 So, thank you very, very much. I have to say that times is elapsing quite rapidly. I understand that we have to leave the room at 11.30. Am I right to say that? I'm asking the organizers. If it is the case that we have to leave the room at 11.30, then I would go directly to the audience, if you permit, unless one of us wants to make a point and contradict violently what has been said by another panelist. But I don't see that you are asking for such a quarrel, if I may, not a good quarrel, I mean this kind of debate that we like very much. But I turn then to the audience and I see one hand raised over there and over there and over there. So please, the mic is there and then you will have the floor afterwards, Madam, immediately after. Please. Merci Monsieur Trichet. It's Steve Verlanger, New York Times. Very good panel. Just given time, I want to ask, given the sanctions on the Russian Federation because of the Ukraine war, what lessons Mr. Chow and others is China drawing from these sanctions and how can it alter the current system to avoid that kind of pressure in the future? Thank you. Thank you very much. Perhaps we will have another question and then we go to the panel. Madam. Well, it would say that this is not going to be the last crisis, but let's be careful because some crisis led to worldwide catastrophe. So I think, you know, let's be aware of that. But my point was about women. This panel doesn't reflect the contribution of women into the global economy, obviously. Although we have to improve their presence. But a very interesting report of the IMS is saying that if we have more than 40% of women in the global economy, if we increase it, the United States would have a boost of 5% of GDP. In Egypt, it would be 34% of the GDP. In Africa, it would be even more. So don't you think that we need to change the pattern of this global economy we're talking about and make it more gender sensitive as you're sitting here? I don't think you reflect how much we work as women in the world. Thank you very much for this remark. I was expecting I upload. I think that none of us is responsible for the composition of the panel to be frank. But you made the point. Very good. Please last question and then we turn to the panel. Thank you. Two brief questions. One is it seems that most panelists have commented on the international aspects of the international economic order. But there are domestic dimensions to it as well. The domestic infrastructure foundation for the international economic order. So maybe the international economic order is not collapsing, but the domestic dimensions are increasingly at odds with what the international economic order implies. And it was mentioned in the first panel that there were difficulties within the societies themselves. So how do you address that issue? And second, Mr. Felbermeyer started by saying that the international order is not collapsing, that it had shown a lot of resilience, so it has adapted. But then he identified a number of challenges that may lead to a question about the virtue of adaptation. Because this adaptation has come through a succession of crisis and these crises are increasingly frequent and increasingly costly. So is this a model that we want or do we need a recreation of this international economic order? So I stop there. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. I think that we could start responding to the first three questions. Who wants to take the floor immediately? Yes, okay. Because I'm only Chinese independent, so it's naturally for me to answer the question regarding how China can learn some experience from Russia, Ukraine war. I guess the question has many implications behind the question itself. First of all, probably I have to point out the Chinese government official position is along with India, Indonesia, South Africa, many developing countries, which is they don't support the Russian invasion to Ukraine. They think it's violated the principle of the United Nations, but at the same time they're not necessary support U.S. and Western countries to have a section against Russia from many different perspectives. Because in China, the government official will think that way. Even we support U.S. sanctioned Russia, but U.S. still will keep pressure regarding China as a major rival. Why I should do that? That's my interpretation. Second implication, I guess I understand many coverage of media always link between Russia, Ukraine relation, and mainland China and Taiwan. I recall several years ago, also here in panel, that time I point out, because many people point out to me, how about South China Sea conflict with Crimea? That time because 2014 Russian took over Crimea, so many people make comparison. At that time I say I don't think it's right to make such kind of comparison. Why? Because Crimea is very clear. At least in past several decades, it's international recognized as part of Ukraine. South China Sea island, not, is just some, no people living island, some country claim belong to them. I guess that's difference very important. By the same thing, same line of thinking, I don't think it's right make comparison directly between mainland China and Taiwan and Russia and Ukraine. Because internationally recognized Taiwan province is a part of China, many international treaty recognized. Having said that, doesn't mean I advocate or I support. Chinese come to short take military action against Taiwan. I'm not. But the sensitive here, if someone want to push Taiwan to extreme independence, nothing can be happen. That's my answer. That's very, very clear, I have to say. Thank you very much indeed for what you just said, which takes every issue directly and without, I would say, too much complication. You're direct clear. Thank you very much indeed. I have to turn to Tai-O. I want to respond to the question on domestic policy environment regarding globalization on trade. Definitely more and more people, ordinary people, think globalization and trade in a negative way. Because simple because they think they lose their job because their own companies are leaving their countries and invest in other countries or they are importing too much so that domestic production is being decreased. So I'm a professor for international trade for 30 years. I'm persuading my student and teaching my student. That's not correct. There are other reasons to cause this kind of thing and income equalization, but people's perception is going that way and wisely the politicians are using that kind of sentiment to produce more protectionist measures. So what I'm saying is here, preaching or persuading the people who are having difficulties in their own economy is not enough. I think we have to find out some solutions, policy measures. We have so-called inclusive trade policy measures. It sounds very nice but no substantial content in it. So we have to find out something to really substantially help those people who are having difficulties from many other reasons. This is my comment on that. Very clear. Very clear. Thank you. I'd like to reply to Mrs. Tourette very quickly. I think you brought up a very good point about diversity, equality of opportunity. I think you need incentive and more efficient public policies. Incentives are there. That's a good news. I think the business community is realizing that it's good for their bottom line. So you gave a set of stats. There's a different study that shows that if you increase black American participation in the U.S. economy, you can also generate about 5% of increased GDP. That's about $1,000 billion every year. That's fantastic. And the business community is already realizing that. So it's there. In terms of public policies, you have the national level and then you have the international level. I just want to mention one specific program that the EU put together during COVID, which I think was very good. It stands for sure. And it's the temporary support to mitigate unemployment risk in an emergency, which is basically a second pillar on top of national unemployment systems to basically provide some solidarity and make the system more resilient and provide ultimately more equality of opportunity. Thank you very much, Jan, indeed. And again, Madam, we all agree on the fact that this is not a normal composition of the panel, and we have no responsibility in that. But the message is loud and clear. Thank you very, very much indeed. Mr. Ito, you have the floor. Yeah, I have just a response to the final question about the adaptation of the globalization process from the picture of the Tom Friedman. Now, when we are thinking about the process of globalization, there's at least four or maybe more different trends. One is multilateral approach. The second is the regional type of approach. And the third is the bilateral two-country negotiation approach. And maybe fourth is unilateral action, where each own country can just move unilaterally. And the actual process of the globalization is just a combination of the four. And sometimes maybe multilateral approach is just moving very quickly. But sometimes this multilateral approach is sampling. Then we need more effort on the regional effort or maybe bilateral effort. And probably because of the geopolitical issues and other issues just we discussed, the trend is a little bit changing from just a multilateral approach to the more realistic regional or bilateral. But I'm not sure whether this is just the continuing or maybe we need more effort to just strengthen the multilateral approach to the globalization. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Do we have other remarks or questions, answer to questions, if I may? We had the international monetary system that you mentioned. And I would only say in this domain, clearly the moment the renminbi becomes a full convertible currency, I'm speaking under the control of John, we are changing the international monetary system. At the present moment, the renminbi is in the basket of the SDR as the one of the five. And of course it was a major, major move, a major change. Now it does not, I would say, align with the functioning of the system today. But again, as soon as the renminbi is convertible, full convertible currency, you change the system. And let me, whilst I'm mentioning the SDR and the international monetary system, there has been a consequence of the last big crisis of Lehman Brothers, which is not sufficiently underlined in my opinion. After Lehman Brothers crisis, after the great financial crisis, all central banks of the advanced economies that are in the basket of the SDR, the four, namely the Yen, the Sterling, the Dollar and the Euro, decided, all of them, not because there was an agreement or a negotiation, but because it was their own sentiment that it would better anchor the expectations, they all have the same definition of price stability, namely 2%, around 2% in the medium term. It is the definition of price stability in Japan, in the US, in Europe, in the UK. And I have to say that China itself is not far from the 2%. So all that taken into account, it seems to me that it is a silver lining in the global system. Because before, we had no joint definition or agreed nationally, but converging internationally, definition of price stability, it's been reaffirmed by all countries concerned, central bank concerned, heads of central bank concerned in the US, in Europe, in the rest of the world. And again, I take it that it is something which is in a very difficult world, in a very hectic world, very complicated, full of challenges. It is one of the silver lining that we might have. Another silver lining that it was mentioned by many is that the G20 continues to work and continues to, I would say, give the appropriate political backing for a number of things that are very important. John mentioned that and all speakers mentioned that. And I take it also that on the environment front, in a world which is again so divided, the fact that we created a new international sustainable standard board in Glasgow and confirmed in the recent Egyptian COP. So it's extremely important. We all agreed that we were on planet Earth, that it was our spaceship, and we had to care for our spaceship. And it was not obvious that we would have a consensus on this new international board, but we had it. So I think that I am called to interrupt now the panel. Next, it is what is written in the program. So let's respect the program and let's thank you very, very much indeed.