0:00

The latest episode of the Next 5 podcast

0:02

is all about the oceans. I speak

0:04

to environmental advocate Céline Cousteau.

0:07

There's about 8 million tons of plastic

0:09

waste that ends up in our oceans. Karine

0:11

Biasson at the EIB.

0:13

The ocean economy was projected to increase

0:15

to $3 trillion in 2030. And

0:18

Miguel Stilwell-Dandrara, CEO

0:21

of EDP. Global installed offshore

0:23

wind capacity should reach around 600 gigawatts

0:26

by 2050. Listen to the full episode wherever

0:28

you get your podcasts. Enjoy.

0:34

Hello and welcome to the Rachman Review. I'm

0:37

Gideon Rachman, Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator

0:39

of the Financial Times. This

0:42

week's podcast is about America's use

0:44

of economic and financial sanctions in

0:46

Gaza, Ukraine and around the world.

0:50

My guest is Wally Adeyemo, the

0:52

Deputy US Treasury Secretary. So

0:55

do financial sanctions work? Or

0:57

are they a tool that will eventually backfire

1:00

on the United States?

1:04

Gaza cloaked in black smoke

1:06

for yet another day as Israel's

1:09

airstrikes and ground invasion show

1:11

no signs of slowing.

1:13

Tanks line the border. Events in Gaza

1:15

and Israel have dominated the news for the

1:17

last three weeks. They've also swamped

1:20

the agendas of policymakers all over

1:22

the world. It's not just

1:24

the diplomats and national security specialists

1:27

who are getting involved. It's also

1:29

finance ministries and economists. That's

1:32

because these days international conflicts

1:35

are also about financial flows and

1:37

economic sanctions.

1:39

The dollar is the world's most used currency

1:42

and that gives the US Treasury Department

1:44

unique power when it comes to economic

1:46

statecraft and sanctions. When

1:49

Russia attacked Ukraine

1:51

in 2022, the US and its allies swiftly

1:54

rolled out sweeping economic sanctions and

1:56

also froze Russian state assets in

1:58

the West.

1:59

Now, America is also trying

2:02

to coordinate the economic isolation

2:04

of Hamas. There

2:06

are critics, however, who believe that America is

2:09

overusing financial sanctions, and

2:11

that it will eventually undermine faith in

2:13

the dollar. I discussed that issue

2:15

with Wally Adeyemo, as well as the efforts

2:17

to keep money flowing to Ukraine and

2:20

to tighten the isolation of Russia. But

2:23

we began our conversation by talking about Hamas.

2:26

What is America and the U.S. Treasury Department

2:29

trying to accomplish? The truth is

2:31

that over the last several decades,

2:33

the United States, working closely with our

2:35

allies and partners around the world, namely

2:38

the UK, the European Union, and

2:40

a number of countries in the region, have put

2:42

in place a set of financial sanctions against

2:44

terrorist groups more than a thousand to date

2:47

just in the United States. That's why I'm here

2:49

in the UK to talk to my counterparts

2:51

about what we can do together around stepping

2:54

up the number of sanctions and restrictive measures

2:56

we put up against an organization like

2:58

Hamas, building an international coalition

3:01

to make sure that Hamas has nowhere to hide its

3:03

funds around the world, and

3:05

then finally working very closely with financial

3:07

institutions and also digital asset

3:10

providers to both restrict

3:13

Hamas's ability to get access to funds, but

3:15

also to permit humanitarian

3:17

assistance, namely financial assistance, to

3:20

be able to get to the people in Gaza. One

3:22

of the things we have to always remember is that Hamas

3:25

is not the Palestinian people. In many

3:27

ways, they've held the Palestinian people

3:29

hostage for many years, and we need to

3:31

make sure they're able to get access to the humanitarian

3:33

assistance they need. And that's part of the message

3:36

that we're talking about while we're here in Europe over the next

3:38

few days.

3:39

How easy or difficult is it to make

3:41

that distinction, though, because Hamas controls

3:44

that territory, and the Israelis, and

3:46

that's why they're blocking the aid, because

3:49

they say it'll all go into

3:51

the hands of Hamas.

3:52

So in the same way that Hamas is using

3:54

the Palestinian people and the civilians there

3:57

as human shields, they also use oftentimes...

4:00

times, charitable organizations

4:02

has ways to try and funnel money. But

4:04

we found that you can do both. You can

4:06

both restrict Hamas's ability to get

4:08

access to funds, at the same time

4:10

allowing legitimate humanitarian

4:13

assistance to get through. It takes work. It

4:15

takes coordination. It takes a degree

4:17

of precision. But we've been able to do

4:19

it over the years and we think we can continue to do it.

4:22

We've made it clear that it's important that

4:24

as Israel considers what they do in

4:26

Gaza, they learn from the lessons that we learned

4:28

from 9-11. Since 9-11, we've

4:31

been using these financial sanctions as

4:33

a means to go after terrorists, but

4:35

also others who try to abuse the financial system.

4:38

And we found ways to do that while also allowing

4:41

legitimate humanitarian assistance to flow.

4:43

I mean, isn't this a bit late? Hamas has

4:46

obviously somehow built up enormous

4:48

resources to spend on rockets to spend

4:50

on some of them. Did the West

4:53

take its eye off the board? No. As

4:55

I mentioned, we have more than a thousand

4:58

sanctions against Hamas. And what we know

5:00

about Hamas and all these terrorist groups is that

5:02

as we take actions against them, they

5:04

evolve and we have to evolve as well. And

5:07

the thing about war, the thing about these

5:09

types of fights is that they cost a great

5:12

deal of money. And our goal has to be

5:14

to cut off the money that Hamas has or

5:16

that they're attempting to raise so

5:18

they can't pay their fighters, they can't buy the materials

5:21

they need to conduct the war. What we

5:23

saw immediately after their heinous attack

5:25

against the State of Israel was Hamas went on a fundraising

5:28

campaign to try and get those who

5:30

support them internationally to provide them with resources

5:33

to support what they hope will be a long

5:35

struggle. What we're doing now

5:37

is cutting off their ability to access those funds

5:39

and access the funds they may have stored up. And

5:42

in many ways, they're using the same tools that

5:44

the Kremlin has tried to use to try and

5:46

get access to the resources they're using to fight

5:48

their war in Ukraine. And

5:50

we're going to use the same efforts to go after Hamas

5:53

that we've been using to go after the Kremlin's

5:55

resources globally as well. Yeah, I want to talk

5:58

about the Russia bit in a second, but just the last

7:43

the

8:00

terrorists, cyber criminals,

8:02

or others often need money. Financing

8:05

is at the core of what they need. So

8:07

we use our tools to be able

8:09

to cut them off, but also to be

8:11

able to think through how we can use economic incentives

8:13

to support countries. And I know you want to get to

8:15

Ukraine, but when you think about what we're doing there, Treasury

8:18

is working closely with their allies and partners to provide

8:21

Ukraine with the financial resources they need

8:23

to make sure that they don't run out of money before they run

8:25

out of bullets. But at the same time, we're

8:27

using restrictive measures, namely

8:30

sanctions and export controls, to

8:32

slow down Russia's ability to be able to build the weapons

8:34

they want to fight the war that they need. So in

8:37

many ways, the Treasury Secretary, myself,

8:39

we sit as part of the team of people who are

8:41

thinking through the national security challenges and

8:43

how we can use both our tools,

8:46

be they financial resources, but also some

8:48

of our restrictive tools when it comes

8:50

to the national security challenges that we face

8:52

in the United States. You mentioned restrictive

8:54

tools. I mean, obviously when Russia invaded

8:57

an enormous package of sanctions,

8:59

probably unprecedented was rolled out very fast.

9:02

And a lot of people thought at the time that

9:04

it would have a pretty devastating impact on

9:06

the Russian economy. Have they weathered them rather

9:08

better than you thought they would or hoped

9:11

they would? I think the Russian economy has weathered

9:14

the sanctions that we've put in place far

9:16

differently than I think people expected. I

9:18

think part of this has been that what

9:20

Russia has done now is they have turned their

9:22

economy into a war economy where

9:25

all the tools of their economy are

9:27

focused on producing the weapons they can

9:30

to fight the war they want in

9:32

Ukraine. And they've borrowed in lots

9:34

of ways from their future to finance their

9:36

present. You look at what's happened with their sovereign wealth fund,

9:38

which has decreased significantly. You

9:41

look at how they've thought about supporting

9:43

their domestic economy using reserves.

9:46

And where they are today is that Russia's

9:48

economy continues to grow,

9:50

but at the cost of its future ability

9:53

to produce things for

9:55

its people. And they've

9:57

seen the significant brain drain that has left

9:59

them. in a position where over time

10:01

Russia's economy is going to be less flexible,

10:04

less adaptable, and they're going to be more disconnected

10:07

from the world. But I guess one thing that

10:09

people did think might happen was when

10:11

they were cut off from SWIFT, that they

10:13

would really be cut off from the global financial system.

10:16

And that turned out not to be true, yeah? I think the

10:18

reality is that Russia wasn't cut off from

10:20

SWIFT. Some Russian financial institutions

10:22

were. And it's important for people to realize

10:24

that the pieces of the strategy

10:27

that we were implementing at the Treasury were

10:29

against two key objectives. One

10:32

was to reduce the revenues the Kremlin had

10:34

to fight its war of aggression. Two

10:36

was to make it harder for Russia to build

10:39

up a military-industrialized complex that it

10:41

could use to fight the war in Ukraine. Judging

10:43

against those two objectives, we think we've seen

10:45

a great deal of success. And part of the reason we

10:47

think that we've seen a great deal of success

10:49

is Russian officials have said we have. You look

10:52

at the statements that the finance minister and

10:54

the central bank governor have made. They

10:56

have talked about how our restrictions

10:58

have put pressure on the economy. We

11:00

also know that the Kremlin

11:02

has ordered their security services

11:05

to look for ways to get around

11:07

our export controls and sanctions

11:09

when it comes to building up their military-industrialized complex.

11:12

So I think a key thing for us is you

11:15

need objectives when you are dealing

11:17

with these tools. And ours has been around

11:19

two things, reducing the revenues, which we've done

11:21

a great deal, both using tools like

11:24

the price cap, which reduce the revenues they earn

11:26

from energy, but also using tools

11:28

like export controls, which have made it hard for them to

11:30

get access to the microelectronics

11:32

and some of the other things they need to build weapons in

11:35

Russia. And so the only way around it,

11:37

as you say, for them has been to go to

11:39

a war economy, but also to

11:41

build up their relations with the areas

11:43

we call the Global South. And how much does that provide

11:46

an alternative network for them, really? Yeah, and I think we should

11:48

define what you mean by the Global South. It isn't

11:50

as if they're getting this from a number of countries in

11:52

Africa or Latin America. Russia's

11:55

trading partners now, where they're trying to get these

11:58

tools or places like North Yeah, and

12:00

Iran. These economies are economies

12:02

that have been heavily sanctioned. They're limited

12:04

economies. And Russia is also

12:06

getting a number of things from China as

12:09

well. And I think what we've done is we've spoken

12:11

to officials in China who we've made very

12:13

clear that, and they've made very clear,

12:15

they don't want to provide Russia with things

12:17

that will further their ability to attack

12:20

Ukraine. And we're continuing to take steps

12:23

to make sure that we're limiting more and more Russia's

12:25

ability to get those materials going forward. But

12:27

they have very limited avenues to get the things

12:30

that they need for their economy at large,

12:32

let alone their war economy. But in terms of revenue,

12:35

I mean, the fact that, for example, India remains

12:37

a big buyer of Russian oil, that's really important to

12:39

them, yeah? It is very important. Oil is

12:41

the biggest revenue source for the

12:44

Russian economy. And over the course

12:46

of the last year, the United States

12:48

and our allies and partners implemented a price

12:51

cap on Russian oil that used G7 services.

12:54

The price cap reduced Russia's revenues over that

12:56

time period by somewhere between 40 and And

13:00

what Russia did was they decided

13:02

they were going to build their own ecosystem outside

13:04

of the G7. They were going to buy tankers.

13:07

They were going to build an ecosystem for trading. And

13:09

this cost them money. They were spending money

13:11

on tankers rather than on tanks, to

13:14

be frank. And by one

13:16

outside estimate, the cost of having

13:18

to get outside of G7 services to

13:20

find new buyers was up to $35 per barrel of oil.

13:24

So as we go into the second phase to think about

13:26

what we can do to reduce the amount of money the Kremlin

13:29

has, we're focused on what we can do to increase

13:31

the cost for Russia in terms of shipping oil.

13:34

How can we increase the cost of buying

13:36

ships? How can we increase the cost of

13:38

providing insurance and financing for Russia

13:40

outside of the G7 in order to make sure

13:42

that Russia ultimately is getting less

13:44

profits from its

13:45

oil that the Kremlin can use to fight a tour

13:48

of aggression in Ukraine? Yeah, I mean, you

13:50

also mentioned earlier the other side of the equation,

13:52

which is getting money to Ukraine.

13:55

And it's no secret there's debate

13:57

in Congress about whether that will go through.

13:59

And as people think about

14:02

that, there's also increasing

14:04

debate about possibly using

14:06

some of those Russian assets that were frozen

14:08

at the beginning, the one just handing them over to Ukraine.

14:11

I know the Canadians seem to be quite positive about that. What's

14:14

kind of the US thinking on it? I think I'll speak to

14:16

both of the things you raised, and I think the presidents

14:18

made clear, and I think a majority of members

14:21

of Congress have made clear that the United States plans to

14:23

continue to support Ukraine. And

14:25

we have supported them over the last few years in a bipartisan

14:28

way to provide them with the resources they need

14:30

to make sure that they don't run out of money before they run

14:32

out of weapons. But we've also provided them with

14:34

weapons that they've used to defend themselves, and

14:37

we expect to continue to do that going forward.

14:40

G7 leaders have made very clear that

14:42

Russia is not getting access to its sovereign

14:44

assets until it pays for the damage

14:46

it's caused in Ukraine. Ultimately,

14:49

the damage in Ukraine that

14:51

has been done has been so great that it's going

14:53

to likely cost more than even the sovereign

14:55

assets that are currently frozen

14:58

by the G7 and our allies

15:00

and partners. What we need

15:02

to do and what we are doing is making sure that we identify

15:05

where those assets are, which is being done

15:07

by the repo task force, and that we

15:09

know how we could access them in

15:11

order to ensure that they

15:14

are placed in a position where ultimately

15:16

they will not get to Russia until

15:19

Ukraine has the resources they need to rebuild themselves.

15:22

This might be a stupid question, but

15:24

surely to freeze them you have to know where they were

15:26

in the first place. So one of the things we

15:28

did was when we put out the order to do this,

15:31

oftentimes Russian assets may have been in

15:33

central banks, but they could have been in private institutions as

15:35

well. So a major part of what we've been

15:37

doing over the last year is identifying exactly

15:40

where within our countries these assets

15:42

have been to ensure that we know exactly

15:44

where they are. We knew going in that

15:46

they had about $300 billion of assets

15:49

outside of Russia, but exactly in what

15:52

financial institutions, in what systems

15:54

they are located in was a question that we didn't

15:56

have full transparency within the G7-2. We

15:59

have more of that transparency.

15:59

today than we did at that point. Right.

16:02

I mean, you make the point that at some point,

16:05

it may have to be used for the rebuilding of Ukraine.

16:08

But the Ukrainians need money now. And

16:11

there are people saying, look,

16:12

can you just have money after the Ukrainians now?

16:15

Is that a possibility? Is that something that's even

16:17

being debated now actively in government?

16:19

So I think you were right. The Ukrainians need

16:22

financing now. And I think what we're committed

16:24

to doing is providing them with the financing they

16:26

need now. That's part of the request. The

16:28

president put up in a supplemental bill that covers

16:30

both Ukraine, Israel and

16:33

Taiwan. But in addition to needing money

16:35

now, Ukraine needs to rebuild

16:37

its economy. It needs to rebuild its country in

16:40

order to make sure that it remains not just a democracy,

16:42

but a vibrant economy as well. So we're

16:45

focused on both things, thinking through how

16:47

we provide them with the resources they need right now.

16:49

And we're looking to Congress to work

16:52

with us to do that in the United States. But

16:54

the global community is also doing that, working with the

16:56

IMF, but also thinking through what the

16:58

long-term rebuilding of Ukraine looks like.

17:01

We've made clear that those assets that

17:03

have been frozen by these countries

17:05

will not be available to Russia until

17:07

it compensates Ukraine for the damage that it's

17:09

done. Yeah. And what's your assessment

17:12

of

17:13

Ukraine's finances? Because obviously people

17:15

are concerned now that as a presidential

17:17

election a year away, if there were a

17:20

change in direction in US or Western

17:22

policy, they're cooked really, aren't

17:24

they? It's very, very reliant on

17:26

Western financing. I think

17:28

it's important to remember that the West is

17:30

broader than this in the United States. We've clearly played

17:32

a leadership role, but you have to recognize

17:35

that the European Union has played a big

17:37

role as well. They've approved $50 billion

17:39

that will help support Ukraine's budget

17:42

over the long-term. But the reason

17:44

that we're doing this is not only because

17:47

it's in our self-interest, but because we

17:49

know that standing up for Ukraine means that

17:51

we're standing up for our values. And

17:54

my sense now is that we have a

17:56

commitment across the G7 and

17:58

broader to continue that for Ukraine

18:01

and our goal now has to be what

18:03

can we do to help Ukraine

18:05

win in this moment. In order to do

18:07

that, we've got to do the two things that we've been doing

18:09

today, which is providing them resources for not

18:12

only budget support, but also for their

18:14

military in order to make sure that their military

18:16

has the weapons they need to defend themselves.

18:19

We're doing that in the United States. We're doing it across the

18:22

G7 and I expect us to continue doing that

18:24

over the course of the next year.

18:26

There's always been some concern that if you keep

18:29

doing this, sanctioning

18:29

Russia, sanctioning

18:32

Iran, not financial

18:34

sanctions on China, but other forms, that

18:37

at some point the world's

18:39

going to get worried about using the dollar, about

18:41

buying US Treasuries because they'll say, well,

18:44

you know, what if we upset the Americans?

18:46

Could they maybe freeze our assets?

18:48

Is that something you have to bear in mind or would you just

18:51

take it for granted that the US will remain

18:53

the safe haven currency? I don't think we take

18:55

anything for granted in the United States. I think that

18:57

when the president was elected, one

18:59

of the things that he was focused on was how

19:02

do we make a set of investments in the United

19:04

States that would keep the American economy

19:07

competitive, but also attract more

19:09

indirect investment. So I think we are

19:11

very focused on the issues of how

19:13

does the American economy remain dynamic and

19:16

one in which countries want to invest. And

19:18

that I think is the key to ensuring

19:21

that the dollar remains dominant. But we do

19:23

also know that we want to be able to use these

19:26

restrictive tools in a way

19:28

that is efficient, effective, and

19:30

also reasonable. And when we came into

19:32

office, Secretary Yellen asked me to conduct a review

19:34

of sanctions policy since the attacks

19:37

of 9-11 till 2021. So

19:40

a 20-year review. And in that review,

19:42

I spoke with all of my counterparts throughout

19:45

not only the G7, but in Asia

19:48

and in Latin America and Africa and talked to a

19:50

number of experts. And we

19:52

took that information and used it to think about

19:54

how we use sanctions going forward. And

19:56

that review was very helpful to us as we thought

19:58

about what we would do with regard to Russia. What

20:01

you've seen here is you've seen us build a multilateral

20:03

coalition. At the president's urging, but also

20:05

because of what we learned in the sanctions review,

20:08

that when you act in a multilateral way, it

20:10

has a greater economic effect, but it also

20:12

sends a broader political signal. It also

20:14

means that it's not just the dollar acting. In

20:16

Russia's case, you've seen the

20:19

countries that control the world's largest

20:22

reserve currencies taken action against

20:24

them, leaving Russia with nowhere to go.

20:26

That's exactly what we want to do to Hamas and other

20:29

actors. So acting multilaterally is

20:31

one way for us to make sure that what we're doing

20:33

retails an actor, but also demonstrates

20:36

a degree of reasonableness. We want to make sure

20:38

that any sanctions we put in place are

20:40

as tactical and strategic as possible, and

20:43

this includes making sure that we create humanitarian

20:45

exceptions. We drove an effort at the UN

20:47

to create a humanitarian exception to

20:50

UN sanctions that we also implemented

20:52

within our sanctions regime as well. And

20:54

then finally, we want to make sure that any action

20:57

we take is backed by rigorous

20:59

economic analysis

21:00

to make sure that we're thinking through the collateral

21:03

damage and minimizing that as much as possible.

21:05

We're not only the United States, but our

21:07

allies and partners. You look at what we've done

21:09

with regard to Russia, Ukraine, we always create

21:11

an exception for energy and for agriculture

21:14

because we didn't want countries

21:16

in Latin America or Africa to

21:19

feel additional pain due

21:22

to the sanctions we're putting in place. What actually

21:24

happened was that Russia's attacking of

21:27

grain in Ukraine and their weaponizing

21:29

of energy led to higher prices, but

21:31

we tried as hard as possible to make sure that

21:33

our sanctions were curtailed in a way that didn't cause

21:35

those types of issues. Yeah. And it's now

21:38

become a very explicit goal of both Russian and

21:40

Chinese policy to reduce the road of the donor

21:42

in the global system. How are they

21:44

doing? You tell me, but

21:46

not well. And I think part of the reason that they're

21:48

not doing well is because you have to look

21:51

at the alternatives and the countries

21:53

that hold the world's convertible

21:55

currencies today have joined us in many of the

21:58

actions that we've taken. Remember, Remember

22:00

that the actions we've taken against Russia were not

22:02

only done by the G7. More than 30 countries

22:05

took actions against Russia, representing

22:07

more than 50% of the global economy. While

22:10

China's economy is big, China does

22:12

not allow their currency to be convertible,

22:15

and Russia's economy is getting smaller by

22:17

the day and less flexible by the day. Fundamentally,

22:20

our view is that the reason that people

22:22

continue to use the dollar is because of

22:24

the investments we make in the US economy, like

22:27

the Bush Reduction Act, like the investments

22:29

we've made in infrastructure, like the Chips

22:31

and Science Act. As long as we continue

22:34

to take actions that help to grow

22:36

the US economy and to make it a destination

22:38

for foreign direct investment, we feel confident

22:40

in the idea that people are going to continue

22:42

to want to invest in our country

22:45

and to use the dollar. Although

22:47

there are those who say that long-term

22:49

America is on an unsustainable path,

22:52

and I was at a conference in Riyadh last

22:54

week and saw your former colleague

22:56

from BlackRock, Larry Fink, and he came up with

22:58

a very startling statistic. He said in 2000, the

23:01

US total debt was $8 trillion,

23:03

and it's now $1 trillion, I think $33 trillion

23:06

or $4 trillion. Is that sustainable?

23:09

So I do think that you have to ask

23:10

the questions about what we're doing with the money that we

23:12

borrow and how are we investing it. And

23:14

ultimately, are those investments leading to

23:17

increased productivity, making the US economy

23:19

more competitive? And I'd say my argument

23:21

would be that the things that we've done over the last two

23:23

years have done that. And that's why

23:26

today, when I travel in Europe

23:29

or in any part of the world, when I talk to CEOs

23:32

or I talk to sovereign wealth funds, the question they're

23:34

asking is, how do I get more access

23:36

to the US economy? But I do think that we need

23:38

to think about fiscal sustainability

23:41

in the medium term. That's why the president

23:43

has focused on this idea of talking about

23:46

the need for us to increase revenues

23:48

by $3 trillion over the next 10 years. We

23:51

are focused on the idea that we can do both

23:54

in terms of make strategic targeted

23:56

investments in the US economy while also

23:58

putting ourselves on a... sustainable fiscal

24:01

path, which is important. But I

24:03

think the thing that I would point out, and I think the thing that

24:05

Larry would agree with, is the

24:07

US has the capacity to do this. We have

24:09

the capacity to raise enough revenues

24:12

to reduce costs enough to make

24:14

sure that our fiscal path is sustainable. The

24:16

President's announced a plan. He has a policy

24:18

approach to doing this. The hope is that

24:21

on the other side, he will have partners who

24:23

are interested in engaging in this discussion.

24:25

But today, what you've seen is that instead

24:28

of plans on the other side that look

24:30

at fiscal sustainability over time, that

24:32

includes what we do on the revenue side, they've

24:35

looked to simply do cuts that

24:37

speak to a very small sliver

24:39

of our overall budget. So the key

24:41

question now is really, when do

24:43

we take some of the steps the President

24:46

has outlined? He's ready to have that discussion,

24:48

ready to implement that. And I expect that as

24:50

he puts out his budget for next year, it'll include

24:52

a number of these policies that would put us

24:54

on a path to fiscal sustainability over time.

24:57

But it's important to remember that the investments we're making

25:00

are making the US economy more competitive in

25:02

the near term. That was Wally

25:04

Adeyemo, the Deputy US Treasury Secretary,

25:06

ending this edition of the Rachman Review. Please

25:10

join me again next week, when I'm pretty

25:12

sure we'll be returning to the subject of Gaza

25:14

and the Middle East and looking at the fighting,

25:17

the suffering and the wider regional

25:19

context.

25:29

Bellingcat, we do investigations

25:31

slightly differently here. When we

25:33

tell you a story, we don't just share

25:35

the information, we show you how

25:37

we did it and then teach you our methods.

25:40

We believe that everyone should know how to investigate.

25:43

We're a collective, a community of individuals

25:46

using open source techniques to uncover the

25:48

biggest stories, from war trustees

25:51

to financial crime. Find

25:53

out what we're all about at bellingcat.com,

25:56

the home of online investigation.