 I'm turning to Mr. Johnston, and after that I will go to Mr. Sano, so we will continue on the US for a while before. I'll speak from here. Sorry? I'll speak from here. Yes, no problem. You can be seated. That's perfect. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Is it on? Okay. Thanks very much. That was quite a compelling presentation. Sure. I think that it was very, very insightful. I'm going to deal with five points very briefly. One are the consequences of the Trump administration accomplishments. I remember Tehri Demobrial actually in Korea recently spoke of accomplishments, all of which were negatives, but that was sort of Stuart's speech, too. For better or for worse, there was a realistic assessment. And also I want to speak to, I've got to hear my computer, I want to speak to the future of international trade without the USA, which has been discussed here. By the way, all these are drawn from the sessions to which I participated or listened to. The third is escape from the North Korea dilemma without denuclearization. The fourth is pessimistic conclusions from the energy and climate change breakout session. I didn't hear the report, but I did participate in the session. I thought I want to raise a serious challenge on the educational front in the 21st century, which was touched upon as well in one of the sessions. We're back to the consequences of Trump and his accomplishments. He's already inflicted serious, I think, lasting damage on the global rule of the United States. And the post-war military battle architecture, which so many people labored so hard over so many years, led by the United States, he's put that in jeopardy, he's trying to take it further, as Stuart has already cleared out, and on the shape of geopolitical evolution. Now, I asked Stuart whether Trump basically doesn't always understand the consequences of his actions. That's my perception as a non-American, but watching it. I'll say this is an example of, in fact, you came back and said, well, if a lot of companies object, a lot of things happen, he may change and he may get a deal on another basis, which is an example of what I mean. For example, Ford Motorist said that it's going to cost him a billion dollars. Pepsi-Cola, how much? I don't know. And you would have thought that he would have learned from the imposition of tariffs on steel, but by the Bush administration, but apparently he didn't. Now, the other one, that's an example I read the other day. Trump was thick, he was convinced that he should put forbid visas to Chinese students coming to America. Now, we haven't heard a lot about that since, and maybe it's because it was pointed out to him that those students are contributing 19 billion dollars a year at least to the United States educational systems and the communities in which they are operating. That's what I mean, he doesn't understand the consequences of it. We heard a very interesting comment from both the Chinese representative here, that was, sorry, I've got it here, and Mr. Wang and Igor Juergens from Russia. When they said, well, there are good things happening for us because of Trump. The United States is essentially withdrawing from its leadership in the world stage. That means that there's a real opportunity to fill that vacuum. And that's what China, I think, thoroughly intends to do, which is another unintended consequence of perhaps his isolationism or protectionism. Bear in mind that China was the largest economy in the world in 1820, and predictions have suggested that it would again be the largest economy in 2020. That may be slowed up a bit, but it's already, that's what I looked at, which has two years on it, so 11 trillion, the United States is 17, and it'll continue to grow. It'll be the largest economy. What are the consequences of that in terms of setting rules for international trade, for finance? There's going to be a move towards China as the United States withdraws, baddening its positions. So I think the issue on trade, which we heard about, I wonder whether if he continues with his protectionist policies and assists on bilateral deals, because his idea of making America great is to try to make everybody else less great. And that's why it does like multilateralism, because when you're multilateralism, you're dealing with the majority, which is not the United States. And even the old regime looked at, even the Republicans under Bush, I think, looked at the United States as the 800 pound gorilla in trade negotiations. So they always want a bilateral, but they often, more often did want a, sorry, they want a bilateral, not multilateral. And that's continuing. Even on the negotiation on NAFTA, you'll note that they took Mexico aside and had a separate deal with Mexico in order to bludgeon Canada into accepting the deals that they'd hammered out with Mexico. So I think that's what we're up against. So I wonder if it's possible that that can be countered. Also, Europe has a key role to play here. The European Customs Union consists of 28 countries. And the largest market, the European market is over 400 million people, even without Brexit. And if they can come together with a coherent policy in one voice, they will also be an 800 pound gorilla. And so you would have at least another in the ring along with China. So that may happen. I know that Camel Dervish didn't think so. He thought that the United States had to be part of a body lot for free trade agreement. Maybe we'll come around to that. That would be good. Now, let me just say something about North Korea, not the labor without denuclearization. Both in Korea and at this conference, we hear essentially that there's a pretty broad consensus that Kim Jong-un is not going to give up his nuclear weapons. That's the only card he's got. So what's the alternative? Well, the alternative, I think many people believe, is not to impose more sanctions. I think President Moon is probably on the right track. It's about time that strategy changed. And they've never worked in the past. And when you put on sanctions, they don't really affect the governing class in North Korea. I think we should go back to the time of the joint declaration signed by Kim Jae-jong and Kim Jong-il, which was June 2000. And look what happened in the aftermath of that. Kai Sung Park, more trade, more investment from South Korea, more jobs from North Koreans. There's many people like the former Minister of Unification, Ling Dong-won, who thinks that the way we should go. Investment in North Korea won't happen unless we know a lot more about the economy. And that's why I think someone has to do the OECD, the World Bank, the IMF, or independence. Someone has to do some kind of, let's get some transparency to this so we know what the North Korean economy can do and how it can develop. On climate change, I continue to be extremely pessimistic. I've been in this game for a long time. Stewart was a Kyoto. He was negotiating binding agreements. Paris Accord was wonderful. Except that it's not binding. And not always it's not binding. But even if the national objectives, which countries have filed, saying this is what we're going to do, even if they all did that, it would not meet the bar set by the scientific community in the IPCC. In other words, we would not be able to basically get stay under two degrees at 4.5 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. And on top of that, we are now faced with challenges of methane, which are very serious. I have not really been discussed very much, but something like 30 times are more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. So I, frankly, we've been watching this for decade after decade after decade. Surely the answers have to be not more advocacy. It has to be technology and also adaptation has to be looked at very seriously from just look at the events this year around the globe. You can see that adaptation is extremely important. Last point I would make on the educational issue, again, Kamal Dervish made a point, which I thought was a very good one. He said, you know, technology is moving so quickly that five years from now you will recognize the world today. There will be so many changes taking place. That says to me, how do we educate our university students? I was on a committee in McGill, like these are freshmen. How are they going to be training for jobs which don't yet exist? And this requires a lot of thought, a lot of study, a lot of analysis, something I would like to see the world policy for them take on. Because it's one of the most important issues in the 21st century, not just for the United States, which also, by the way, has a dearth of engineers, which is another problem that I was reading about computer companies that cannot get the necessary qualified engineers within the United States. So they need migration and they're having trouble getting some people in the company. That was in the New York Times, I think, this last week. So that's a real challenge. I leave it with that. Those are the five points. Not only make me very optimistic, but there it is.