 So, Mr. President, thank you very much for being with us today. First question I would like to ask you is the following one. The Red Cross has continuity with Sofirino, for example. But like everything else, it is changing. So what it is that is changing is especially under your presidency. It's not so much changes under my presidency. It is the world around us which is changing and which is forcing us, compelling us to adapt and change certain of our practices. Because they have proved with time that they need to adapt to modern times. You know that our agency is the innovation from the 19th century. It was a problem for the human rights. It's also how to implement these human rights issues on the ground. It's also, we also have advocacy with the governments, especially for policy making. And I think this humanitarian action which was founded in the 19th century, which was a new domain and it's still relevant. We have developed some things which remain. We want to be working on conflict zones. We want to be close to conflict zones. We want to be assisting on the front. We want to assist civilians. We want to mitigate the impacts of violence but also change the behaviors of the belligerents. We want to make sure that international human rights are being complied with. So these are our ambitions. These are practices, modes of actions which are informed and guide our action. What changes, however, is that the environment of the conflicts that we are faced with today, as in terms of education over the first year, the budget of the CSR has almost doubled. So there's something that something is going wrong in the world. So what is going wrong? In fact, we are a world now where we have belligerents which are no longer states. But we have a mix of states and more and more fragmented actors. We see that military strategies are more and more... not compliant with international law as we know it. So there's more and more negative impacts on the civilians. If you see wars such as the one in the Middle East, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, for example, you see that there is a great impact on the civilians which is extremely important. We have displacements of populations. There's a degradation of the social systems. We have never had as many attacks on hospitals and on humanitarian workers on doctors as we've had over the past 10 years. So we see there are much more important impacts. We have discussed a while ago talking about investments in Africa. We have been talking about investments in other regions. How can you invest in regions where you know there is a world that is more and more fragile, more and more fragmented, a world where violence has a greater and greater impact? So of course this is why we have to adapt our means and our activities and to find also ways and means of making bringing changes about behavior. We have to use diplomatic influence. We need to have a diplomacy that is more and more active and sometimes we have also to forget about our legendary discretion where we try to work in complying with the confidentiality and conviction. Now we more and more have to speak out. We cannot be silenced when you're confronted with so many violations of human rights. So we are trying to find, maintain what makes us a specific body and also adapt to the... We also had in a movement that is trying to see in a very positive way to follow very positively the evolution, technological evolution. I spent a few weeks on the west coast of the state talking about digitalization. You've probably seen Brassmead from Microsoft. He's published his digital Geneva Convention. We not only have to think about the violence of conflicts that we have now and how we can adapt our methodology to these conflicts, but we also look at the coming digital borders that will be connected differently. Also there will be connection with the actors of violence and we will be confronted with probably a war that is constantly moving in the virtual space. So thank you very much. I remember when we met for the first time in your office in Geneva, you told me that the institution that has the best knowledge and by far of the conflict in Syria was the Red Cross. Could you probably comment on this particular example that you gave? Because this is something this is very extremely relevant today. And probably in a more subsidiary way, the Red Cross in order to accomplish its mission has to have access to the key actors, probably sometimes dictators. And you need to build trust with them so that they ensure them, that what they're saying will never be disseminated. So which is from the diplomatic point of view, something that is rather complex. So here we're in the continuity of the Red Cross. It was during the past, it will be during the future. So probably we want to make a few comments. So there are two questions. You're asking me two questions. The one on our specificity. We remain an organization or a... We are a Swiss ONG with a mandate from the oil international community, all the states that have signed the Geneva Conventions. There are not so many bodies like ours who are not governed by the states. So it gives us an additional credibility in comparison with other actors. With respect to our neutrality, our traditional neutrality. So this neutrality and partiality is very important in the work that we're doing, especially that we're working in a gradual fragmented world, as I have described it. We're trying to enter in contact with the weapon owners and holders to try to engage them to comply with the norms. So what is at stake is not so much our legitimacy to do so, I think the Geneva Conventions in their article 3 says clearly that the Red Cross is there to commit with conflict actors, whether they be state actors or non-state actors. So this gives us a certain legitimacy to work with humanitarian issues on the respect of law and the assistance and protection of the civilian populations, even in areas that are under the control of nonarmed groups. The big problem now is to have those groups talk to us now. We need to have commitment to the respect of international law. So we are here confronted with complex issues. We need to use all sorts of means to work with people who have influence, who can establish contacts for us, who can open the paths for us. But I think we still stick to this ambition of having a humanitarian agenda. We need to talk to all the parties, does not give legitimacy to all the actors. We also need to take reality into consideration. We know that many of those actors now are more and more fragmented and they don't necessarily to enter into a dialogue with a body that is here to make the, to look into the respect of human law. And so this is, as you have alluded to this, you talked about, alluded to confidentiality. We're trying to strike a balance in certain delicate matters. When do we talk? When do we remain bound by confidentiality? So we try as much as possible to create an environment where we can influence and we can help bring about changes in behavior. It's not so much the level of violence. It's the lack of will to change. And sometimes we are compelled to say enough is enough. We also need to express the fact that there are sometimes very serious violations of human rights. Our patients, of course, especially working with the institution's political bodies, goes much further and much more in depth than this is what allows us to gather with our colleagues from the national societies of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent to have specific alliances and specific actors on the ground, which enable us to be there on the ground. This is why you always find our representatives in rural areas of Afghanistan, for example, where you see very few other actors who go into those remote areas. If you go to South Somalia, for example, regions under the control of al-Shabaab, you will find us also, we find us in the Syrian regions where other actors do not have the legitimacy to step in. You will find us in North Mali. You will find us in North Nigeria. In the Chad Lake area, we do bring humanitarian aid. This is not to confer legitimacy on anyone, but also just to show that we are impartial, independent, and so we help to mitigate the impact of violence on the populations, but also to shrink the needs of, that is, change behaviors of the actors on the ground. I can understand and I do understand all this, and I think many of the people here in this room understand this very well, but we live in a world where there is the ideology of transparency, that is, the ethical concepts that dominate ethical concepts now are no longer the same that you had, for example, back in the war, in the Second World War. So maybe sometimes this puts you sometimes in difficult situations. Today, the word that we hear everywhere is transparency. That's what we hear everywhere. We want to have access to all the information, and we think there should be no secrets or whatever. So this is something that is conflictual with the concept of confidentiality. Thierry, I think that if there is one area where you have a lot of dilemmas, it is the humanitarian area. I understand this, and I think I need to point out that you are a diplomat. If you don't like dilemmas, you should not work in the humanitarian, or you should not be in the diplomacy either. We try to be neutral, impartial, and independent in an environment that is highly politicized. We try to act in an environment that upholds transparency in areas where confidentiality probably has a particular value. We need to create some spaces of trust. So I do, for myself, make a difference between confidentiality and transparency. Transparency should not say, should not mean that everyone should know everything at all times. We need to have, of course, we are held responsible for what we do. So this responsibility exists. We have a governance. We're held accountable to our donors. We are, of course, to respect the Geneva Conventions. But this does not mean that there are not areas where, for operational purposes, we don't say immediately all that we do. If I start telling you what we see by visiting 1 million detainees in 100 countries of the world, tomorrow we will not, we will not, we will not have access to these prisons. If I tell you here and now what the Red Cross meets in terms of violations of international human rights on the war fronts that I have talked tomorrow will not be, will be denied access. And it will be, of course, something that is detrimental to the populations that we try to assist and help. So there is, we need to strike this balance. This is something that is very delicate. But I think now on one of the lessons that we have learned, we have learned how to talk in very generic terms about some recurrent problems. We have a public initiative, like, for example, healthcare in danger, which we launched with health professionals throughout the world. And it does not talk about some specific characteristics, but we talk about trends that to attack doctors now, to force them to violent their professional medical ethic, to destroy hospitals, for example, as strategic objects in war situations. This, we don't talk every day about the specific object, but we also try to show to the international community what the general trends are and around which we want to mobilize political action. This is what we have managed to do, for example, with the Resolution 2286 at the Security Council that has taken decision on this issue without revealing, necessarily, the 2,500 attacks which we monitored, verified, and on which we have, for which we have names and way of people who are responsible for these attacks when we presented those statistics. So I think there is, again, something that is something very delicate, and we're trying to play with all this. There's diplomacy, as you have said. There's not only the public, there's not only the secret issue. We are also working on an active diplomacy that is, in a confidential manner, we try to find and send messages through the states who have influence on actors. We know that, of course, wars don't happen just like this. There are always actors behind wars. I think it's important to talk to those actors and also to highlight the costs of these trends to destructive and limited violence. Thank you very much. I think what you have just said is extremely important. From the philosophical point of view, I think this is a problem that is impossible to solve. That is, this balance that you are talking about, this equilibrium between ethics of convictions and responsibility. We can see this from different points of view, but I think your answer was very clear to my questions. I just wanted to add one thing to when I started back to calm myself. Given the ambiguities of the conflicts to which we are confronted by saying that all actors should not be doing the same thing, I see our action as something that is confidential. We're working in the humanitarian space with the methodology that I have just described. I see this as just one element of action within a community that is much broader than what I said. Other actors, I think, do not need to work the same way we do. I can see, for example, a UN agency that has the state governance, for example, cannot have the same interpretation of neutrality and partiality than an agency that has no state governance, because states are requiring something else. I can very well understand that we don't have a similar word for legal accountability. The French word has just been mentioned. I think there's a time when there's a penal, national or international action, and there is also a time where there is an activity for an impartial agent. They're not mutually exclusive, but complementary, either within the system itself or with time. There is time for every single thing now for situations where there is extreme fragility, like the ones which we are faced with today, our action, our neutrality and partiality approach gives us access to certain areas, and we can thus save lives. This is very important. And in the long short or long run, we can also create some sustainability. We cannot hope for development. There's no possibility for development in fragmented societies, such as the ones we see today. One last question before taking some questions from the floor. My last question. This is a good illustration of the whole issue. What can you tell to an audience like ours? What is it that you are most proud of in terms of achievement over the past years? The one that you are most proud of. What can you tell us about this? Some action that you are most proud of. Personally, I'm very proud of the fact that my organization, especially the collaborators who negotiate on the war fronts, have managed to do what they have managed to do. I told you that the number of our budget figures indicates how badly the situation of the world is. But it also tells us that we are very relevant as humanitarian actors. So we've managed to have access to spend the double of what you used to spend five years ago. This is also due to the capacity, our capacity to create those spaces of saving lives, re-helping reconstruct societies, rebuild societies. And I am very proud that our colleagues working on the ground make great record, great successes on the ground and managed to talk to all the actors who are in conflict and create a dialogue, space for dialogue. This does not change in any way the fact that the impact of this violence is greater than what we can, greater than the good that we can do. The second thing, which I am proud of and which goes with the first element that I have just mentioned, is our capacity to establish links and networks, contacts, influence and to talk to actors. I'm saying one thing that I think within this region is I can tell you this in this region because it was public in any case. I think that one of the vectors of influence with whom the cross-red has worked, that we have worked with Ayatollah Sistani and Jaff, who is a very major religious sheet, who issued a fatwa on the behavior of the carriers of weapons. And of course, something as what the Geneva Convention says, and this is why the Ayatollah is issuing guidelines to the war, the weapon carriers. He was talked about the respect of the detainees. So this, of course, is the consequences of a long discussion that we had with someone like this shade clergy who has very great influence on weapon carriers. This is an illustration of what the Red Cross does over the past years to try to check all the channels of influence in order to change behavior. I like all preventive actions. This, it's like beliefs. I cannot prove that lives have been saved. However, it's important to have the greatest authorities speak clearly about what it is possible to do, not possible to do, what is legal, what is not legal. And I think we always manage to bring some influence and to give significance to the international humanitarian law.