 I'm going to try to answer the question that I understood, which is how do you evaluate the situation in function of all the hiccups we're seeing towards globalization? I think every business leader, particularly when you're doing a product like the car, and while you're dealing with mobility, because we know that this is something which is going to continue to grow no matter what happens in the next 20 to 30 years, we have a double responsibility. We have a responsibility on the short term and we have a responsibility on the long term. So I'm going to tell you why it's important because without any doubt globalization is facing hiccups on the short term and this is something we cannot be indifferent to. We have to particularly look very attentively to what's the situation, what are the risks, how we adapt to the risks. This is short term. Then you have to look and analyze what's going to happen on the long term. Long term is 10 years plus. That's what I'm talking about. Frankly, I consider that there is fundamentally a trend of globalization which is not going to stop for the long term. It's not going to stop. There are 1500 reasons for which it's not going to stop. We may debate on this, but on the short term we have to recognize there are going to be hiccups and we are facing these hiccups and we cannot ignore the hiccups because if we ignore the hiccups that means you're not preparing yourself to this. I'm going to give you two or three examples. So far they did not turn into tragedy, but they can turn into a tragedy, particularly a tragedy for companies who didn't prepare for that. The first hiccup was when President Trump said, I don't want NAFTA. I want to renegotiate NAFTA. This was the first hiccup. This was the rule for all industry for the last 20 years and all of a sudden the main economic power was saying I don't recognize this agreement. I want to renegotiate this agreement. So this is a big hiccup. You can't ignore it because you have investments in Mexico, you have investments in the United States, you have investments in Canada. You have organized the trade in function of existing treaties and all of a sudden somebody says, the most powerful one say, I don't recognize it. So you have to start preparing about, okay, what are the different scenario that would happen? This ends up in a certain way positively because we have today an agreement and now we have a new treaty and this gives us stability probably for the next 10 to 20 years. You have a second one which is Brexit, total uncertainty. Nobody knows exactly where Brexit is going to end up. I don't think I can say I don't care. It's not going to affect me. It's going to affect us. I mean, objective is going to affect you. The way at the end of the day the UK is going to establish relationship with Europe is going to have an impact if you are established in the UK or if you're not established in the UK because no matter what, this is a large market. This is part of Europe. It's a very serious issue. The trade relationship between China and the United States, well, it's going to end up. All of this you can't ignore. All of this represent bumps into the evolution of globalization. I don't think this is a threat on the long term for globalization because of so much advantages and things that globalization bring for everybody, but I think we have to take it seriously. I mean, we have to take it seriously and make sure that in every single bump, you have different scenarios where you're not caught by surprise. So now you're operating on a number of theatres of operation to use the military strategic concept, but I also understand that you do not try to operate on all the virtual, the possible, the potential theatres of operation. And in particular, if I am not mistaken, you have chosen China as a main theatre of operation, but not the United States. That's a strategic choice, of course. Can you explain that a little bit further? Yes, but you have to be careful because in the Alliance, you have three companies. You have Renault, you have Nissan and Mitsubishi, and the beauty of the Alliance is you don't have to pursue the same strategic goals. That means for Nissan, United States is the prime market, China is the prime market. For Mitsubishi, Southeast of Asia is the prime market, Japan is the prime market, the Middle East is the prime market. For Renault, the primary market is Europe, Renault is very strong in South America, Renault is very strong in Africa. This is the number one brand in Africa. So that's why I cannot talk only about Renault because you're going to say, oh, how can you ignore the US market? Nobody's ignoring the US market, but the beauty of the Alliance is you don't have to pursue the same target. You have every company pursuing one particular geographical hub, and then the three companies together are pursuing the global market. So the Renault is not ignoring the United States. Renault is focusing now in China after establishing itself as the leading car maker in Russia, and having established also an offensive strategy in India, but it leaving the United States for the moment because it has to concentrate on China, and one day or the other, maybe, if it makes a lot of sense, Renault will go to the United States. So I don't think we can summarize our strategy by limiting ourselves to one company. You have to understand what each company is doing to understand how the Alliance is approaching the global market. So how does this kind of flexibility help you or protects you against the Trumps, Dictats, or more generally within the framework of the China-US dispute? Look, I don't think against political bumps. It can help us. I don't think so, but I think what it helps us is the fact that when we are different companies and we have different cultures and we have different strengths and we have different weaknesses, it allows us to, in a certain way, to avoid blind spots and it allows us in a certain way to make sure that we are concentrating and applying in a certain way, breakthrough in different ways. The French and the Japanese are very different. They have different cultures, they have different understanding of the world and in a certain way, there are strengths in the French culture, there are strengths in the Japanese culture and they're not the same. And that's the beauty of the Alliance is when you are facing a situation which is unknown, whatever this situation is, a political situation, or when you are facing a technology which is unknown where you don't know exactly what's going to lead you, the fact of having different cultures looking at the same phenomena with different eyes, well, you have much more opportunities and much more, in a certain way, chances to get to the right answer. That's the way we're looking at it. I don't think you're going to avoid the risk, but in front of the risk, you're probably going to get a much better answer than if you were looking at it with only one different angle. So I'm limiting myself when I say Renault is a French company, it's not only a French company, it's a French company with a global reach. Nissan is not only a Japanese company, it's a Japanese company with a global reach, so you have Chinese, American, you know, Russian, Indians inside. But what's important is also the culture of origin of a company which is going to stay with it for a very long time. Well, I will ask the same question from a different angle. Today, the German automotive industries feel threatened, in particular threatened by Donald Trump on the trade disputes. So would you say that you are much less vulnerable than the German automotive industry? How would you compare the two situations? Well, again, you have the immediate threat, the short-term threat and the long-term threat. I think the geopolitical issues are not long-term threat. In my opinion, they are short-term threat. They are short-term threat. The risk of a trade war between Europe and the United States, I mean, it's mainly a short-term threat. The risk of a trade war between China and the United States, I think it's a short-term threat. I mean, I don't think we can imagine a situation where 10, 15 years, 20 years down the road, you're going to continue to be into this situation because frankly, it's not in the interest of anyone of the parties. So we see much more on a short-term threat. And it's true today that our colleagues from Germany are finding themselves in a perfect storm because the Chinese-US war translates into difficulty for the Germans. And the risk between Europe and the United States is mainly a risk for the German because the French car makers are not established in the United States. So in a certain way, I mean, we have absolutely no stake into this battle. I'm talking for the car industry. There may be other stakes. But this doesn't mean that this is going to give us a competitive advantage or something like this because frankly, I don't think it's going to be long-term. I think it's going to be short-term. Because fundamentally, I don't think anybody has a long-term advantage into maintaining this situation. Coming back to the first subject about globalization because from an industry angle, there is a lot of misperceptions about globalization. And one of the biggest misperceptions is the fact that people think that global companies like globalization. They don't. And I'm going to tell you why. Because when we look at, and I'm going to tell you why we don't like globalization because globalization is tough on whoever produces. Globalization is tough on whoever works. Why? Because you are competing against everybody everywhere. There is, I mean, life is obviously much easier if you have less competition or if you have no competition at all. This is usually where you can gain market share easily, where you can make money much easily if you are alone in the market or you are against some local competition or a weak competition. And when you look at car makers profitability, usually car makers' profitability is in a certain way higher in protected market. It's obvious. So in a certain way, even though we think and we support globalization because it opened a lot of market for us, globalization is very demanding on whoever produces. And globalization is at the benefit of whoever consumes. This is the way it goes. So putting walls on globalization, raising protectionism, it's going to be on detriment of the consumer and to the benefit of the producer in a certain way. That's the way it goes. So, and the risk is that at the end of the day, the limitation on globalization is going to end up being paid by the public and the consumers in all the markets of the world. It's not only emerging market is going to pay the price of it. Public in-developed market are going to be the price of it through inflation and no access to their latest technology, etc. And it's going to make life easier for the workers and the producers and the companies because in a certain way, when you have to compete with less companies and when you have less product competing against you, it's much easier, except it's much easier, but in a certain way, it's not sustainable because even if you can get benefit on the short term, at a certain point in time, the walls are going to crumble and people are going to ask for more competitiveness, more access to product and technologies. And if you have fallen to the illusion that you're going to be able to be profitable and live and grow easily, you're going to pay a high price for it. I mean, I have a great example in Brazil where we have been complaining for a very long time. Brazil has a lot of still protectionist walls and we were complaining on the fact that the steel in Brazil is very expensive, etc. Why? Because it was protected. Every time an industry is protected, it becomes lazy because you have no competition. You don't have to make efforts. You don't have to go to the extra mile. You start to be complacent with your unions. You start to be complacent with your people. And at the end of the day, making money without making efforts is the dream of everybody, except that the only way to avoid that is just open the doors and allow global competition to make sure that everybody's standing on your toes. And this is one of the main reasons for which I think globalization has a lot of foes, but also it has a lot of supports, except that the foes are obvious, the people who don't like globalization are well, they know exactly why they don't like globalization, and the people who benefit from globalization are not very conscious of it, until they see the bad consequences of the limits you're putting on globalization. Okay, so assuming the U.S.-China rivalry does not head towards a military confrontation of some thought, which is your assumption, but this is a matter which is discussed by many experts today, the so-called two-cities trap. But I tend to share your position on this. So assuming that it is not a long-term problem, this trade war, how do you see the future of the competition in your industry? Do you believe that the kind of your alliance model is something which will multiply, there will be other competitors forming similar alliances? How do you see the future of the industry? No, I fundamentally believe into the power of a system where companies work together, but at the same time working together is not a threat to your own identity. I mean, the threat to identity is the basis of a lot of conflicts, not only in companies but also at the level of countries or inside countries between different cities, religions, etc. We see it, we have an illustration of this everywhere. People are ready to cooperate if they have a common project, as long as this cooperation is not a threat to their identity. But at the level of companies, exactly the same, Renault is not going to cooperate with Nissan, if the cooperation with Nissan is a threat to the identity of Renault. Nissan is the same way, they are ready to go to the alliance, they have a common project in the alliance, but they don't want this alliance to be a threat to the Japanese identity. When Mitsubishi joined us, I practically, based on our 19 years of experience, I told them, there is no risk on the brand, there is no risk on your identity, you're going to keep exactly the same thing, there's going to be an obligation on performance and there is an obligation not to duplicate with the other companies. Things are going very well. So, I believe into the power of the system, except that this is a system which is extremely demanding and is very difficult to manage, because you can't play double games here. You're going to have to make sure that what you say you do and nothing else, because people are very, very sensitive to this question of identity and every time they have the impression you have a double language or you're playing games, they even, no matter what, they're going to just retract and hide again into their own identity. So, that's why I think it's a very powerful system, but it's a system which requires a high level of integrity and the high level of just making sure that everything you say is being done and that people, their perception is that you are really playing by your book and by nothing else. Now, you said our competition, the car industry, as you know, is changing a lot. Ten years ago, people said, you know, the car is a commodity, it's changing, there is no more interest, et cetera. And you know today it's not the case, because we have so much breakthrough technology coming our way between artificial intelligence, digitalization, the fact that we have sensors which are less expensive, much more powerful, that are going to allow us to go towards electric cars, connected cars, autonomous cars, that you're going to go towards shared mobility. All of this is transforming our industry. We're going to go through the transformation of the industry. So you cannot look at competition about am I going to be able to do a better car tomorrow compared to my competition, is am I going to be able to transform my company in order to make sure that I'm ready for the competition to come, which is mainly electric, connected, autonomous, and offering, being able to offer mobility service mobility. Because if there is only one thing which is sure, all the people who try to analyze the future and try to see what's coming for humankind for the next 20 years, there is one thing on which everybody is certain, the demand for mobility is going to explode. And the level of growth for mobility is going to be higher than any other human need, much more than telecommunication, much more than food, much more than health. So mobility is not measured by number of cars, it's numbers by number of miles traveled. 45 million miles traveled per day today. And the people who analyze this say this is going to triple in the next 20 years, okay. Obviously it's not going to triple because you're going to have three times more cars on the planet, can't sustain it. But it means that not only you're going to have more cars, but also the cars are going to use it in a different way. You're going to have more shared cars, shared mobility. You're going to have a lot of systems where cities are going to make agreements with car makers in order to organize transportation and mobility. You're going to have a lot of things coming our way and all of this is possible because of the technological advances. Will you invest in vertical mobility? No, not at all, not at all. No, the question, I mean this is a good question because people think that car makers develop their own technologies, not true. Car makers do not develop. We are architects, we are architects. We assemble technologies, we assemble parts, we assemble know-how to make a product. From time to time we have to develop our own module or our own technology because it doesn't exist on the market. But when it exists on the market, we leave it on the market, we leave it with the supplier so we can concentrate our efforts into what makes our own job, which is bringing this final product with the functionality that people are asking for. So it's a kind of back and forth from time to time you internalize, from time to time you outsource, depending on the evolution of technology and depending also on the competitive forces. I have a very small example, stop there, the battery for electric cars. In 2008, there was no battery compatible with the emergence of the electric cars. So we developed the battery internally because there was none on the market. Today you have at least five large producers of batteries who are capable to compete against each other and drive the cost of the battery down. We sold our battery business. We sold it. Not because we consider the battery is not important because we say, well, if somebody else is going to do the battery, we're going to concentrate in autonomous cars, mobility services, in something that nobody can do on the market except the car maker. And that's why I think this story of verticalization, it's obsolete. You internalize or you outsource in function of the need. It's very dynamic and in function of who is ready to develop the technology for you and are these people in a situation of competition? So you can assure that you're not going to be full, you know, trapped by somebody getting a monopoly on a specific technology.