 Thank you very much to all four of you, actually and also for keeping to your time limit, which means that we have plenty of time for conversation both among ourselves and with the audience, I think. I wanted to start by asking you all a question, taking advantage of the chair's privilege here. I think that among the four of you, you've identified two important sources of the crisis of the world economy or of multilateralism more generally. Kamal focused on the fact that in some sense the multilateralism that we experienced in the aftermath of World War II in half of the last decades was a multilateralism of the rich and powerful, not a multilateralism that benefited all, both within the major countries and in the world more generally. The irony, of course, is that the principal source at the immediate stage of the crisis is the apparent retreat from or we might say attack on multilateralism by the richest and most powerful country in the world, the United States. So I think that both of these positions are accurate. That is that there is a problem in the multilateral order and in the international economic order more generally in that it's seen as having served the interests of the rich and powerful. On the one hand, as Kamal has pointed out, and the other related problem in some sense is that the United States seems to be moving away from its many decades commitment to multilateralism. And I have a very simple question and an easy one to answer, which is what should we do about that? Whether we think of it from the standpoint of the United States, those of us who are in the U.S., what kinds of alternatives can be proposed, what kinds of solutions can be suggested to help salvage the American commitment to multilateralism. And then more broadly, for those of you who think about the rest of the world, how might the rest of the world respond? So you sort of suggested the possibility of what I might think of as a coalition of the willing leaving the United States out of a new multilateral order. That seems like a possibility. It seems like it is a possibility as we are finding in the Iranian situation that has grave difficulties. But I'd like to hear how you think the world or individual countries within it might respond to this crisis. Sakang, why don't you lead off? I don't think any international community level endeavor should leave U.S. out. With U.S. leaders and politicians to join in and so without U.S., at least for next, if you look out next five years, U.S. will be the most powerful and most influential country in the world in any way. And China's second largest economy, but as I indicated, not yet ready in my view and not yet willing to fill the camp left by the U.S. So when we were 2008, the global financial crisis among leaders had shared the sense of less not waste crisis sort of thing. So they got together and they achieved much and saved the world economy only to the level of great recession rather than great depression. So now this is the time, again, we need to make such an effort. But because of the leg of leadership except by the most important, the influential countries, so I think G20, somehow should be resuscitated again by, I cannot expect the U.S. to take that rule. So like minded middle power countries should do something. Well, that is a potential way forward. Can all your thoughts on this? Yeah, I agree that multilateralism, potent multilateralism, efficient multilateralism cannot be achieved without the U.S. For all kinds of traditional reasons, the size of the U.S., in terms of military strength, it still is way above anybody else. In terms of economy, it's more or less equal now with China. But I think leaving it out and trying to aim at the multilateralism without the U.S. is not an avenue that one can follow. Actually, amazingly, and nobody has talked about it, the World Bank has achieved the capital increase on the Trump's U.S. when it was unable to do that for a decade. So it's a very, very funny kind of situation. But the other point again I wanted to make is that we are on the cusp of a technological revolution where the U.S. is again leading. China is also quite strong in it. But it's a kind of technological revolution which five years from now, when we sit somewhere in the World Policy Conference, we will say all this could happen in five, how could it happen in five years? I think it's a huge change. One example, a computer used to already beat human chess, having learned from the experience of other chess games. But now you can teach just the rules of chess to a computer. And within four hours, it learns itself the game and beats humans. I mean, that is the kind of thing we're in for. And that's where a new multilateralism is really needed. Because when you look at one or other in genetic engineering, for example, you cannot have a world without some kind of order with this kind of technology. So again, that's another reason why we need the U.S. in that world because having that order without the U.S. won't work. It strikes me, though, that our past experience implies, I think, that these new technologies typically do have a distributional effect as you've alluded to. That is not one of democratizing access to economic activity. So I don't see the technological innovations that you're talking about resolving this problem of multilateralism. That was my last point in my first intervention. In fact, the challenges, the technologies are there. They're coming. We can't change it. They will accelerate and they will change the whole productive sphere in the world. How to regulate them in such a way that there is a semblance of equity and balance in this new world of new technologies I think is the biggest challenge that humanity faces today. Mark, with giving your pessimism, perhaps realism about American policy, where do you see things going and where do you think the alternatives may lie? Well, the simple, facile response would be get rid of Trump. The problem is that the default position within the Democratic Party in the United States is one of anti-globalization. So simply replacing Trump with a Democrat doesn't solve the problem. What has to happen is there has to be a rebuilding of a bipartisan coalition in favor of open trade in the United States. I think that would have basically two elements to it. The first would be the traditional, non-populist conservative elements in the Republican Party aligned with business. And it's worth recalling that Vice President Pence was in favor of NAFTA, was in favor of TPP, supported the WTO, and so on. So there still is a traditional pro-business part of the Republican Party that would support open trade. On the Democratic side, there seem to be two elements of a potential pro-trade coalition. The first is simply to observe that cities tend to be more open to international trade than the rest of the country in the United States. If you think of a state like Washington City, like Seattle, very open to international trade. So you have elements of the Democratic Party for regional or sectional reasons are still pro-trade. But the second thing, and I realize my opening intervention was pretty pessimistic, the thing that gives me optimism is that if you look at public opinion polling data, the most pro-globalization, most cosmopolitan part of American society are the young. They are much more open to the rest of the world than their elders. Even those young people who supported Bernie Sanders in the primaries, supported him because of authenticity and free college education. They supported him not because of his anti-globalization, anti-trade policy stances, trade agreement stances. They supported him in spite of it. So I think there is hope for political renewal in the United States that would generate a coalition much more supportive of open trade than we have today. But that's not going to happen overnight. That's going to take real political work. Okay. That's a bit of optimism. You have a similarly optimistic view on the international level with respect to potential cooperation either between China and the U.S. or between China and other middle powers, perhaps. Yeah. I will say China is the one for beneficiary of international cooperation. Just, you know, in the opening session, Prime Minister Corriwa mentioned China made a great achievement in reduction of poverty. But the funny thing is a while ago in China some corners still some voice against the globalization. They don't feel happy. They feel China will take advantage by following them. But now, the funny thing is due to the escalation of trade war, these voices disappear. We have some concerns. We think international order or international cooperation fundamentally is beneficiary both to China and to the rest of the world. I guess that's also critically important for outside, for the rest of the world to understand what the situation now China is facing. I guess Chinese governments will try very hard to promote the international cooperation or even in some sense I will say they try hard to turn pressure outside the pressure into motivation to carry economic reform internally.