've got if you're not if you're not with us you're against us. We've actually got to live with a world in which a lot of countries want to choose, perhaps case by case. They want to maintain good relations with the U.S. They want to maintain good relations with China, with all these other powers as well.

charindra chandrasena  19:38
But but David, isn't that what the U.S. is trying to not allow by, for example, telling India and other countries that they can't purchase Russian oil, that that the environment, the permission for such a neutral stance is not being provided. By the superpower, so then how how should smaller countries handle that? Because they will have to. I mean, the obvious choice right now is because it's the established superpower to go with the U.S. But but in the long run, is that smart?

Speaker 1  20:18
Well, I think if I I mean, is it smart? I mean, if you look around at the moment, there are a lot of countries that are trying their best to maintain good relations with the U.S. but also with with other powers that count in one way or another. Whether that's China, even Russia, ask the Indians about their relationship with Russia, it is you know they will not they're not siding with Russia, I think it's fair to say, but they're not they're not always going along with what the West has asked them to do, and we have our policy, we have our interests, and and we will act in that way. And I think the the reality of the world, whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing, the reality of the world is that we are moving into a multipolar kind of a world with some powers bigger than others, but countries in general are going to want to make relationships across the piece. How they do that, where the where the pressures are at one point. This is why diplomacy is probably becoming rather more difficult. Yeah, because there are rather more people you have to take account of. It's a if you like a more diverse world where you can't. There's not one boss who's in charge, yeah, and that makes life more complicated. And the Americans, I think, accept that in principle. In their, if you read the national security strategy,

charindra chandrasena  21:49
so on that point, it's becoming more difficult and more complex and more challenging. Partly because policies seem to change. Policies seem to be far more fluid than they used to be. Yes, I mean they seem to be changing every day, every week. Indeed. Whereas there was a certain, you know, there were certain understood principles that governed foreign policy. That there were allies that you were wedded to. That you know, no matter what happens, you would discuss and resolve. And there were countries that you were completely opposed to, but isn't it isn't it changing now? And and for smaller countries, doesn't that make diplomacy more difficult? And particularly with the U.S.

Speaker 1  22:37
undoubtedly, undoubtedly, it makes it more difficult, and it it pushes you back. I think to making alliances where you can, identifying where your key interests are, identify where your kind of strengths and weaknesses are, making friends, diversifying your supply chains as far as far as you can, and I would imagine, and I leave it to others to talk about Sri Lanka in particular. But I imagine looking not to make enemies, looking to make friends where you can. Sometimes there will be pressure points quite clearly in that process. That's what makes life difficult. But I think we are in an age where there is clearly less predictability, more people who want their voices to be taken, more countries that want their voices to be taken into account, and a tougher job to navigate. And I think even it's a tougher job for a country like Britain to navigate than it would have been a few years ago. Absolutely, there would have been an assumption of a of a Western, a coherent Western position, and a predictable and coherent Western position, which there clearly isn't now. And I would say that this is a trend. It is not just about the current president of the United States, and that trend is there because we have moved from a unipolar world, if you like, to a. And you know, life wasn't perfect during that period of a unipolar world. But we've moved. We've moved away from that kind of. Perhaps we look at it as stable in hindsight. I don't know. But anyway, that kind of stability to a a a a very different sort of a world, and and and that affects pretty well all of

charindra chandrasena  24:27
us. Yeah, and speaking of that, from your experience, I know you were not a diplomat during the Trump era, but before that, can you just give us an understanding of, particularly in terms of trade deals, economic agreements, what sort of timelines of countries you should be talking about from the moment of that the genesis of that idea to completion? I mean, it it is years. I'm guessing generally because some things have taken decades. But generally, how how long does it take?

Speaker 1  25:04
I think you're right about it being a a long term process. I mean, we are in an age now where I mean, clearly the World Trade Organisation is not fully functional. So countries are have moved to some extent in practice away from the multilateral trade deals to the plurilateral ones, and then the bilateral trade deals. So small groups of countries and then bilateral trade deals, and they are difficult things. They're difficult things because there are always trade-offs. Now, in our view, and in British view, free trade is a good thing. Consumers benefit from it. The country benefits by focusing on the things it can do best, and then you trade. I mean, all the stuff that that that you here at Advocata will be no doubt advocating for. But in practice, they are difficult to do. They require trade-offs. There will be producer interests who who feel threatened, who who will lose out or believe they will lose out. Agriculture is an obvious area that comes into a lot of trade deals, but there may well be industry. If you've got heavy industry, steel manufacture, whatever it might be, often trade deals have focused in the past on goods rather than services, except the world in general has moved a lot, particularly with the digital revolution, to services. But then often those providing services take the lawyers or the accountants, whoever, tend to be quite influential. I don't know about Parliament here, but Parliaments in most countries seem to have a lot of lawyers in them. That probably makes a difference. That probably makes a difference. So getting agreement on these things is very much a domestic issue as well as a foreign issue. Now, looking at it from the point of view of diplomacy, you may have diplomats on the ground doing the negotiation. Actually, a lot of them will probably be from the trade ministry or the economy ministry or whatever. But you can be sure that the ministers, the politicians back home, will be thinking very much about the domestic considerations. Do our what will this do for the prices of goods. What will our producers say if we, if if if we agree in a free trade deal to reduce tariffs or abolish tariffs, or if we allow for the freedom of establishment of, let us say, British lawyers in Sri Lanka or whatever it might be, they're going to be controversial. So a government is going to have to be quite strong and balance those trade-offs, and that can take very many years. I mean, one I happen to know a little bit about the UK-India free trade agreement signed recently took quite a few years to to negotiate for actually very good reasons because you know there will be some things in a trade deal like that one, for example, which are quite easy. Let I don't know. Let's take there are clearly fruits and vegetables grown in India that can't possibly grow in the UK, so it's not difficult to abolish tariffs for things like that because there's no domestic market, no no no domestic producers, no domestic producers in other areas, automotive, alcohol. I don't know whatever it might be. That's going to be quite sensitive because there are one country local industries

charindra chandrasena  28:38
start protesting against them because that's natural. That's natural. They are not thinking. They are not thinking on a national level. They are thinking about their industry. They are

Speaker 1  28:45
thinking about their industry, and it's not a very easy political argument to make to say, for example, to car manufacturers, you should. We're going to we're going to reduce tariffs on foreign cars in exchange for getting a better deal for our lawyers or whoever it might be. The car industry is not interested in whether the lawyers get a better deal, and they don't want to be on the wrong side of that. So these things do take time. They require they require political commitment at the government level. Ideally, some buy-in from other political forces, and require somebody probably like Advocata to make the case for free trade for why this is actually in the national interest to do such deals. And I think that's one thing. Yeah,

charindra chandrasena  29:35
one thing that Sri Lanka has been lacking is that narrative that's built around a trade deal, about the benefits of it for the country and how that trickles down to to every every industry. What's in it for you? I think that narrative most often has not been built, and therefore a lot of things have stalled.

Speaker 1  29:57
May I say that without commenting there. On Sri Lanka, but it's definitely not unique in that respect. I think the arguments for free trade very often don't get made, because partly because the voices of those who feel they're going to lose out in a particular case, and it's very easy to make a nationalistic, like protectionist, like case. Why are you destroying the industry of this side or the other? And it's a more emotional argument. It's a very strong argument, very emotional argument. The argument for free trade can be quite theoretical and quite difficult to explain compared with that. And that, I guess, is is is one of the things we would expect from organisations like Advocata, but I entirely recognise it's not an easy argument to make. But I think it's a very important argument to make.

charindra chandrasena  30:52
Just before we wind up on the current situation, I don't want to go too much into the war mechanics. But where do you? I mean, nobody. I think knows for sure where things are going. But what is your sense with your experience? We are currently in something resembling a ceasefire. I don't know whether we can even call it that. Basically, a stalling of hostilities, and yet Iran is Iran and Israel are still attacking each other. There's still a conflict in the Middle East. It's just that the U.S. has taken a step back a little bit till Friday. But where do you? What is your sense of where things are going, particularly in terms of global economy? Because that's that's why Sri Lankans are interested. Of course,

Speaker 1  31:42
and again, Sri Lanka is not unique in that. I think we're all. I was reading the the headlines in the Financial Times, whatever it was this morning, and there's plenty of talk there from experts to say that Europe is going to be affected by fuel shortages in a few days if this continues. So it's certainly not something unique to to this region, yeah. I'm not going to try and predict what's going to happen next. What I would say is that it's clearly a extremely serious challenge internationally, for the obvious reasons of the Straits of Hormuz and so on. But we're in an age where asymmetric warfare of one kind or another is really quite a threat because a lot of these attacks have been drone attacks in a much wider region of the Middle East than you would possibly have expected. I think so. There are all sorts of reasons why this is, you know, this is grave situation, and it's one which it's very hard to see how it can continue in this way for a sustained period of time. What outcome that leads to is is is is hard to is hard to predict at the moment. I think, but will it accelerate?

charindra chandrasena  33:02
Will it accelerate the process that has already begun with European countries already trying to become more self-sufficient, trying to have more trade deals? So, you could argue that one reason that the the UK India trade deal, the EU India trade deal, that has accelerated was also because of certain developments in the last year or so.

Speaker 1  33:27
Yes, I mean I think there are a number of there are a number of parameters there, aren't there? Trade deals are great things to have. Don't get me wrong, but they're not going to make a dramatic difference to those countries' economies in the short term. So I don't. It's hard to see. It's good that countries are making these kind of trade deals, and one should welcome that. Europe is talking a lot, and in theory, spending a lot on enhancing its own defence. It's got a very long way to go. This is not something that can possibly happen overnight. Not all countries are spending significantly more at this stage. Mine isn't. Germany, for example, has committed to spend a great deal more. But you, you don't get your newfound strength just by writing a check, you have to take the time to acquire the equipment to train people to build up your forces and so on. So this is a long-term process. But going back to my point about the trend, which is in a way separate from, or at least is is is deeper than the current phenomenon with President Trump? I think yes. I think it will accelerate a sense in which countries, not just in the West, not just in Europe, but much more widely, will feel they need to spend more on their own defence, that they need to do more deals, they need. To strengthen, if you like, their diplomacy, but also their economic diplomacy, with a wider range of partners. We saw from the pandemic the need to diversify supply chains, and there's nothing that's happened since that reduces that need. In fact, it goes the other way. So I think you're right now going back to what we said about the merits of free trade. All this is all. This comes at a cost. Frictionless free trade and and peace breaking out everywhere is a nice cheap option. Unfortunately, it's not the option that's available to us right now. So I think we're going to see more cost focused on diversification of of supply chains, building up alliances that allow you to have some degree of economic security, and also many countries feeling they need to invest more in their in in their defence. And it comes back to knowing your interests, knowing your capabilities, and reconciling them.

charindra chandrasena  35:55
Right. Before we wind up, one final question and a very specific one. In Sri Lanka, over the years, there has been this perception that the proximity between certain business leaders, corporate sector, big wigs, and the government is too close, and that that has led to a protectionist attitude because ultimately they end up benefiting, and that that has kept Sri Lanka's market rather closed throughout. Even though Sri Lanka was the first country in in this region to open up in 1977, so despite that, from your experience, what how how important is that relationship in deciding foreign relations, and specifically with these trade deals. And is there a danger of an advocacy of protectionism protectionist policies by by business leaders?

Speaker 1  36:56
Well, I can't comment on on the situation in Sri Lanka, but in general, that happens, and it's not a good thing when it does. Yeah, in general,

charindra chandrasena  37:07
it can create oligarchs, right? It

Speaker 1  37:09
can. I don't know. I mean, it depends. In every country, as a is going to have its interests, and one of its interests will very often be perceived as protecting domestic industry. To some extent, you can entirely understand that you people depend on it for their for their livelihoods. What are they going to do if it disappears? If you're going to go for kind for free trade agreements or other other reforms which damage some of those industries, you've got to know what you're going to compensate that for within the system. Yes, I wonder certainly seeing cases where the influence of particular businesses or particular sectors is disproportionate. That becomes a domestic issue in a sense, and you know organisations like yours in my country and in many other countries may spend their time explaining the economics of of this, advocating for free trade, advocating for less protectionism, explaining why that rather counterintuitive idea is actually good for the for the economy. It's going to be an ongoing struggle, but it's a-it's a good one for you to be involved in, and I wish you good luck with it. Thank you, thank

charindra chandrasena  38:30
you. So, thank you so much, David. I think we are out of time, but thank you, and you have a flight to catch as well. Thank you so much.

Speaker 1  38:39
It's been a pleasure.

charindra chandrasena  38:40
Yes, it's been a pleasure having you. Thank you so much, Dr. David Lansman, for coming here in the short time that you had. It was a fruitful discussion, and thank you for your for your insights. Thank you, everybody, for tuning in. We'll catch you on the next show.


Transcribed by https://otter.ai