N.K. Will Want Security Assurances, Hormats Says

Bloomberg dot Com, and of course, on the Bloomberg. The main event the President of the United States about to see whether his bet on North Korea will pay off Kim John Gunn's desire to end his country's economic stagnation, well, will it prevail over the the dictator's fear of relinquishing his nuclear threat. Joining US now from Singapore is to Lou Honor nipa Bloomberg Washington correspondent to Lou, walk me through the main event and what is about to happen

over the next twenty four hours. Yeah, you're you're You're just mentioned it. We're less than twenty four hours out from the biggest meeting of President Trump's life, also the biggest meeting so far of Kim Jong UN's life. They're going to be meeting for the first time, the first meeting between the US president and North Korean leader, and the goal from the U s side is to get Kim Jong un to commit to giving up his nuclear

weapons program. Now, there has not been a public statement from Kim Jong un that he is willing to give up this program that his family has developed over several decades, so there will be We'll be watching very closely to see whether or not there is any type of indication that Kim Jong un has actually turned the corner and decided that he no longer needs this nuclear program and he's willing to engage with the US, come out of the isolation that the US has placed North Korea in

into with various sanctions, and give up his nuclear program. The President Trump will try to get that commitment from him. We're told that they're going to have his handshake starting at nine a m Here Singapore time, followed by a bilateral meeting, follow bilateral just one on one, just the two of them with translated translators, followed by a larger meeting with their staff as well. You need to have an agreement on what the terms actually means. You need

to define the terms. And both sides use this term the nuclearization of the peninsula. What does that mean to the president and what does that mean to the North Korean leader? And are they the same things. They are definitely not the same things. They are talking past each other, and there have been a lot of low level meetings

trying to get those definitions closer to together. From the U S side, the nuclearization means getting rid of the entire nuclear program UH, declaring the entire nuclear program, having inspectors verify that that program is being dismantled, and having North Korea get rid of every bit of their nuclear weapons program. Now the North Koreans have a different idea.

They believe that it means that the U S should reduce its own presence in the region, maybe getting rid of its troops on the South, in South Korea, on the Korean Peninsula, getting rid of the nuclear umbrella, the protection that the US provides to South Korea and Japan by having a presence in the region. And it also means getting rid of the hostile nature of U S functions UH and and and US diplomatic isolation of North Korea.

So they see the nuclearization the much different lights than the US, and they have not yet been able to bring those two definitions in line just yet. So, given how the G seven went, the sub debate over whether the pressure is increased on the President of the United States or decreased on the President of the United States

as he goes to Singapore. Does the President go to Singapore stronger or weaker after that G seven, Well, he definitely does not have as much of the support of our allies that he would have had if he had had a productive G seven and been able to use that as a launching pad for this meeting in Singapore. Now he's still fighting and still having to answer questions and still tweeting about what happened in Canada and about

the G seven. So there is a certain level of distraction, and there's this idea that the President has trouble getting along with allies, he has trouble sticking to a deal, and whether or not that is something that's weighing on the mind of Kim Jong n after our President Trump pulled out of the communicate is something that remains to

be seen. But obviously the President hasn't shown a strong knack for staying in deals, has been much better at breaking deals than putting deals together, and that's going to make it much harder for him to to reach a deal here in Singapore. All for joining us from Singapore, Thank you very much for your time, so joining us around the table in New York, Tom King popping into the studio, Tom good morning, Good morning. Then for weekend. Yeah, to say the least, Charles Cancer come again as well,

Seenior portfolio manager, Charles. I always ask myself on Monday mornings, what's new? What's changed? Has anything truly changed after that weekend other than you're a little bit more restive? Probably not you think I'm rested, Charles. That's nice of you. That's interesting, though, isn't it for the market, just zero reaction. The media and all the experts going crazy on relations and maybe they should be. But for the market and

investors it's same out. We've seen this before. I think the markets fighting this debate around fundamentals and the influence that that higher interest rates will have on valuation and and and that's going to be a tug of war that's going to last well beyond the global events of this week, next week and and the rest of the year. And I'd say, as it relates to earnings and evaluations, um,

you should anticipate less multiple expansion. But but but equity return should follow earnings growth, which which I think will be in in in the middle high single digits. Do you think any of what we've seen over the last weekend or so damages CEO confidence business confidence? No, not yet.

I mean I think you always have to pay attention to to the institutes of the global economy because most businesses today drive a lot of their growth from from from outside the US, and and any confident shock will be a negative to investment and consumer spending. But if anything, the debate that's going to take place in Singapore should be a positive for confidence because it may imply a safer global economy and world. What are you doing with cash now? I mean it's in the change interest rate

environment all of a sudden. Cash is a different thing, isn't it. Well, you've got to be careful about cash, and it depends on with whom you refer to. I think at the individual level, I think the individuals always miss price the optionality that comes with cash. Cash gives you the opportunity to invest when others can't, and it

gives you the opportunity to sleep well at night. As it relates to to the corporate side, the key question is as as as surplus as cash flows have expanded in in magnitudes that they couldn't imagine after much lower corporate taxes. The question there is will the corporate t o be a productive allocator of their cash um and were encouraging our company to to to to to term

out their debt. I moved from variable structures to fixed structures, and we encourage them to to to take risk and to to be innovators and to invest at rachel return that are you know, candidly nine basis points higher than the cost of cash um um. And if they can do that well Shell, the value creation will continue. Is that in mid cap I mean, you made a lot of headlines with the Amazon offers, but forget about the glory stuff. Were you really making it mid cap? Small cap? Look?

I think for us our bread and brother Bread and Batteries, the medium sized companies that that that that face u enormate opportunities to to continue to grow and and and haven't faced the headwinds of of the law of large numbers. UM And when we were just in Denver meeting two of our medium sized companies UM and I was very encouraged by by what they've seen from in terms of endermon. The one was an industrial company, the other was a was a database measurement company that provides data into the

financial services. The consumer is really strong right now and is spending and and on the industrial side, of course, it depends on what your Protestant services are. But demands really strong right now, and inventory is on a very good position. Are you following a World Cup team? I mean it's this week, It is this week. I would typically follow in no particular order, South Africa in the US. Um. Good. So we're discussing Italy earlier, so we were, so it'll

be a little bit more challenging this year. But but but no doubt I'll have at least one eye on on on the event, says as they as they get Team Chiles. Well, if you forced me into a box, it'll it'll likely end up being England. Um, you know we all go back to the Commonwealth in one way or now that excuse me. I read the New York Times insert thing this weekend covered John Ferrill. Would you explain why Torres and pan On are going to the World Cup? Yeah, in Italy is not Well, it's the

way they're separated into the different sort of grouping. So you have your wafer, which is where the bulk of the European precisely, and then you qualify a certain number of teams from individual regions. The real question is why is Panama going and not the United States? How did the United States not qualify for this World Cup because they have the easiest route to get into the World Cup? I am so too this week it's going to be great.

The good news for us to it. I think in the next round of the World Cup they're more teams, so hopefully cancer greater. Catch out with you for our listeners worldwide, you're listening to Bloomberg Surveillance. We are thrilled to do what we do on surveillance, to go and find the best voices we can find on a topic. And you do that with Charles Armstrong to say he

is professor of history at Columbia. Barely describes his contribution to Pacific rim thinking and particularly the Peninsula of Korea, and he comes out of the Jonathan Spence Combine at Yale University LS. His doctorate is out of Chicago. Professor Armstrong, we are thrilled to have you with us today. What would Jonathan Spence say about the making of modern Korea? Synthesize your lifelong work to this historic moment for the Peninsula of Korea. Well, Korea has always been a place

that has scarcely dependent it's independence. UH. It lived in the shadow of China for a thousands of years but was never absorbed in the Chinese Empire. It wasn't a colony of Japan for thirty five years. UH. And it is now divided into two in the North and South. So this is a long history of unity and independence

UH in Korea. And I think a lot of Koreans, including in the South, are really looking forward to the summit meeting between Trump and Kim Jo Muan, not because they like Kim Joman necessarily, but because they see this as a historic turning point leading towards UH evenge the reunification of their country. Secretary of Pompeo I thought was organized and forceful in his brief this morning to the

media five thousand media and Singapore. If you were to excuse me, if you were to advise the Secretary of State and the unpredictability or the nuances of the Supreme Leader, how would you advise Secretary of State Pompeo. What Pompeo said yesterday in Singapore is a little bit different from what Trump has been saying. It does seem to be quite different from what Kim Joman has been indicating he expects it out of the summit. So I would say to keep an open mind, stick to principles, keep the

American goals in mind. But but the b nuanced about how you get there. So what I what I mean by that is Pompeo said US tensions will remain in place until it's a complete and verifiable, irreversible denuclearization of the creating peninsula. But that's going to be a tough sell to the North Koreans, and Trump himself has said that at the beginning of a process, not in in itself.

So you know, there's no no North kids are tough negotiators, and you've got to go in UM understanding your goals but being able to work towards them in a creative way. What is the minimum condition for success at this meeting? I think that what the minimum is a declaration of principles both sides can agree that we want complete denucralization and outlining a process how to get there. Opening up North too, inspections um, the starting uh process of leading

towards the release of sanctions. But I don't think we can expect a huge UH and and a clear commitment or a clear achievement. I think this has to be and I agree with Trump on this the beginning of the process. Professor Armstrong. How does South Korea fit into these meetings? I mean, it's Trump and Kim, I get that, but South Korea has a unique place at the table. Whether or not there at the table, what is it.

They have been very important, particularly the President of South Korea bunjay and really getting this this UH process going. They've facilitated between North Korea and the US. They've reached out to North Korea to start a dialogue going back to the the Winter Olympics in South Korea, and they have a huge amount of state. Obviously, they don't want a war on their peninsula. I think that's the first condition for them. They want to lead us back from the edge of war that we seem to be in

just six months ago. UH. And they want to move the Korean peninsula to a situation of stable peace UH. And they want to improvement in the North. You know, they have to live with with North Korea right on their doorstep, and they want the regime to be less hostile and also forced people to be better off. So I think economic interaction with North is also very important. But then this is President g the New York Times making a strong point this morning, the Chinese will not

be there. I don't buy it for a minute. The Chinese must be there in representation in North Korea. How does that relationship fit in the next twenty four hours. China has made it clear to Kim Joland, meeting him twice. She had two meetings with Kim in less than a month after refusing to meet him for for six years since he came to power. So clearly China wants its position represented, even if it's not physically there at the meeting.

China is both bars most important economic partner, takes about it foreign trade, supplies it with oil and food, and in exchange. They want secure border. They don't want the US right on their doorstep. They want a reliable buffer on their northeastern boundary, which is very sensitive, and they also want to uh North Korea that is less unpredictable

and more affluent. They really want North Korea to go down their path of economic form and they see that that can happen until US an improve relations with the United States and we see some relief from sanctions. Professor Armstrong,

thank you so much. Greatly appreciate the time today, professor of history at Columbia and truly one of the nation's experts on Korea, greatly greatly appreciate that where this down, Uh, a woman who survived the winters of Bates College, that itself is a triumph Flora and joins us with FS investments.

As we looked to the feed, as we looked to where Laura, I want you to explain an absolutely killer chart you have going back twenty five years, which is the tenure yield up and then rolling over, and then the ten year yield up and rolling over, and sort of in two thousand five six into the crisis up and rolling over, and then you've got a question mark and then things change. Where are we with a tenure

yield right now versus other FED cycles? So um, yeah, First off, we have I had my twenty five year college reunion since weekend, so apologize my voice is so we're covering from all the fun. You were down with the Washington you were down with the Washington capitals, doing the bend or that they were, Well, that's good. Bates College is a good place to have anniversary. It's still going,

um thanks to highlighting that chart. Because one of the to mean, one of the most important um pieces of misinformation I hear from, especially fixed income investors, is that as the FED races rates, as short term rates renormalized, that the the FED funds rate hikes cycle is going to be somehow this rising tide the lists all ships and long term rates are going to go up too.

And I could not disagree more. Um. I look at the history of said cycles and what you traditionally see is longer term rates rising somewhat at a at a slower pace in the beginning of the cycle, and then that usually does not last. It typically plateaus and even that try and even reverses. And so we're long term rates have gone up a little bit because we started raising rates. We've had volatility in the long end recently.

But you know, to me, the sell off we got verse three oh eight and the tenure the rally to bright yields back down to two eighties, that made all the sense in the world, because we are in an environment when the federations raised, where we just should not expect the long end to also be on autopilot and

rise as well. So, Laura, the intuitive way that the curve behaves at this point of the tightening cycle is that we get some flatness, that you get a bare flantner, which means the sell off of course comes at the

front end more predominantly. The argument against this, Laura, and it comes from JP Morgan Asset Management and Bob Michael, is that this time is a little bit different because you're also getting balance sheet unwind and you get in the reverse sort of Q eight and the reverse effects will be the return of term premier and ultimately what that could mean is a shift to a steeper curve.

What do you say back to that, Laura, So you know, I think the biggest certainty about that comes to me from the European Central Bag and the announced that they're possibly going to make this week. All of the de leveraging that we're seeing in the FED balance sheet to me has already been priced in, that spaked in the cake already. So I don't see that in and of itself pushing long term rates uh significantly really at all, unless they was for some reason accelerate and nobody really

expects that. The ECB is a much bigger question mark. And you know, at some point they are going to hit an inflection where they're no longer adding to their balance sheet. You know, I think the first rate move is going to be the first start of this's not going to be on the balance sheet side that they begin tightening policy. But um, you know, their timing, the fact that they have only a single mandate and inflation

data aren't exactly being cooperative in the in the EU. Uh. To me, that is one of the biggest question marks for the bomb market is here, I mean within that is is the marker and we were talking with Drew Matis earlier with an optimistic tone that leads to higher rates in his single point marker. I guess it is three and a quarter percent. Give us some precision here, Laura. Uh, I mean, I mean, do we get to do we

go through the three oh eight level you're talking about earlier? Yeah, I think that's entirely possible because this Federate ex cycle is so different. If you think about to me, the fact that you know, we can see rates creep higher for the first half of the cycle and you look out even at the fed dum protections, this cycle still has a long way to go. So you could absolutely see uh on the tenure, you can even see a little bit more, but compared to where we have been historically,

it's still so low. And you know from where the chair that I sit in, the people I seek to, they're always looking for yield, They're looking for investments and um, you know that's a message that I just carry through because people forget me, don't understand, they don't get that dynamic. Well, Laura, thank you so much, Lauring, thank you so much. With FS investments, so really a smart conversation. They're folks on rate.

And again, you know, if you read your Fabosi, there's I want to call it four factors that go into what the curve does, what the dynamics are and CEFA exams are passed and failed on that idea. We've been trying to advance the conversation over the last number of weeks on our international relations. Did that earlier with the Korean expert from Columbia University and now joining US forever associated with a Fletcher School Toughts and with Princeton Robert Hormetts.

He is a former Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy in the Environment, working with President Obama. Boba Hormetts of course for years a good supporter of what we've done here at Bloomberg on the economy and Bloomberg Surveillance. Ambassador, we are thrilled to have you with us for this half hour. You know Graham Allison at Harvard who speaks of the tension between China in the United States. Where will that tension be if Mr Trump has a successful

Korean summit? Well, I think a successful Korean summit probably will be a relief in terms of the relationship between the two countries, because the US has been pushing China to be more helpful to the cause of getting the North Koreans to do de nuclear rise in the Chinese

have been upping their sanctions under US pressure. But also the Chinese do not want instability in Northeast Asia, and if the summit were to fail, the chances of instability would probably increase, or at least the perception would increase that the United States and North We're going to get back into the sort of shouting match that they had

just before the current flaw began to emerge. The way this works, Bob, is somebody gives up something, and usually the greater power unloads money, aid whatever you want to call it at a country. And clearly we and others can unload AID on and impoverished North Korea. But what

will they give up? Well, that's of course the big question, Tom, and that is the Administration has made it very clear, and indeed members of the Congress from both parties have made it clear that the goal of the United States should be complete denuclearization with a very very robust surveillance through various quarters to make sure that they have not only rid themselves of nuclear material, but also the capability of creating new nuclear material and the ability to deliver

uh the sorts of weapons, which is essentially not just I C B M s but more limited shorter range ballistic missiles that could deliver nuclear weapons. So the Administration and the Congress seemed to be united on something very strong and and very permanent, with a lot of inspections to make sure that that is occurring. In return, of course,

the North is going to want security assurances. They're going to want a substantial amount of assistance, as you say, because the economy is in very bad shape, and they're going to want an end to the to the Korean War, and most likely some kind of American pullback of its true presence um in in the South and and and in the region. You know, one thing that I'm struck with is there seems to be so much at stake from a diplomatic standpoint, and we hear, we see all

these headlines that are really significant. Uh. And you're uniquely positioned to answer a question of why markets don't seem to care. You are formerly the vice chair of Goldman Sachs. You know the relationship between these sort of big, high level negotiations and underlying business. What will it take for investors,

for corporations to care. Well, that's a great question. And I have been surprised all along that with respect to North Korea, indeed events surrounding Iran, that there is not more attention or concern in the markets Iran because of course it's near a very rich oil producing area and also does have a lot of conventional weapons to be just very very disruptive if it wanted to be. Um and to some extent it already is in certain parts

of the region. But in North Korea, I think the feeling is the markets really are focusing on a lot of other things for the moments in North Korea doesn't occupy a great part of their attention. But the other is they really don't know how things are going to go, and they perhaps have not fully digested the seriousness of these two countries. If things really went sour getting into some kind of confrontation, perhaps they don't believe it will

ever happen, and therefore they're discounting it. And even if this thing normalizes and there's a better set of relations in Northeast Asia, they probably don't see this as very advantageous economically, So on the margin, while they're focused on it, they don't think a the worst calamity will occur, so they don't think that will happen. And even if a really good outcome occurs, it probably, at least in the

near term, won't have much of an economic impact. So, given your experience as an executive at the top of a major bank, I'm wondering, do you think that the uncertainty that some of these high level discussions have injected into the global economy has already been priced into some degree?

In other words, do you think that companies have actually ratched, did back their expansion plans, or not invested in their plans as a result of this with respect to Korea, you mean with respect to Korea and also just sort

of the volatile backdrop of international relations. Well, I do think the one thing that is going to trouble companies going forward is what happened in Quebec over the weekend, and that is the companies had been hoping, at least and and perhaps some degree feeling, that there would not

there would not be a trade war. Um, what happened in Quebec has made a lot of people very concerned that the US and its major Western trading partners and major Western allies are really on the verge of something that could be far more disruptive to international trade, international finance, and international markets. I think that is a big concern. If it can't be pulled back, that's an issue because the G seven was designed to to reduce tensions on

the ECONO. I'm excited and solved problems among the major economies and to underpin our security and political relations if this institution goes sour. These are the countries that agree with the United States most on most issues. If their tensions across the Atlantic and Pacific of a deep trade

nature on our investment as well. I think markets are going to see, well, maybe this trade war that we thought could be averted by meeting such as those in Quebec could now be unleashed in an even more toxic way.

What a joy to have with us. Robert Hormat's ambassador. Hormats, of course the former under Secretary of State for President Obama, but far more an author thinking about the linkage of our foreign policy into our fiscal economics is important book The Price of Liberty of a few years ago, and in it Bob maybe getting us to Quebec hard and ineescapable facts. The hard and inexcapable facts is the American diplomacy industry has to move on from Quebec. What will

Secretary of State Pompeo do after what we saw this weekend. Well, he's got a big job ahead of him. I was, as you know, the sherp or the planner, and participated in the first uh several summits. I've been to twelve and over the course of my career in government, and at Rambo in nineteen the first of these was designed during a period of great economic difficulty for the West, after the major oil crisis of nineteen seventy three, Inflation

was rampant. There was a lot of division, and the idea was you pull these countries together, the major countries of the Western world, and you give them a sense of a common purpose, which is to work together to overcome economic problems those were, as I mentioned, very difficult at the time, and also as a way of underpinning politic coal and security ties. What happened that Quebec was that this was the most divisive summit that in all the time I've been working on these, the most divisive

summit I have seen by far. It's unprecedented that one country would refuse to sign the Communic a that has never happened to my knowledge. But also the tone was so divisive. So what was meant to be uh coordinating common solutions and economic problems and underpinning political security relations is now an acrimonious turned into an acrimonious forum in Quebec. Now the question is going down the road, how do

you pull this together? You need strong alliances with the US is a great power, not to because it's great internally, but because it had powerful friends and allies. You need that and to have exert influence in the world today. So Secretary Pompeio has got to begin to rebuild trust in these alliances for both economic and political security reason. But Ambassador Harmat's your charm over the years has been your uncanny ability to take the want um of foreign

policy and link it to our domestic realities. The President, the fact is, has a residence with a large body of Americans who support him. Does he have the backing of a fair amount of Americans when he is this brusque with our allies? Do you get the sense that he has touched a residence with some part of the American people? Unfortunately, I think there are a number of people who are of the view that globalization has disrupted

their lives and their communities and threatens their jobs. And if the President takes these very tough lines and is very pugnacious about pressing other countries to do what he wants or making statements like he won't trade with them if they don't, which is what he tweeted today. Um, that to me is something that while Americans may like the rhetoric and find the toughness quite appealing, and certainly there is ninophobia and there's an any foreign feeling in

certain quarters in this country. Over a period of time, when people come to realize that that has a very direct effect on their pocketbooks, on their four O one case, UM, I think they will probably take a somewhere different view. Although admittedly, UM, there is a strong political view that Trump's toughness is a good thing, and I think not the majority of Americans feel that way, but a certain

portion doing a certain strong portion of his base. The big question that you've touched on, I think is is this just a temporary phenomenon, a Trump phenomenon, or does this what happened to Quebec signal a sustained weakening of cooperation among the Western community on a wide range of issues,

going even beyond Trump. Is it is it possible to pull that back to what we tried to do in the seventies and eighties and nineties seven American presidents have regarded these summits as a good thing to reduce tensions. Now we have those tensions, and it's going to be a lot harder to pull them back, and Pompey was gonna have to do this because he needs these allies and we need strong trading partners. We got into a

trade war. A lot of American companies, a lot of American jobs that depend on exports, and a lot of American consumers that depend on import goods are going to be very adversely affected, so that what's good headlines today may not be good and certainly won't be good for America tomorrow. I come in Bob in the morning and I write the opening script for television, and on the back end of it today, you know, playing off of Navarro's comments, I said, there is a special place in

hell for the Montreal Canadians. Check that for Prime Minister Trudeau. The kind of rhetoric that we heard from the professor of economics from ukl irv Irvine, or the rhetoric we hear from my good friend Lawrence Cudlow. I know that's not within the Hormat's dialogue or discourse. Is that a permanent damage to this president and is it a permanent damage to this nation? Well, I don't know how permanent

it is, but I I think that it does. As I was mentioning a moment ago, there are a certain number of people who feel that it is time the United States took a stronger position, and they think somehow they're quite tough rhetoric um an acrimonious rhetoric and somewhat bullying rhetoric with a strong position. And I just want to repeat what what some Americans think is good for this country today and what some Americans think is appealing rhetorically.

What some Americans think is a way of America standing up to the rest of the world. Maybe that sounds good to some Americans today, but there is a strong reason why these institutions and patterns of cooperation were built. It was it was in part, in large part because deserved America's interests on trade, on investment, and on growth.

And I think that that the the appeal of language today to some people may turn out to be very unappealing when they realize how bad it is for the American economy, how bad it is for jobs, and how bad it is for their for their for there for one case, you know, not that you know, I'm trying to figure out what percentage of the audience will know who Dean Atchison is or you know, others. We can talk about impress everyone, but it's almost like we've lost

our sense of history. You specialized in honoring our history. We have a president who is clearly a historical there's no question whenever anybody's politics, and in believing that, are we basically losing our understanding of our diplomatic history. Whether it's we are Tom exactly put your finger on it.

Most people don't remember the history, and and and and and there's some that would just assume not pay much attention to do it anyway, and by so doing, they're missing the whole point as to why these institutions and why these alliances and why these patterns of economic cooperation were created in the first place after World War Two, and in the case of the G seven in nineteen they were created because presidents of Republican and Democratic presidents.

And this is created under Republican president I remind you of Gerald Ford and supported by President Reagan and many other conservative Republicans as well as Democrats. They all understood that this was important to the American national interest and to make America great. After World War Two, people realized we need to have strong alliances and strong economic partnerships. If those deteriorate over time, weakens America's influence in the world and will weaken our economy because we need the

trade and we need the investment. And it's particularly relevant today as the President goes into these meetings with the the Party Secretary of North Korea um on on a major issue. All American presidents in the past have concluded that when you go into a meeting with your adversary, you want to have a strong alliance behind you. You want to have solidarity among the Western countries to back you up, to be there for you. And this was very badly shattered at least for the moment in Quebec.

Now the President and you went back to Pompeio. Now we have to make especially sure that when he goes into that somebody has a very close relationship and is in line with the thinking of Japan and South Korea are two allies in the region and they're in line with him. So at least we now for the next immediate steps. If we can't pull the overall relationship together among the G seven, he's got to be especially strong in making sure that the alliances with with Japan and

South Korea are very strong in this. In this moment, we're going to leave it dear Robert Hermans, generous of you, gonna be with us for this thirty minutes. Thank you so much. Robert Hormetts with Kissinger Associates and of course the former own Secretary of State for Economic Growth. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform

you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom Keane before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio