 When we speak of alliances, I think this idea of alliances is very important. After that, we have to come back to the two superpowers. But how do you, in your case, choose your alliances? How do you choose your partners? It's as simple as, based on the objectives of the program that we're on. And what the partner brings to the table and what we bring to the table. A lot of our partnerships in terms of development have been based on mutual development of both of the entities. We work heavily in integrating our teams within the teams of the entities that we work on. So it's always based on objectives. Yes, but this is, if I may say, a technical answer. But of course, these issues are also fundamentally political. So this is why, repeat my question, if beyond the economic technological considerations, what are the political aspects of the major choices? So space at the moment, and as was just mentioned earlier, access to space is very important and ensuring the sustainability of space is very important. And that's usually played in the global policy forums. In terms of, how are we ensuring that we are sustainably accessing space? So we're not cluttering space and cluttering the ways that we're using the space. There's conversations that are happening across the board, across different nations. And then the second one is how do you ensure that you have access to space for different nations that want to access for different reasons? You mentioned Earth observation. Earth observation is very important for all of us. It touches on every single person's daily lives, whether we know it or not. And therefore ensuring that nations have access to space. And that doesn't mean access to launching the space. Even access to data coming from space is what we use and what we discuss on an international front. So those are the different aspects that come to consideration when you're talking about international partnerships. On the policy front, it's very important. And this conversation over the course of the next 10 years will become more important. And new alliances, I think, will form based on the methodology that we think we should proceed with regards to access to space. So before I enlarge the discussion, maybe you want to say something on this question? No, no. I just want to mention that we have, of course, we have a strong alliance between the two governments on space policy. Because we have a lot of joint activities between Emirates and France. So we have people from Toulouse coming back and forth to... Thank you very much. So before I enlarge the discussion with the participants, if we look much ahead, let's say the next 20 years or something like that. Well, I think nobody knows if any human mission and Mars can succeed because for human reasons, probably more than for technological reasons, of course. But we can dream. I don't know, Madame Minister, since you are very young, maybe you will be a candidate sometime to visit Mars. And I hope you will come back in good physical conditions. That's not a given. I mean, it's... That's the big question. But there is another question with more political and less romantic about the long term, which is the following one. If the rivalry between the United States and China develops over the next 20 years, which is very likely, of course, and beyond, there is at least a theoretical possibility of two disconnected cyber spaces, one which should be of American-dominated, the other one which should be China-dominated. And my question is, well, this is not true, but it is a more credible, more likely event than the human mission in Mars in this time span. So my question is, well, to the two of you, first, do you recognize the legitimacy of the question? Point number one, from a political but even from technological viewpoint here, that is to have totally disconnected cyber spheres, and if that became a reality, what consequences would it have on the rest of us? Or to put it perhaps in a slightly different way, is there a place for a third choice that is not to be trapped? This is something that we have discussed in various ways in the last two days in different fields, but would there be room for others not to be forced to choose between the two? We start with you. I'll take you back to the previous question that you asked. Your question, I think the reasoning that you've won through is a legitimate source of perhaps concern for many nations around the world. Looking at it from a access perspective, that's where we can have the third option becoming the normal. And you spoke about the UAE's relationship with France. Part of it is actually based on a common understanding of how to utilize space. If we continue such collaborations between different nations, and if you continue ensuring that new entrants that want to enter into the space domain are actually able to enter into it, are not prohibited by either very stringent technological requirements under the guise of sustainability of space or very stringent inhibitions in terms of access to, for example, launch site access or access to various orbits in space. If the conversation is kept within ensuring access to space, we will get the third option where you will continue to get this fostered collaboration in space. The other aspect that's allowing this to be more reasonable is going back to the point of the entrance of the private sector. And your point is well noted where it is supported by government. The private sector today is supported by government either by demand creation or by providing subsidies or by providing contracts. But if you increase the demand for space from other sectors, you enable a portion of the space sector to grow and to be dependent business to business and no longer becomes the government to business relationship. That increases the number of actors that enter into the space sector. And by increasing the number of actors that enter the space sector, by default you're going to increase business to business relationship, government to businesses in other countries' relationships and so on. You increase the number of players. You remove the dominance. And you make the name of the game in space, the norm of the name of the game in space to be collaboration, cooperation and healthy competition like what you described exists today in Europe. And that's how you're able to move towards the third option, which I think is the beneficial option to all players on the ground today. Well, thank you very much for this elaborate answer, Philippe. Yeah, perhaps to answer your question on is there a risk that you have on one side a US-led cyberspace environment and another one on the Chinese side? Yes, yes, there is a risk. And I think it's very important, at least for Europe to be there. It's crucial for our autonomy. It's crucial for business. And we really need to develop, at least I'm thinking of the telecommunication, constellation of satellites in low-Earth orbit. This is very important because this is a component which is key for the future of telecommunication. It will be a simple way to provide internet everywhere on the globe with real time. So very short delay of response. And this project is really, I think, a cornerstone of the European policy space. This is something which is really pushed by the European Commission. And it's really key. And I believe it will really happen. It will happen because this constellation, so of course there is the constellation of Elon Musk, Starlink, which is already there, but there is also OneWeb, which is a European and UK-based constellation, and also other players. And I am pretty sure that you will have very soon a big European constellation for the internet. Well, thank you very much.