Huawei's founder Ren Zhengfei sat down for an interview with CNN. The following is the full transcript (Mr. Ren's parts were translated from Huawei's recording of the interview):
Ren Zhengfei: Be straightforward and ask any questions you want. I will be very frank in my answers, including with any of your trickier questions. Don't worry. I like how frank Americans are. You aren't afraid to ask any question you want. I was a fan of the US when I was young. Today, I still believe the US is a great nation. Your advanced institutions, flexible innovation mechanisms, clearly-defined property rights, and respect and protection of individual rights have attracted the world's best talent to invest and innovate in the US. Billions of people have participated in this process. Without your openness, you wouldn't have been able to develop into the world's strongest power in just over 200 years.
Q1: Well, thank you so much, Mr. Ren, for sitting down with us. And the fact that you're sitting down with us, I think it's interesting. I'll be honest, I don't think six months ago maybe this interview would have happened. So why have you decided to speak more publicly now?
Ren: I've always been a pretty open person, actually, but I like to focus on internal management more than external publicity. I really get US culture, and many of our company's management systems were inspired by those in the US.
We engage with the media a lot these days. Our PR department feels this is a particularly important time for us, and because of my personal influence, they have asked me to take a more active role in communicating with the media, and maybe have some impact on global audiences. So it's understandable for me to interact more with the media these days.
Q2: Understood. This is the first time that you've spoken since Huawei sued the United States government for blocking Huawei's access, Huawei's products for use in federal agencies. But if the United States clearly feels that Huawei products are a national security threat, does the United States not have a legitimate right to protect its own interests?
Ren: Huawei has tried to keep a low profile, and we were always like a "silent lamb". No matter what others said, we always stayed silent and didn't refute what was said. When we expanded into overseas markets, some people said we were communists. Then, when we returned to China, other people said we were capitalists, because we were sharing our profits with our employees and many of our employees had high incomes. We don't know whether we are communists or capitalists, and we don't waste time trying to explain who we are. Instead, we spend our time improving our internal management and providing better products and services, so that customers will understand and accept us.
The US began attacking us more than 10 years ago; they didn't just start doing this recently. This is because they are suspicious of us. As I have just mentioned, when we began to expand into overseas markets, they believed that we were communists. So they began attacking us, but we remained silent. Recently, however, they started resorting to legal means to attack us. We now think it is necessary for us to clarify some things. Otherwise, misperceptions about us would only grow. We have prepared for months, and we want to make our voice heard.
The US says we are a threat to its national security; they should provide evidence. The whole world is currently talking about cyber security. How has Huawei become the only target? Are Ericson, Cisco, and Nokia free of cyber security issues? There is virtually no Huawei equipment deployed in the US. Does this mean the US has no security issues? If it does, then the US can persuade other countries not to use Huawei equipment. However, the truth is that US networks are still unsecure without Huawei. We feel it is now time for us to clarify this issue, and that's why we have sued the US government. Our lawsuit challenges the US's law. The US follows the principle of separation of powers, but they impose a ban on us without a trial. They are violating the very law they made. We don't know whether we will succeed or not, but we will challenge the US on a broader front. Let's see whether they have evidence or we have problems.
Q3: Right. And I want to get into your arguments on this a little bit later. But just speaking specifically about this lawsuit, why now? Because you are facing a series of legal challenges in the United States. Does it not put at risk or make more complicated your ability to perhaps influence getting your daughter back or hurt your standing to actually resolve your issues in the United States by filing this lawsuit?
Ren: We chose this timing because the act is scheduled to take effect in August. Now is the time for us to set the record straight. As for the legal challenges you mentioned, we have indeed seen many lawsuits involving Huawei in recent years. They happen from time to time. We believe our current legal action and the openness and transparency of the US legal system will help resolve these issues.
Q4: Right. Do you feel like you have very little left to lose by filing this lawsuit now, given your standing currently with the United States government?
Ren: No. We still hope to provide services to the American people. The US has the world's most advanced technologies, so we hope to work more closely with US companies to contribute even more to the information society and all humanity. It's not the case that Huawei has no opportunity to work with US companies. I still see a lot of opportunities out there. But there will always be setbacks. That said, these setbacks will not impact our consideration of the US market in the future.
We need to set the record straight on each issue one by one.
Q5: Right. I understand what you're saying about the timing of the lawsuit, but I can't help but notice the timing of the lawsuit being filed during the National People's Congress. We know this is an incredibly important time for the government. They don't like being upstaged during the National People's Congress. And yet, after your very public announcement, government officials were not only not upset, but they rushed to support it. So my question is: was there any coordination in the rollout plan of this lawsuit with the Beijing government?
Ren: The timing of the lawsuit and the case in Canada was not planned. After we set the date for when the lawsuit would be filed, we decided not to invite any Chinese media outlets to the press conference, primarily to avoid diverting media attention from the session of the National People's Congress. This is a domestic event of utmost importance, far more important than ours. After foreign media reports on our press conference were massively reposted by Chinese media, government officials expressed their positions. We hadn't known this and hadn't discussed our plan with the government. We chose to resort to legal means to address our issues with the US.
Q6: Can you see or understand, though, why people might be suspicious? I mean, this is the most important time of the year for the Communist Party. Not only were they not upset, the government official, about your announcement, but they publically supported it. The timing of this just feels unusual to me.
Ren: This may have been a coincidence. We didn't want to spark a huge reaction in China, so we didn't invite any Chinese media outlets to attend our press conference. We didn't want any media coverage in China. However, media coverage outside China ended up reaching China, and had some impact. We are aware that the Chinese government has been making some important decisions during a recent session of the National People's Congress.
We feel that the Chinese government has started to fully understand Huawei. We are telling western countries that we can sign no-backdoor and no-spy agreements with them. The Chinese government has said that they can sign this type of agreement, too.
At the recent Munich Security Conference, Yang Jiechi, a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee and Director of the Office of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the CPC Central Committee, said that the Chinese government always requires Chinese firms to abide by international rules and laws and regulations of the country where they operate, and that China has no law requiring companies to install backdoors or collect foreign intelligence. This is an official announcement made by the Chinese government to the world.
This is also the message implied by the Chinese government to us that we can sign a no-backdoor and no-spy agreement if a country requires us to do so. If a country wants to sign such an agreement with the Chinese government to ensure that Chinese companies never install backdoors or collect intelligence, we would like to push for the signing of such agreements. As a company, we already made it clear to the world that we can sign no-spy agreements, and that we have not and will never implant backdoors.
We think the Chinese government has gradually understood the difficult situations Huawei is in. The US has always been suspicious of Huawei, as they think we are communists, and they are scared that we would steal their data. We have never done that kind of thing, not even once, over our 30-year history.
Given the current delicate situation, the Chinese government has made it clear that it will never require companies to do things like this. Therefore, we can also confidently tell all countries in the world that we can sign no-backdoor agreements. If any countries have doubts, we can invite the Chinese government to be present at the signing ceremony, to endorse Huawei's position of not implanting backdoors.
The public announcement made by one of China's senior officials at the Munich Security Conference I mentioned just now is a clear indication of the Chinese government's stance. We already told foreign governments and companies that Huawei would never do things like that. But the backdoor issue has become pretty serious now. Foreign companies will not believe us if we just tell them our stance and the Chinese government does not clarify its stance. Since the Chinese government made its stance very clear at the Munich Security Conference, it is very important for us to clarify that Huawei is a secure company.
Q7: The irony of you using the United States legal system to counterattack, if you will, the U.S. government to make your case and yet your counterparts, American counterparts, Google, Facebook, et cetera, all blocked in mainland China, do not have the same ability to use the Chinese legal system to make their case for access to China. What do you make of that?
Ren: Personally, I have been calling for our counterparts like Google and Amazon to enter the Chinese market, because I think this would benefit China. But that's just my personal opinion. When I talk about this with others, I always support the entry of these companies into the Chinese market. As I just mentioned, I think this would benefit China.
China's Internet is chaotic, and there are no clear boundaries regarding what we can and cannot talk about on the Internet. However, that is not the case in other countries, where there are effective mechanisms in place to manage the Internet. If such companies and China can reach an agreement on the legal front, I firmly support their entry into the Chinese market.
Currently, China's manufacturing sector is open to the outside world. Perhaps in the future, when establishing wholly foreign-owned enterprises in China, approval from the Chinese government will not be required. But government approval will still be required for joint ventures.
In the past, if foreign companies wanted to operate in China, they had to establish joint ventures with Chinese companies. Now, foreign companies can set up their own business in China.
I hope that the Chinese government can open the Internet sector to the rest of the world, just like they did in the manufacturing sector. I am open to this idea and fully support it. However, I cannot speak on behalf of the Chinese government. These are just my own comments.
Q8: Right. Understood. Should the opportunity arise, would you ever go to the United States to support your case, or would you be afraid to go to the United States right now?
Ren: I am not an expert in law, so I don't think it would make much difference if I went to the US. We have little presence in the US market. I don't think there is any value for me to visit the US. It is more appropriate to leave the situation to our legal counsel.
Q9: Would you be nervous, though, to go to the United States? If you decided to go, would that make you nervous?
Ren: I have never thought of going to the US, so there is nothing to be nervous about.
Q10: Fair enough. I want to move to President Trump. He recently tweeted, as he often does, about 5G technology in this particular case. The president said in part, ''I want the US to win through competition and not by blocking out currently more advanced technologies''. He's talking about Huawei there, right?
Ren: I don't know who he was referring to. And I don't know if it's a good idea for the President to lead his country through tweets. Maybe that's an American style of doing things. Presidents should think carefully about what they say, and their words need to be reviewed by a certain institution.
But the US is a free country, and the US President has the freedom of speech like any other citizen. Does what he says represent the law? Does what he says really count? I don't know the answers to these questions.
He was talking about opening the 5G market to more advanced technologies. There are many companies around the world that can deploy 5G. Advanced technologies do not necessarily indicate Huawei. The US does not necessarily need to use Huawei's products. If the US does open its 5G market, we also need to consider many factors, such as the bidding costs and environmental barriers.
Q11: If President Trump was sitting in this chair instead of me, and you had five minutes with him, what would you tell him?
Ren: I would tell him that he is great. No other country in the world can cut taxes in such a short period of time. Lower tax rates help attract and boost investments, create economic prosperity, and build leaner governments.
President Trump set a good example for the Chinese government, and the Chinese government has now cut taxes by three percent. I think with his tax cuts, President Trump is pushing all governments to cut taxes. When taxes are cut, governments will need to downsize their scale. This will ease the burden on public finance, and drive economic development.
Also, when a country moves towards rule of law, you can't manage it with bureaucracy. There's no need for so many administrative staff. That only creates a heavy burden for the general public. That's why I say he has set a good example.
But, I think the US might have taken the wrong approach. If they continue intimidating other countries and companies, and randomly detaining people, it's going to scare off investors. And then how are they going to make up for lost tax revenue?
If no one is willing to invest, and the US cannot fill the gap caused by tax cuts, the US government would have to cut their expenditures.
China began cutting its taxes three or four decades ago. Back then, the corporate tax rate was 55%, but the rate was much lower for foreign-funded companies, at only 15%. Foreign-funded companies were also offered other preferential policies. They were exempted from taxes during their first two years and only had to pay half tax from their third to fifth year in China.
From the very outset, foreign-funded enterprises didn't believe the Chinese government would implement this policy. When they did, foreign investments flooded into China. This contributed to China's current prosperity.
So I think President Trump needs to be more open-minded to investments from all companies, and be more tolerant of the world. This will encourage more investments, and bring one hundred years of prosperity to the US.
I don't think the next US president will change the low tax laws. Instead, he or she may shake hands and make friends with all countries and companies around the world. These countries will then believe the US to be a trustworthy country, and they will invest in the US. This will bring prosperity to the US.
The US has a solid foundation. Tax cuts will very likely deliver more than 100 years of prosperity to the US. Heavy taxes are not conducive to industry development.
Q12: So, you're saying President Trump is a great president, at least in certain regards. However, his government clearly views your company as a security threat. It was just this week that the United States told Germany that if Germany would install Huawei products, the United States would limit intelligence sharing. So what do you say to that? What's your response?
Ren: Well, I was not commenting from the perspective of my personal feelings or company interests. I look beyond company interests, my personal feelings, and my family crisis when I say that the tax cut policy of President Trump will potentially give the US a hundred-year edge. But this might not happen while the Trump administration is in power. No one will dare to invest in the US if they just threaten other countries, companies, or individuals. This is because investing in the US would mean getting stuck there.
It's unclear what issues we may face because of what the US is saying to other countries. It doesn't matter much. If a country doesn't buy our products, we can still sell to other countries, and we might scale our business down a little bit. Huawei is not a public company, so we are not worried about the balance sheet. If a public company's balance sheet reports losses, their share prices might plummet, putting the company on the brink of collapse. Unlike a public company, Huawei can still survive by cutting our headcount and expenditure. That is the advantage of not taking Huawei public.
Q13: Yeah. And I understand your argument there. And I understand that you consistently deny the U.S. claims that you allow the Chinese government to have access to your products. But clearly, that's not convincing the United States. You're in a climate right now where you've got the Vice President and the U.S. Secretary of State all going around the world basically saying to these countries, ''If you work with Huawei, your relationship with the United States will get worse.'' If they continue that, does that not threaten the existence of your company?
Ren: Again putting aside my personal interests, family crisis, and company interests, I have always believed that the US is a great nation. Its advanced institutions, innovation mechanisms, and innovation powerhouses will lead to its long-term prosperity as a nation. The US has remained the absolute leader in technology over the past several decades, and will remain so in the coming decades. Our commitment to learning from the US will not change. It will not change just because of the hardships I am personally facing.
You might ask if this will happen to China. I think it's possible. Over the past 5,000 years, China's biggest weakness has been its closed-door policy. This explains why our country did not enjoy real prosperity until the 1980s. It began to prosper after Deng Xiaoping implemented the reform and opening-up policy [in the 1980s]. If the US government closes itself off, the country will be left behind and overtaken by others.
I don't think my personal interests are that important. When I consider the relationship between China and the US, and between Huawei and the US, I'm actually thinking about my aspiration, rather than about sales. If money were important to me, then why would I have such a low portion of company shares in Huawei? Money isn't important to me. I am more focused on my aspiration, which is to contribute to humanity. How? Imagine if Huawei were a public company; we would not go to do business in underdeveloped and war-torn countries, in malaria-infected regions, or in the Himalayas. Doing business in these places isn't profitable at all. But we are still doing it, because this is how we can serve humanity. This is our aspiration. We are not going to harbor anti-American sentiments just because the US government has conflicts of interest with us.
Q14: Just to be clear, you're not worried about the solvency and the profitability of your company moving forward?
Ren: We are not worried about Huawei's survival. Our sales revenue grew by 35.8% year-on-year in January and February 2019. In fact, we think we will see very strong growth this year, and may even need to take steps to control that growth.
We must learn from Apple by setting higher prices so that all of our competitors will be able to survive. We will not try to squeeze the market by lowering our prices. In spite of all the pressure we are currently under, we still sell our products and solutions at high prices to maintain good order in the market.
Huawei's survival as a company isn't a concern right now. We have become what we are today without expanding in the US market. We may become larger and stronger if the US realizes one day that Huawei is a friend and lets us enter their market.We do not believe that our survival is at risk. If the US does not allow US companies to sell components to Huawei, it will only hurt those US companies. Huawei is the third largest buyer of chips in the world. Without us, the financial reports of many US companies will worsen, resulting in huge fluctuations in the stock market. On our end though, if these companies aren't selling components to Huawei, we still have other options. This also wouldn't affect Huawei's survival.
Huawei is actually the poorest tech company in the world. However, we reinvest more than any other company in order to realize our ideals and create a better future. Huawei ranks among the top five companies worldwide in terms of R&D investment. In the past, our investment in R&D focused more on innovations in engineering technology, and we are now a leader in engineering technology. Now we place more emphasis on theoretical innovation, making large-scale strategic investments for a better future 10 or even 20 years from now. We are investing in many domains including mathematics, physics, chemistry, cranial nerves, and brain science. We will become even more competitive over the next 10 to 20 years.
We want to enhance collaboration with the US and achieve shared success in the world. We aren't trying to edge out US companies. For example, our ARM-based CPUs are more advanced than Intel's x86 CPU, but we have decided not to sell our CPUs on the open market to ensure x86's market share. We don't want to cause US companies to collapse. We mainly use our ARM-based CPUs on our own equipment.
Huawei is now a top three player in terms of AI chipsets, and could enter top two quite soon. But we don't sell AI chipsets on the open market. Instead, we only use them on our own equipment. We don't compete with US companies in this domain. Huawei's survival is not in question.
Disrupting the natural flow of technology from the US to China will only cause losses to US companies. It will be a huge loss for US companies if they miss out on the Chinese market, which serves 1.3 billion people. This would very quickly be reflected in their financial statements. Huawei does not care too much about our financial statements, because we are not a public company, and we don't have to worry about what the outside world says about us. If there is a time when our financial statements don't look good, our employees will know that's because we have invested a lot into our "soil", which will help us grow a larger harvest in a few years. So they are not worried about our financial statements.
Q15: Sure. And I understand all of that. And I totally get that. I want to move on, though. You've said that you have never been told by the Chinese government to compromise your security in any way. But what if that changes? Because we know how strong and powerful the Communist Party is. And if they come to you and say you need to install a backdoor on your cell phones moving forward, how can you actually say no to that?
Ren: A top government official has already stated, at the Munich Security Conference, that the Chinese government does not require companies to install backdoors. I have also just mentioned that our company can sign no-backdoor and no-spy agreements. We can also invite the Chinese government to express their stance during the signing of these agreements. If we still receive such requests after all of this, I would rather shut the company down and I, personally, would no longer want this company. I don't want to make gains from doing such things. The most important thing is to maintain peace and stability in the world, not create trouble. I would never accept any requests to install backdoors.
Over the past three decades, we have never received such requests. I can make it clear today that if we receive such requests in the future, we will categorically refuse them.
Q16: So, you say you would shut the company down, but Mr. Ren, with all due respect, how do I buy that? You would destroy the livelihoods of 180,000 employees. You could face personal legal jeopardy yourself. Would you do all that just to make a stand on principle?
Ren: Our global sales are worth hundreds of billions of US dollars, so we would never do anything, for example, installing backdoors, to jeopardize this in the first place, as this would cause more than 170 countries and regions to lose trust in us. If we took such orders, we would lose our business and our 180,000 employees would lose their livelihoods. So whether you believe it or not, we promise that we will never do such things as this would prove that we couldn't be trusted. Our customers would then stop buying our products and our company and our 180,000 employees would be unable to survive. Our employees can only survive if we don't do these things.
Personally, I don't worry about my safety. I'm old and I don't have many years left. Chinese law is humane and guarantees adequate living conditions for senior officials and executives. And even if I went to jail, the conditions would not be as harsh as in some other cells. In addition, all dinners there are free, so this isn't a problem for me, and I'm not worried about it at all.
Q17: Right. Understood. A couple – just two more questions before we go have some tea. Beyond the security threat, the United States also accuses Huawei of stealing intellectual property including from companies like T-Mobile. Can you say, unequivocally here and now, that Huawei never steals intellectual property?
Ren: Yes, we can assure you that. Huawei has immense respect for intellectual property, and isn't out to steal it from others. Regarding the pending lawsuit, we need to have faith in the court, which I believe will come to a just conclusion. I'm not the person who can give you any more insight on this.
Huawei holds more than 90,000 patents. This is a massive contribution to digital platforms around the world. More than 11,500 of our core patents were granted in the US, all of which are essential patents for information technologies. Our rights in the US are protected by the US law. We've put a lot of work into these technologies, and we've done so as a contribution to mankind. Of course, we've had some conflicts and setbacks along the way. We hope to solve these issues through the open, just, and fair judgment of the court. We will respect the court's final ruling.
Q18: If the United States government was open to the possibility, would you negotiate for greater access to the United States? And if you would be willing to negotiate with the U.S. government, what would you be willing to put on the table and offer from your side?
Ren: If the US government is willing to talk, it's already a positive sign of progress. For years, we have been struggling to find an opening to communicate with the US government. Unlike some companies that have tons of people lobbying the US congress or government in their favor, we can only rely on our own actions to prove ourselves. If the US is open to talking, we would be very happy to accept the offer. However, we won't consider entering the US market in the near future.
Q19: Last question from me before we go downstairs for tea. You say that your company is not a security threat. The United States government says it is, and they're effectively calling you a liar. Does that not make you angry?
Ren: No, it doesn't make me angry. The US government has to think it over. We have tens of thousands of patents, which have contributed significantly to the information society. These patents also have tremendous value for US companies. US industries have been using our patents without even knowing it. If the law grants us more rights, we'll be in a stronger position in the US. We have only established patent cross-licensing agreements with Apple, Qualcomm, Ericsson, Nokia, and Samsung within a certain scope. Other large companies have not obtained a license to use our intellectual property.
Additional questions and answers:
Q1: Just to continue that conversation, as a father, I know that you believe that this is going to end well for your daughter, but (04:25)….
Ren: I was really shocked by what happened with my daughter. How come it happened to her? But I've managed to stay calm. With her situation we can only take things as they come. We have to believe that the legal systems in the US and Canada are open and transparent. They need to put all the facts and evidence on the table, and that's the only way we can prove whether there's a problem or not. We believe that Meng Wanzhou won't have any big problems, so we aren't worried much about it. But it's a shame. She's a professional, and she won't be able to come to work for a long time. Since ancient times heroes have been born of hardship, cuts and bruises will toughen her up. This period of hardship isn't necessarily a bad thing for her. I think it will only make her stronger.
Q2: I understand, this must be tough time for you personally, but I know that you had difficult childhood, so how does the time that you're going through now compared to the hardship that you faced when you were young?
Ren: I think life has always been difficult. Things have never really gone smoothly. When I was young, we were poor and were in an adverse political situation. I had to work very hard to get any work opportunities. I worked so hard and didn't have time to take care of my children. Later there were opportunities in front of me, but if I didn't keep working hard we wouldn't have seen any results. So I have never been able to take care of my children in the way I would have liked to. Technically my youngest daughter is in a better environment, but even so we don't have too much time to spend together, and we aren't very close. So things have always been hard. When I was young things were hard. They're hard now too. So I don't think the current situation stands out as particularly difficult for me.
Q3: Did you take any lesson from your childhood? I mean you spoke quite strongly about the influence of your family on your life, did you take any lesson that they taught you?
Ren: Parents definitely have an impact on their children. Our situation growing up wasn't great, so as much as we could, we tried to do more and talk less. After my wife and I had been married for a long time, someone asked her who was the more talkative one, me or her? She said that she's the one that talks more. She doesn't think I'm talkative. Why do I keep to myself so much? That's because when I was a kid I witnessed all the hardships my parents went through. So in school I buried myself in my books, doing math and physics problems. When I entered the workforce, I devoted myself to learning different systems and management models. I paid little attention to social and political issues. This has shaped my character, and also because of my character, I wasn't the type to play around with my children, play hide-and-seek and things like that. My wife scolded me just the other day. She said my daughter wanted a top when she was a kid. Just a two-euro thing. But I didn't get her one. Now that I'm able to buy one, she doesn't want it anymore.
Q4: I'm struck by your positivity here, because I think most people if looking at your current situation, they'd expect you to be perhaps not so happy, and not as effusive in your praise for the United States. How are you able to separate the very real challenge that your company is facing right now while maintaining this kind of positive attitude?
Ren: We expect great growth in the future. To do that, we need to learn from the best of all things. If not, how can we do better ourselves? The US has a lot of great things, which we have to admit. When I visited the US back in 1992, I said that it didn't achieve its wealth and prosperity through plunder. The US made its money from advanced technology. It was an even trade. That was my position towards the US back in 1992, and today my attitude is not negative. If the US is willing to work with us, we can make an even greater contribution to mankind.
They mentioned they want to develop 6G. It's good. We can work together with the US for better 6G. It's no problem. I'm not the type to quibble over little gains and losses. If I were a narrow-minded person, Huawei wouldn't be where it's at today. The philosophy that brought us here, I learned it from the US actually. The philosophy of how to be open.
Q5: What are you most excited about the future of Huawei? Of all these things that's going on, 5G and servers, all these different things, what aspect of your future that you're most excited about?
Ren: Today what makes me the most excited is the pressure we're getting from the US. After 30 years of development, we see laziness among the team, a tendency to decline. Many middle and senior managers have made enough money and aren't willing to work hard anymore.
A famous person once said that the easiest way to bring down a fortress is from within and the easiest way to reinforce it is from outside. Our fortress has let its guard down, and complacency has kicked in. But pressure from the US has forced us to be united and stick together. We're united as one now, and we're determined to make better products. This has eased the burden on me personally, because our people are working harder than ever before. They're out there clamoring louder than I am, so I can relax a bit and have more time to speak highly of the US.
I hope they won't develop any anti-US sentiment. We don't want any of our employees to harbor negative or narrow-minded feelings against the US. And we're against populism too, because in the end that only makes you fall behind. We need to learn from US progress and openness. That way we can become more advanced too.
Q6: So you're actually saying that what's happening to your company right now is a good thing.