The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Is The West Putting As Much Pressure On Hamas As It Is On Israel?

Episode Date: March 18, 2024

Our regular Monday session with Dr Janice Stein of the Munk School at the University of Toronto. This week's focus starts on Israel and Hamas and the question implied in the title above, but also we spend time on France's new hawkish push on Russia, and an explainer on the latest crisis in Haiti. Plus an update on the question of the week!

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. Is the West pressuring Hamas as hard as it's pressuring Israel? That's our question, coming right up. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here in Toronto for this day. Question today is about the Middle East, because it's Monday, because Janice Stein is here. And the main question is about this issue of Hamas. Is the West pressuring Hamas as hard as it's pressuring Israel to end up stopping this war over Gaza? We're going to ask Janice that question. But before we get there, a quick update on our book situation.

Last Thursday on your turn, it was your favorite Canadian books by a Canadian author, and we got swamped with entries into that contest. Lots of them, so many so, that we couldn't finish them all on thursday so we said we'll carry this through to the a second week this thursday where the question will still stand and we said we keep the requests open for a couple more days and we did and there were lots more over the. So many so that we want to end it this Thursday. So we're cutting off entries as of this moment. All right? Don't bother sending them in.

They won't get looked at. A lot of great ones last week and over the weekend, so we've got more than enough to handle a whole other show this Thursday for your turn. So keep that in mind. And once again, I appreciate that so many of you went to so much trouble to not only suggest a name and an author, both have to be Canadian, or the author has to be Canadian,

and some basic idea as to why you chose that book. Some people just did a book and author, and that's fine. But most of you gave a reason as well. And we'll run through those, as we did last week, on this week's episode. But once again, no more. No mas. No more. Done.

Okay, for this particular contest. Okay, let's get to our topic for today, because it's a good one. We're going to deal with, as we always do, or as we try to do, the Israel-Hamas situation, the Ukraine situation, and today we're also going to talk about Haiti, because it's A, a good story, and B, there's a real Canadian connection to it as well. So we'll deal with all three of those with Dr. Janice Stein from the Munk School, University of Toronto.

Well, why don't we get started? Enough from Peter. Let's hear from Dr. Janice Stein right now. So Janice, I got a couple of thoughtful letters last week from listeners who are wondering this. They have no problem with the pressure, the continuing pressure that's being put on Israel and Netanyahu in particular.

But they're wondering, has there been an equal pressure on Hamas? Or has Hamas kind of got away with it in the sense that they're not being pressured by, whether it's the Americans, the Canadians, the British, the French, or whomever, in the way that Israel itself is. How do you respond to that? You know, I think that's a fair comment, Peter, but let's look at what would pressure Hamas and how that would happen. None of the countries we just talked about,

the UK, Britain, Canada, France, doesn't really matter, has any leverage with Hamas. First of all, we follow the money, always. And financial support and the capacity, help with capacity to manufacture arms comes through Iran. So if you want to pressure Hamas, you go through Iran. And secondly, through Qatar. And why Qatar?

Because the political wing of Hamas is based there and Qatar has been the intermediary. So we saw a very interesting development last week. The Qataris are fed up with what they can consider the recalcitrance of the military wing. And they went public last week and said, if we cannot get an agreement on a ceasefire in the very near future, we are going to ask the political wing of Hamas to leave Qatar. So that is pressure. That is pressure. And I think probably that. In addition, we also learned this week, Peter, that Iran and not the last such secret talks. They have a back channel. And I would imagine that the United States is putting as much pressure as it can on Iran. Again, not a lot of leverage.

So the fact that we've seen some movement by Hamas this week is, in fact, a response to the Qatari pressure. Okay, we'll get to that in a moment. I love your description of leverage and the role it plays in all this. And I imagine the Americans are pressuring, as they can, Qatar to pressure Hamas. Yeah, that's exactly what happened is the Americans put significant pressure on Qatar and why? And, you know, where's the leverage there? You might ask yourself. Well, the Qataris have historically not had very good relations with Saudi Arabia and with the Emirates. It would be best known, I think, to people because it's the home of Al Jazeera,

which is the first independent Arabic speaking television that took on many of these governments. And frankly, just a few years ago, the Saudis and the Emiratis cut the Qataris off, wanted them out of the Gulf Cooperation Council. So there was a lot of tension between these governments. They actually were not able to succeed in forcing the Qataris out. But the Qataris know they're on a narrow bridge here. And it's very interesting for them because they're really valuable to the world as long as these ceasefire negotiations go on, because they're the best conduit to Hamas.

But once these ceasefire negotiations are over, their value diminishes. So they're walking a fine line here. And I think what pushed them was American pressure, which was fundamentally saying, you're not able to deliver on this. You've got to deliver. I'm glad you mentioned Al Jazeera because they're playing an incredibly important role in the Middle East. Most Arab speakers in the Middle East don't watch CNN.

Nope. They're watching Al Jazeera. Yeah. And they're doing some pretty gutsy, you know, journalism. There was all kinds of concern about Al Jazeera when it first signed on. It was just like a too pro-Arab, pro-Bin Laden, and pro-whatever. But there are two separate channels on Al Jazeera, one the Arabic-speaking one and one the English-speaking one.

At the English-speaking one, there's a fair number of Canadians working there. There sure are. Yeah. Yeah, Tony Berman, a well-known Canadian who was, I think you correct me on this one, but one of the important producers of The National at the CBC at one time. Sure, he ran the CBC News, the managing director, and then he was managing director at Al Jazeera for a while. He's retired now.

But he had an important role in establishing their kind of journalistic cred. Yeah. So, you know, Peter, one of the, and I think that Canadian role is very important in doing this, because Al Jazeera has credibility on the Arab street because it actually does investigative journalism. It sends team into the field. It attacks our government. You know, there's no network in the Arab world that will stand up and criticize the government of Egypt or the government of Saudi Arabia or the Emiratis. Al Jazeera will. And so it's a believable source where it matters most in the Arab world.

And Al Jazeera English, which is available around the world, is a really good source of field reporting. You know, I can remember talking to Sam Nutt when she was in Yemen during one of these crises over the past year or so and saying, you know, what are the people on the street saying when they watch CNN about the coverage? And she said, Peter, get with the program. Nobody watches CNN here.

You know, they're all watching Al Jazeera. That's right. That's right. And beyond all watching Al Jazeera. That's right. That's right. And beyond that, it's really interesting. They're an incredible source in the English-speaking world because they have reporters on the ground, right? And they have reporters in Gaza. So we are getting firsthand reports from Al Jazeera who hold no trust for Hamas, let me tell you that.

Right. Yeah. Okay. Let's talk about what is going on with Hamas right now, because once again, we begin a new week with some sense of potential optimism that we could be getting close to a deal of some sort. And it's partly structured on the fact that Hamas has changed their position somewhat. Yes, yes. And they also seem to be at some disagreement with themselves on moving towards that position.

So try to explain to us what's going on inside Hamas. Yeah, so, you know, this is always a risk and it's actually more than a risk. It's a predictable trajectory. When you have a revolutionary group where leaders are in hiding and there's a competition to outbid, This is generally true of all such organizations. Factions and splits develop among the top leadership, and it can be really incapacitating. So what's happened this week, Peter? Hamas moved on one critical issue. It had been demanding a permanent ceasefire as a condition for any kind of hostage

release. It backed off. And that's not a small move. That is, frankly, that's a big move. And what is it asking for now? The deal is now packaged in two phases. Six weeks, you know, exchange of hostages, except for men, men who are physically well and male soldiers. Those will be held back. I think it's 10 or more. I think it's about a thousand Palestinian prisoners for 40 hostages. That will not be an obstacle in Israeli society. Just remember they exchanged a thousand for one. Gilad Shalit just a few years ago. What is the new demand, which is much less difficult for the Israeli government to accept. Instead of a complete ceasefire and end to the war, it is now allow the return of Palestinians to northern Gaza.

And then after, during the six weeks, further discussions. So we're down to how do you allow the return of Palestinians to northern Gaza? And we know what that means. How do you make sure that Hamas leaders, who, as we say, Hamas military leaders don't wear uniforms, that Hamas men who are leaders do not intermingle with that population as people go back to Northern Ghats. I think that's where that's the remaining big issue on the table. And those negotiations start today, Monday. The issue of the prisoners release, I mean, it's just not we want a thousand of our prisoners back.

It's they want certain prisoners back. Yeah, yeah, they do. And many of those prisoners are infamous and well-known. Let me put it to you that way. They're infamous because they planned major terrorist attacks, which killed civilians. So that's tough for any domestic population to swallow. But paradoxically, I don't think that will be the major obstacle, because as part of the political culture, you don't leave people behind.

There is tremendous pressure on the government. You know, Peter, the intelligence is officially that there are 130 remaining, some 30 plus are dead. Many people think that 30 is an underestimation at this point and that there are far more who are dead or dying and that they are racing against the clock. So the pressure that the hostage families are putting on, you know, it's such a sophisticated and targeted campaign.

They are sending text messages to all the generals in the army. And so I don't think the prisoners will be the big issue. I think the issue remaining now, how do you inspect people who will come back to Northern Gaza? If it's women and children only, that's not a problem, but you can't let only women and children come back because how are those people provided?

That's where the rubber's going to hit the rug. Do you see if the broad strokes of what we think are the arrangement that's being made, the deal that's being made, if that's what ends up on the table, is there any way Netanyahu can say no? You know, again, and if you've gotten mail, I've gotten mail every time I say that his overwhelming goal

is his political survival at this point. I think it would be impossible for him to say no if the generals in the IDF say they can manage the orderly return of people to Northern Gaza. That will be the key issue. If the generals come out against it, he's really caught in the vice. the orderly return of people to Northern Gaza. That will be the key issue. If the generals come out against it, he's really caught in the vice. He knows that the pressure from the hostage families is huge and that the overwhelming majority of public opinion will do anything to get those hostages back and alive.

So the only thing that could really stymie him would be if the generals say the risk is too great, you know, a Mohamedi for a Yaya Simar could slip through in that kind of exchange and would not be detected as they came back. Have the generals tipped their hand at all on where they stand on this? Well, they didn't. From everything I understand, they are not happy. They are worried about this.

It's hard to find the needle in a haystack. We are talking about half a million people that could come back to northern Gaza. How do you, in fact, identify? You have to have people who are really, really skilled and can recognize the Hamas military leadership, because that's the big worry. It's not the political leadership. It's the military faction, the splintered extremist faction in Hamas. That was the big worry. Okay, last question on Israel-Hamas, and it's what changed for Hamas? Why do you think they suddenly made this change in tactics?

Yeah, I think it was, and it was so interesting we started there, Peter, I think it was the pressure from Qatar. You know, Qatar is a lifeline for them. It is the way they, if you look at the communications patterns right now, the Iranians are communicating through the Qataris who are communicating back through the political wing and back into Gaza. That's why things are as slow as they are. There's really only two cities in the world right now where it's possible to identify and reach political leadership of Hamas. One is Qatar. The other is Istanbul. And it is much, much harder in

Istanbul than it is in Qatar. And when the Qataris came out in public and said we are frustrated and they fundamentally said Hamas is an obstacle to an agreement. This is not something only the United States said last

week. Qatar said that. Even for the most militant wing, you have to have some access to funds, to technology. And I think for the most militant wing, that meant we are totally isolated. We're on our own. And they don't want that. Where does the Steinemeter stand at this point? Steinemeter. Gee, I still think that's going to be a tough issue. It's not going to be easy. And I think it's an important distinction worth making, Peter, because there's a political class in Israel, and then there's the military class.

The public has lost entire confidence in Netanyahu. We're talking about 70 or 80 percent of the Israeli public who want this man gone. They have lost trust in him. That's not true with respect to the military, and especially during wartime. So were the military to come down and say, we have no capacity to identify the most extreme wing of Hamas militants who would come back under this kind of plan, that could be an issue. Let's just talk briefly for one minute about a very closely related issue, which is aid to Palestinians,

which has seen significant movement, but not on the distribution network, right? And that's the same thing. You need trusted people on the ground. If you allow gas and back to northern gas Gaza, Palestinians back, they need food, they need medicine, they need construction equipment. Who are trusted intermediaries on the ground to deliver that kind of assistance? So this plan opens up all those questions. It's not a slam dunk. Or it's not a slam dunk by next Monday. It is a slam dunk. This

is where we're going. I have no doubt that this is where we're going. It's the timing. All right. Let's move away from the Middle East. Let's go to a quick situation on the Ukraine-Russia story. It's been an interesting last couple of weeks because we've seen Macron of France take off his dove-feathered peace hat and put on his war helmet, and he's talking like a hawk. Oh, wow. He's got some of his NATO allies worried that he's, you know, he's talking World War III here because he's suggested that French troops could go into Ukraine.

Now, is this just talk on Macron's part, or do you think he's serious? Because a couple of months ago, he was the peace negotiator. I have to say, Peter, if I were Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany, I would be climbing the wall with a best friend like this, is all I can say. You've put it well. This is a 180-degree turn. Macron started this by saying we can't isolate Putin

and had calls with him. And when he, Macron, couldn't deliver, we now get this 180 degree turn. I actually take him seriously, although I think what he's saying is very risky. But I take him seriously. And why? Because the French have had a preoccupation with strategic autonomy and European independence of the United States ever since Charles de Gaulle, who was snubbed, as you know, during wartime by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. This goes back all that way in French political culture. And he's really saying to the Europeans, to the Poles who are listening with very wide open ears, and the Lithuanians and the Nordics, the United States is not a reliable ally.

Look what's coming. Listen to Donald Trump. Listen to what he's saying. We Europeans need to get ready. We cannot count on the United States. This is a very old French song. Frankly, it's not new. It's you know, he's in the roof. And what does that mean now? We cannot let Russia win. So if necessary, we, the NATO members of Europe, will put troops into Russia. Now, the Germans are absolutely terrified, terrified at that thought. And I think it's actually a very risky strategy because for Putin, there's no question. This is the story he told before he invaded Ukraine, that Ukraine is just a proxy for NATO,

that NATO would push up against Ukraine, against Russia's borders, that NATO wants to weaken Russia. And were any NATO members to actually put forces on the ground, military forces on the ground, this would actually confirm for Putin

what he's been telling his own public and his allies. And you don't know what he'd do. He's an erratic leader. None of us expected him really to follow through on his invasion of Ukraine. He threatened obliquely the use of nuclear weapons multiple times and he actually stopped that

when Biden said no NATO forces on the ground in Russia, no US forces. So I think Russia, no U.S. forces. So I think Macron's playing with fire here. Well, the Italians, as well as the Germans, certainly seem to think he is the Italian saying this would lead to World War III. Yeah, it's a very, it's a very, it could lead to a very dangerous escalation. You know, when I make this argument, people say to me, oh, Putin's bluffing. He never used nuclear weapons. That makes no sense.

What would that get him? And Putin himself issued a statement just this last week in which he challenged the U.S. intelligence estimate that in October of 2022, there was a 50-50 chance. That's when you're talking about nuclear weapons. Yeah, it's random, but it's 50-50. So it means you don't know. It's just a roll of the dice. I said, oh, no, no, no, no, no. That estimate was wrong. I never intended to use nuclear weapons. I haven't needed to do that. I would only do it if the independence and the sovereignty of the Russian state were at stake. And he means, of course, an extended version of that. So nobody can predict what Vladimir Putin is going to do. I think that's where you start.

And so you're careful, which Biden has been. Very dangerous time to be rolling the dice or bluffing. Yeah, yeah, that's right. That's right. And that's why I think, you know, I call myself the French army has no capacity on its own to do this. So he would have to pull along with him other NATO members. You know, bluffing is very dangerous, but even more dangerous, I think, is actually doing it without the capacity to follow through. Has any other NATO country given any sense that they agree with this?

You know, the Poles, who are terrified of Vladimir Putin, just terrified, I think have a higher tolerance for the rhetoric. And there's historically a longstanding and good relationship between Poland and France, which again goes back to the World War. So this is history replaying itself, just a slightly different tonality. But it's history we all know. So I think they're happy that he's making the argument, but how big is the Polish army? You know, I would be paying more attention actually to the Finns

who really have a tough army and have invested for years out of NATO, have invested, and the Swedes. What are they saying? Because they're worried about Putin too. But ultimately, I think this would be a crazy gamble. A crazy gamble on the part of France. Okay, we're going to take our break and we'll come back and we're going to talk about Haiti.

Haiti again, as Canada appears to have made a decision, but who knows? That situation does not get better. It gets worse by the day. So we'll talk Haiti right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge, the Monday episode with Janice Stein from the Munk School, University of Toronto. We've dealt with Israel and Ukraine. We're now going to talk about Haiti.

You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform. Janice, why don't you kind of set the table for us in terms of giving us the 101 on the Haiti story. Give us some history here. You know, it's actually a very important story, Peter. Of course, it's important to Canadians because we have a large and very active Haitian community that lives in Montreal. And not only that, of course, this is our larger neighborhood. And we've historically always been interested in Haiti. We are going through probably the worst episode of violence today in Haiti that we've seen. It's described, and I think inaccurately, as gangs taking over

Haiti. So first of all, let's understand there are 200 gangs in Haiti. I prefer to call them, the big ones, armed paramilitary, armed militias. And if we go back in Haitian history, this is not new. You know, Haiti first comes to world attention almost 200 years ago when it is the first black community to revolt against France. And it is the first black republic created anywhere in the world. So in some sense, it's got a phenomenal history. But it experienced dictator after dictator after dictator. And what's the armed militia best known, I think, to Canadians?

It was under Baby Doc, who's a classic dictator, who exercised authority, terrorized Haitians with the Tonton Macoute. So it wasn't a regular army. It was paramilitary that would go into neighborhoods and use incredible violence with no accountability. Well, fast forward to 2024. We have 200 gangs, 20 of them in the capital, Port-au-Prince.

And there are some that are kids, teenagers. You know, 15 kids in a gang. Those are not the problem. There are some that are as large as 1,500 fully armed men that get paid weekly, have access to very good munitions. And there's one called, let me tell you just about two here that are, I think, the driving force. There's one called

the G9, which is run by somebody, I think. We've all heard his name. His official name is Jimmy Cherisez, but he's known as Barbecue Delighter. Now, I probably don't have to tell you anymore about what this gang does, right? Yeah.

And in the last two weeks when the president, the professor of Haiti, Henri, left to sign a deal with the Kenyans to send a thousand person police force, paramilitary force. And he was out of the country. Barbecue organized all the gangs in Port-au-Prince. And it's called Living Together. The alliance attacked government ministries, closed the port, attacked the prisons, and about 1,500 prisoners were released. So you can imagine the level of violence that is going on in Port-au-Prince and fundamentally stopped Henri from being able to come back. His plane was diverted. He's now in Puerto Rico. And interestingly enough, and this is what probably tipped it all over, the United States put pressure on Marie to resign. She did.

And there's no leader now. Now, he was never elected. Just for everybody to understand, we're not talking about some democratically elected leader here. He replaced the previous president who was assassinated. There's no leader right now. And we have this alliance in Port-au-Prince, which is saying, we want a voice in the political future of Haiti. Now, that's not what the members of the Caribbean community thought when they all met this past week. Anthony Blinken flew to the meeting,

Trudeau was present virtually, and they said they were going to set up a seven-person transition council that would represent civic leaders, religious leaders, business leaders, and these seven transition leaders, transition council, would run Haiti along with the Kenyan police force until they could hold elections. Well, that lasted for a day, right? By the way, we should know, Canadians should know, that we funded the Haitian police force. We sent armored vehicles. There are about 47 left to the Haitian police.

About half have been lost. The Americans have committed about $300 million, and we've committed another $60 million to fund both the Kenyans and the police forces. Well, what are the living together coalition say in response to that? No to the transition council. We want a voice because many of these leaders are in the pay of political parties. They're enforcers for political parties and big businesses. They're not freelancers.

And secondly, even more important, no to the Kenyan paramilitary force that will come in to the Kenyan soldiers. Why is that? Because they know there would be all-out shooting with the Kenyans who would come in. Kenyans are better armed. They would lose their access to the businesses and to the political parties. And let's not forget, Peter, they had a terrible experience. The last time the UN sent in a military force, two things, it raped women repeatedly. And we know that this is not allegations confirmed by the UN. And it started a cholera epidemic in Haiti.

We're at an impasse. Five of the seven transition council members have been chosen. Barbecue is saying, no way is this happening. And the Kenyans, and you can understand this, have said, we're not sending a force unless there's a government in place. So we're going to wait out the chances. All they need now is another earthquake in Haiti. You know, I mean, it just sounds like a really.

It's an idea. And, you know, Peter mean, it just sounds like a really… It's an idea. And you know, Peter, as I've watched this develop, and you and I talked about it in one of our What Are We Missing conversations, it's really interesting because we have about one and a half million people on the verge of starvation in Haiti. How much attention is the world paying to that? That's right in our backyard. It's as large, if not larger than the number of Palestinians in Gaza. The world's attention is focused on that, but right next door. We're not seeing aid coming in. We're not, you know, and so people will tell you the reason we're not paying attention, the last big effort was led by Bill Clinton, who put the weight of the U.S. government behind this and failed. But it really, it really is striking.

We've had incredible violence in the capital. We've had the splinters among the paramilitaries that we just talked about a few minutes ago that we see in Hamas. And so we understand how one civil order breaks down. Paramilitaries take over. This is a Somalia story, frankly. How long did that take, right, before a transitional government was put in place? A decade. A decade.

All right, last point on this before we wrap it up for today. You know, Canada has been there in big numbers in terms of both military support, guidance, and aid groups going into Haiti. Where are we on this now? Well, what we've done is we've done two things. We have provided aid to the Haitian police force. And as we're speaking, gun battles have opened up now between the Haitian police and the Living Together gangs and their gun battles in the streets. It is an open question how long the Haitian police can hold out, frankly, because the gangs are better armed,

and especially if they're now concerted and acting together. And then secondly, we've agreed to contribute to the funding of the Kenyan military that will come in, but only now if a transitional government is stood up. I think the largest role we're playing, Peter, is in supporting the civic leadership, which has come together. They met last week. They have parallel counterparts in Montreal who mobilize funding, who try to send as much financial assistance as they can, will clearly be in the forefront of any humanitarian operation if the opportunity opens up. But we're dealing in Haiti with exactly the same problem that we just finished talking about. Where's the distribution network? You can't supply humanitarian assistance if there's no security. Somebody has to secure it. And right now,

the only groups that are providing some caricature version of order are these paramilitaries that are organized. Now, for the first time, they're organized. They've stopped fighting each other, and they've turned against the government of Hong Kong and any proposal for a transitional council. Can you

imagine, Peter, any Canadian government authorizing aid to go in on the condition that this paramilitary coalition supervised the distribution on the ground? It's hard to believe, but something's got to happen. Canada's ruled out military once again. Yes, yes.

We've been there, done that, and it was a fail. It fails. And frankly, I have, you know, when in conversation with others, I've said I don't think that the Canadian military is the right instrument. It is far better to have Caribbean countries contribute, which some will, in conjunction with Kenyan senators, to have the Canadian military contribute. I don't think, I think we would fail, frankly. And the same position on the part of the Americans.

Yeah. For the same reasons. Yeah. Okay. We're going to leave it at that for this week, Janice, and we'll see where the stymometer is next week. I think we'll be talking about this story next week too, Peter. I think so. All right, Janice, and we'll see where the stynometer is next week. I think we'll be talking about this story next week too, Peter. I think so.

All right, Janice, thanks again. It's an education to talk to you every time. Thank you. You're welcome. And it really is. And I know it is for many of you as well, because you write in every week and say, more Janice. Give us more Janice.

We're lucky to get her for Monday. She's a busy person. She really is quite the energy bunny. That's for sure. Janice Stein with us again. That's going to wrap it up for the bridge for this day. A reminder, please, no more book entries. We're done. It's closed off. They will read the remaining letters that make it on air this Thursday. They're all in now and being

cataloged and et cetera, et cetera. And we'll have a final standings too on which author, you know, was cited more often than any others. We'll give you the top three. Let's say that. And we're also working on a way to try and put all the books on my website. It's trickier than it sounds, but we'll figure out a way to do that and so if you ever want to refer if you didn't catch some of the names when we were reading them and you haven't listened back to the podcast version of the bridge uh we'll put it on the way we'll try to put it on

the website and that'll probably be later this week sometime and when we're able to do that. So thanks so much for listening for today. We'll be back again tomorrow. Tomorrow we're going to do, you know, I promised, when was that? A month ago, six weeks ago, when Keith Bogue was with us, the former CBC Washington correspondent, former CBC's chief political correspondent. We're going to dip in and out throughout this year with Keith to get a sense of what's happening on the American election.

I mean, we have always lots of insight if you go to American political streams, but Keith is a student of American politics, loves studying it, loves talking about it, and we're lucky enough to have him with us tomorrow again to give us the latest update on where we are, what's happening, what should we be considering as we are watching. The Americans make, you know, I know this is an overused phrase, but perhaps the most important decision of their lives when the election is held later this year in the States. Okay, that's tomorrow's edition.

Wednesday, of course, is an encore edition. Thursday is your turn on the books and the Random Ranter. Friday, good talk with Chantel and Bruce. So, thanks for listening today. Talk to you again in 24 hours.