 Anyway, it was absolutely stimulating, I'm sure that we will have questions from the audience, so I open the question part of our session and I would urge the question to be as short and concise as possible and be directed to one of the panelists if it is possible. Who wants to take the floor? Yeah. My name is John Andrews. Thank you very much for very interesting interventions. In terms of the rivalry between China and the United States, I mean China I think now has more trading partner, I mean more countries take China as their main trading partner than do countries take the US as their main trading partner. So if we have this confrontation between the US and China at the political level and also at the economic level, is the world going to have to make a choice between China and the US? Or is there a way of avoiding that choice? In other words, are we on an inexorable pathway towards some kind of divided economic and trading world or can we somehow avoid what I think would be a rather damaging and unfortunate destination. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Perhaps I could ask Thomas to say a word on this very stimulating question and also Yushi Osoya if he wishes and you minister on this very, very stimulating again question. Very concisely Thomas. It is indeed a very difficult question for me but I think you have to try to answer by distinguishing the attitude of economic and business actors. And in my opinion the choice will be very different according to the sectors of activity, that is to say that there are sectors of activity that are at the heart of the confrontation between the US and others that are less. And for those who are at the heart of the confrontation between the US, I don't think particularly at the current core on the microprocessors. This is the first aspect, this is the second aspect for the US, I believe that everyone is trying to avoid precisely this choice. So there are elements of alliance that are accelerating here too. The last date is the announcement of Ocus. But most of the countries want precisely to avoid being trapped in this confrontation with the US. So I would answer by distinguishing the two levels. Thank you very much. You have the floor. This question is frequently asked to Korean companies, whether you choose this or that. But look at China. China has been a world factory for many, many years. Now it's changing because of high wages in China. Many firms are already leaving China to ASEAN and other countries. So for Korean firms, they are having different strategies. They want to use China as a big market in the future, not the production or assembly site. So I think they can actually readjust their destination. However, if the US want to have a decoupling by force or by strong argument, then Korean firms are having some trouble. Thank you very much indeed. Yushi, also a word on that question. Thank you very much. It's a great question. And I would say that majority of Asian countries are denying and rejecting such choices. Let me give you one example. Japan's single alliance is the United States. So we have to enhance our alliance relationship with the United States. But on the other hand, China is our biggest trading partner, not just that. Japan has provided the largest amount of money to China in 12 months. My Indian friend told me that the current powerful asset of China is part of the opposition. I wouldn't say that, but anyway, China is part of it. So this means that we need to create at least regional order or at least globalizing needs of China. At the same time, China needs some of the important rules. If China would not recognize rules and import Chinese rule of law, China would damage its own national interest. So I think that this is a majority voice in Asia, but it depends on how much China is willing to respect that rules and rule of law or international norms. And I'm optimistic more or less about Chinese behavior in the future. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. So it was really indeed a very important question. We will take another question. I would like to reserve at least six, I would say, something like seven minutes for each of us to have the last word, but in 60 seconds. The main conclusion. So we will have a question, but I want to terminate it in time. So a new question from the audience, if possible. Yeah, over there. Please. I have God knows how many iPhones. When I buy iPhones, who do I trade with China or the United States? So can somebody answer this question? These things are made in China, I believe, but they're American. What I'm trying to say is that when I buy something that is made that is made in China, but that is American, who am I trading with? I'm sorry. I'm not sure I got the question. My point is that they're so integrated that you can't separate them in many things. It is so profoundly intertwined that it would be very difficult to disentangle. Okay, got the message. We had another question there. Thank you, sir. I would like to address my question to the Minister of Finland, which I thought was very stimulating. What she was talking about was the need for global solidarity and global cooperation in the light of the pandemic. But what I can say is that the European states have been extremely egoistic in this particular field, and this is what we are. There is a great deal of inequality between the different countries, how they have provided the means to fight this pandemic. It was very unequal, and this is what we are very sorry about, the lack of global solidarity and the lack of global cooperation in this particular field. Thank you. Thank you. Can I say that you could address the same reproach to all advanced economies, not only, it seems to me, to the European economies. You know what? We will start, Mati, the conclusion session, starting with you. You have a question, and you also will conclude. That is a very good question. I really think that we need more solidarity when it comes to an affection delivery. But of course, all the countries, I mean, the developed ones have done their part, also the European Union, United States, so you cannot say that there was no solidarity. But more could have been done, but they also can understand the Ministers in European countries and developed countries. They have to answer to their citizens, they need the vaccines rapidly. But also answering partly to the question of iPhones where they are produced, I mean, that really shows us how interdependent we are. The vaccines going also to developing countries, they benefit the developed ones because of the global value chains, because of the raw materials. So that sense, we really are on the same boat. And I hope that now when we are, I hope rather soon facing the end of this pandemic that we have also learned from this, that more solidarity also is needed because it helps everyone, also your own country. Thank you so much, Marie. We see 60 seconds for your final message, please. Well, thank you very much indeed. Actually, around 70% of iPhones come from Japan, Japanese ones. So it also tells that there is a great deal of growth in this globalized world. And maybe we have to wait for the current friendly international atmosphere to make the product of the iPhone possible. Thank you very much indeed. Thomas, 60 seconds. Carlo, who shows the utopia of liberation of the time, and 25 years later, the term of capitalism of surveillance used by Sochan Azuboff, who shows how this utopia evaporated. I would like to invite you to ask yourself very precisely about the extraction of data, which will be the trend that will continue to grow. The modelization will pass mainly through there. And the role, therefore, between these systemic platforms, public authorities and individuals. Thank you very much. Marc Taéo, you have the floor. 60 seconds. I would like to introduce the situation in Geneva surrounding WTO. Multilateral agreement is almost impossible. So they are arguing that maybe plural lateral agreement among like-minded countries should be formed. And some people also oppose their approach because it's not very good for the WTO system. But yesterday or the day before yesterday, Brazilian ambassador argued that if you want to have a choice, fragmentation with the plural lateral agreement or irrelevance. This will simplify the situation at the WTO right now. If you choose fragmentation rather than irrelevance for the future of WTO. Very well made. Thank you very much. Bertrand, what do you say? Yes, I think my point will be very simple. We have agreed six years ago on a global roadmap for the 21st century. A global roadmap for the inclusive, sustainable and resilient economy, the sustainable development goals, the agreement on financing for development and the climate agreement. It's impossible to withdraw an agreement today. So let's stick to what we have. It's not perfect. It's very difficult to handle. But it's been signed by everybody. So it's time to be serious about it. I think we have all the pieces of the puzzle. We never had that much money available. We never had that much technology available. We have all the institutions. We need to reinvent the G20, et cetera. They do exist. We have to make them work. It's easier said than done, obviously. And so we have to make the puzzle work. And let me conclude with two quotes, which basically I like. What I think is important today. One is from a French writer from the 1930s. Not very well known, but actually my daughter had to read it this summer for Baccalaureate. Jean Giraudoux. Jean Giraudoux wrote a theater play in 1935 called The War of Troy Will Not Happen, which of course was the anticipation to the Second World War. The discussion between Odysseus and Hector. And of course, they see the catastrophe coming. And they see the privilege, the grandeur of the rich and powerful, is to believe they can watch the catastrophe from the balcony. And as we very well know, when the catastrophe happened, the balcony collapsed as well. So I think we are the balcony, and we see these things coming. We have hopes, and we have to make it work. It's our particular responsibility in this room. And my last quote is from Theodore Roosevelt, which I rediscovered in the U.S. when I visited Montrashmore. I didn't know he was the fourth guy on the Montrashmore between Lincoln, Jefferson, and Washington. And Theodore Roosevelt, who is known for the dispensing of the conglomerates, the creation of a consumer protection agency, the National Park, et cetera, was accused of being revolutionary. And he said, I'm not advocating revolution, I'm advocating action to prevent revolution. And I think this is precisely where we are today. Thank you. Thank you very much for your quotations. Masoud, what would you say? I just want to make one point, which is that if you take the next 30 years, in almost every field, no global solution will be possible unless a large number of emerging market and developing countries are part of that solution. Because that is where the growth is happening. That is where emissions will increase. That is where populations are growing. And the systems that we have to integrate them into the decision-making process do not reflect that. So we have to really find better ways of integrating those economies into the decision-making process. And we have to be more realistic in the promises we make because we are very good on targets and promises, very poor on delivery. And that's why you see in so many areas we make promises. And if the last thing I say is, if you were to say what is one of the real costs of the COVID crisis, it is a breakdown of trust. Many people in developing countries have lost trust in the functioning of the current multilateral international system because the promises that were made are not being delivered either in finance or in access to vaccines. And I do feel that we have to write that to redress that balance to be able to move forward to address the other issues. Thank you very much indeed, Masoud. I would nevertheless, if you permit, mention the fact that thanks to globalization we have many, many, many millions, billions of citizens that went out of poverty. So the benefit, the bounties we know exist. But inequalities, abnormal behavior of the rich against vis-à-vis the poor are of course at stake as you saw eloquently made the point. Let me myself have a quotation for Noam Chomsky. And Noam Chomsky said, no sane person is opposed to globalization. That is international integration. Surely not the left and the worker movements which were founded on the principle of international solidarity. That's of course a contradiction, but of course good globalization, good global governance. Their sharing of the bounties are absolutely at stake at a global level between countries and within countries. Thank you very, very much indeed. I think we had a very stimulating session and now we have to turn to the next session. All the best.