 Good afternoon. Welcome to CSIS. I'm Stephen Sharaghi. I'm the Shoal Chair in International Business here at CSIS, and I'm proud to welcome you to our launch of a series that we're having on what may be the most critical issue facing the world, what shape will the next global economy take, and what strategic ramifications will it have for the United States and the world. And as we think about this issue, nothing probably looms larger than what kind of leadership structure and what kind of leaders will take this forward and develop a course for the world and for our countries as we face this crisis that we haven't seen in years. And I think, you know, a lot of the discussion for President Obama recently is focused on healthcare, but I think in terms of the overall historical perspective, how we handle this financial crisis and how leaders here and elsewhere deal with it will be how history looks back on whether we were responsive, whether we set the stage for further economic stagnation or actually set up for a financial crisis 2.0 or charted the way forward to more sustainable growth. And as we look at that, you know, global efforts in the G8 and G20, we couldn't have a better group than we have here today, both in terms of U.S. Sherpas that have led the launch of the G20 Leaders Summit, led the G8 after 9-11, the transition, the 1990s post-Cold War, reacted to the financial crisis, worked with legendary Treasury Secretaries such as Robert Rubin, and particularly our panel here today from an international perspective, because the G20 was a great recognition that the world had changed in key ways and that no nation could go with this alone and that we needed to broaden the scope of our efforts to include new nations on the international stage. So with that, again, I couldn't be more pleased to have the distinguished group we have here today. Immediately on my left, we have Ambassador Han-Duck Su, and as I wrote last spring with Korea's upcoming G20 chairmanship, its leadership on FTAs, including the U.S.-Korea FTA that's pending, and its response to its own financial crisis and leading reforms, and its key role in security issues in what may be the world's most dynamic region of Asia. There may be no two nations who are at the center of such an intersection of interests as the United States and Korea. And we couldn't ask for a better representative as we deal with the issues of the financial crisis than Ambassador Han, who was not only Ambassador, but was Prime Minister, was a minister of finance and trade, covered basically every major base on the important positions related to global finance and international trade. And he's also no stranger to the United States having attended school at Harvard where he got his masters and his Ph.D. as well as serving at the OECD as Ambassador and coordinating with many of the other leading global economies. He has awarded many medals, and we're very honored to have him here today. So thank you very much for presenting. And as the chair of the 2010 G20, I think Korea has a unique perspective to provide on that as well as your own personal observations on the way forward. Secondly, we have Ambassador Fujisaki from Japan, which has long been a strong ally of the United States in the G process, dating back to the original Gs in the 1970s. He personally has an incredibly wide range of experience. And like Ambassador Han, his experience with the United States goes very back, even I believe, to visit middle school where you were in the United States in addition to other periods of study and has served at the OECD in a whole range of other capacities. And as chair of the 2010 APEC summit, the summit that will occur in the world's, again, most dynamic region and talk about how Asia is integrating with the United States, again, we couldn't ask for a better person to discuss those issues. And finally, last but not least, we have Ambassador Castellaneda. And I think the Italy G8 that was recently held was groundbreaking in so many ways. It was over 40 countries. It represented the idea that you may need to pull out different groups together to address different issues. And his role as a former Sherpa, as Ambassador Fujisaki, gives him kind of an unparalleled perspective on these different challenges that were faced. He's advised several prime ministers in a foreign policy capacity as their senior advisor, been a diplomatic advisor to the Treasury Ministry. And in addition, I should refer to him, I guess, as possibly Knight Castellaneda, because he was honored as his country's highest award of the Republic of Italy, the Knight of the Grand Cross. So we're very interested in hearing your perspective, again, personally, and then also coming out of that kind of landmark G8 where you think we'd go from here. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to our distinguished panelists for opening remarks. I may pose a question that I'd really like to turn to the audience. Part of this next global economy series we're trying to develop here in advance on a number of issues ranging from rebooting trade to what security issues could undermine global recovery is not a series of lectures, but a dialogue. I know there's so many talented people in the audience that we look forward to hearing from you as well. So with that, I'd like to turn to Ambassador Han. Good afternoon. Thank you, Dr. Sharady, for your kind introduction. President Joan Hamley and many other distinguished guests, thank you. I'm very honored and pleased to be here. We are now one week away from the Pittsburgh G20 Summit and at this critical juncture, I'd like to thank the Center for Strategic and International Studies for holding this timely seminar, which provides an opportunity to review and discuss the goals and implications of the G20 Summit for the world economy. CSIS has long been a leader in producing many excellent reports on important current issues that they pay tribute to President Hamley's vision and leadership. As an ambassador of the G20 Troika country, this seminar is also an invaluable opportunity to share the sessions and lessons and experiences of the former shepherds who laid the foundation for the G20 as a global governance system. After the global economy slid into an unprecedented economic setback, there was growing concern that this financial crisis might spill over to the real sector of the economy and we would enter the second Great Depression. However, what is different in its response between the current situation and the Great Depression in 1929 is that 20 leaders of the world's leading economies gather together in Washington, DC right after the crisis and then again in London in April. They recognize the need for a bold and decisive action to address the financial crisis and agreed upon close coordination of major policies. Firstly, the G20 nations decided to actively pursue macroeconomic policies such as counter-cyclical fiscal and financial policies that will provide $5 trillion for the next two years. Secondly, the leaders agreed on adherence to the free market and declared a standstill on protectionism refraining from building new barriers to trade or investment. Thirdly, the leaders also decided to enhance crisis management by expanding IMF resources and strengthen an early warning exercise. In addition, they agreed to enhance the emerging economies participation in international financial institutions and financial stability both. The leaders also made a strong commitment to improve international financial institutions governance, deflecting the changing economic weight of emerging and developing countries. Lastly, the leaders showed their commitments to support emerging and developing countries who have been hit hardest by the crisis. They agreed to ensure a total of $1.1 trillion in support of these countries. In particular, since the Washington Summit, Korea has led the discussion on rejecting protectionist measures worldwide. The standstill declaration proposed by Korea has contributed to resisting the pressure to slip into more protectionist policies and identifying free trade as the driving force for the healthy recovery of the global economy. Having reached a substantial and detailed agreement during the first and second G20 summit, the G20 has firmly established itself as a main forum for discussing ways to resolve the global economic crisis. Fortunately, buoyed by the positive evaluation of the G20 summit as having been a turning point for the global recovery, the leaders decided to hold a third G20 summit in Pittsburgh on the 24th and 25th of September this year. Let me turn to the main agenda of the upcoming G20 summit. Even if the economic indicators throughout the world economy show signs of improvement, macroeconomic coordination to overcome the economic crisis will be the key agenda for the Pittsburgh G20 summit. It is premature to unwind the support measures the G20 nations have taken because the downward risk persists amid the rising unemployment rate, unstable price of raw materials and still lingering financial uncertainty. Until the recovery becomes firmly established, we should maintain strong policy responses. At the same time, we need to begin preparation for an exit strategy, heeding fiscal sustainability and signs of inflationary pressure. Considering that unwinding the policies of crisis will involve complex challenges of timing, speed and sequences, there should be close coordination in preparation for an exit strategy based on common principles in order to prevent the world economy from sliding into a double dip. As important as macroeconomic coordination is, transition towards more sustainable and balanced growth is another major challenge for the Pittsburgh summit. Developing a common framework which ensures high sustainable and balanced growth will require both flexibility and cooperation from the G20. Flexibility because each country will have its own national trajectory towards sustainable growth. Cooperation because the crisis has taught us that national macroeconomic strategies developed in isolation can lead to dangerous imbalances. The Pittsburgh summit is an opportunity for the G20 to launch a process to guide the global transition to sustainable growth and Korea together with Australia propose the three-stage process. First, national governments should develop their own strategy for recovery. Second, they should agree to deliver these strategies to the IMF and ask the IMF to report back on their consistency with balanced and sustained growth. Third, G20 leaders should meet in 2010 to agree on their responsibilities and the necessary actions to achieve this goal within the framework of post-crisis global economic management. For the sustainable growth path of the world economy, we also need to take into account various challenges like the aging society, climate change, and unstable price of raw materials, etc. In this regard, I'd like to point out that Korea has embraced low carbon, green growth as a new strategy to lead Korea's developments for the future in moving beyond the conventional economic growth approach. Leaders in Pittsburgh, I discuss and take note of the importance of low carbon, green growth as a new engine of sustainable growth and commit to encouraging green investments and enhancing international cooperation on the development of clean technology. There is still more work to do to implement commitments at the Washington and London summits such as reforming financial systems, modernizing and ensuring resources for the international financial institutions and supporting developing countries. International financial institutions reform is a fertile ground to produce many concrete deliverables for the Pittsburgh summit. In particular, fundamental reform is required of the IMF so that the fund properly reflects the changed global economic weight and promotes more balanced global growth. In this regard, it will be highly important to come up with a concrete roadmap for the quarter review to be completed by January 2011. Given the high level of attention that 1.1 trillion dollar commitments received in London, we are happy to note that satisfactory progress has already been made. Pittsburgh summit should work out a clean picture about how the increased resources will be utilized. With respect to reform of financial regulations, we should guard against the loss of momentum arising from the stabilization of the financial market. This is no time for complacency. In order to stabilize the financial market in the emerging economies, reform of regulations must focus more on assuaging the extreme volatility in the international capital movements and exchange rate. The G20 has firmly established itself as a main forum to produce substantial and detailed agreements on overcoming the challenges of the global economic crisis. The G20 has demonstrated its capability to represent the perspectives of both emerging and advanced countries. As the G20 has demonstrated its capability to represent the perspective as its management efficiency in dealing with major global economic and financial issues. For these reasons, I would say that the G20 is a representative and legitimate forum to steer the global economy. As such, it is crucial for us to make the G20 an ongoing process. In this regard, Korea shares the view that the G20 needs to hold another summit after the Pittsburgh summit to address crucial post-crisis management issues and to ensure the follow-through on previous commitments. As the chair of the G20 Finance Minister's meeting for 2010, Korea would like to host the next G20 summit in 2010 for the following reasons. First, as one of the G20 Troika, Korea has actively contributed to the G20 process, proposing measures such as the standstill pledge, principles of impaired asset management, and liquidity supply for developing countries at the Washington and London G20 summit. Second, it would be natural for Korea to host the fourth G20 summit since it will chair the G20 Finance Minister's meetings and the beauty meetings in 2010. Third, Korea can bridge the viewpoints of developed and developing countries since it has the experience of developing from one of the poorest countries in the world to attaining the status of an OECD member country. I hope Pittsburgh summit will be a total success and with its success, the global economy can continue its path towards full recovery and prosperity. Thank you again for listening and I would be happy to answer any questions afterwards. Thank you. Ambassador Fujisaki. Thank you very much. The notice I received was please try to limit yourself to 10 minutes, but having a Giovanni, the Italian ambassador next to me, he was my Sherpa colleague at G8. I thought and he's leaving, terminating his job in a few weeks. I thought I'll give him my five minutes. I'll limit myself to five. So two days ago I was giving a speech and the title was Japan, Changes and Continuities. Usually you would expect that I would say that there's at least some changes in Japan. I didn't have to do that this time. Today I would just limit myself to three points. G20, climate change and APIC. G20, a year ago, a lot of even pundits in this town said we have to relook at Bretton Woods, really review the whole system and I was a little doubtful. With hindsight, I think there was a bit of exaggeration, but we're not that bad now. But this is thanks to G20 initiative. I think you as a leader and that was great initiative to have G20 summit meeting in November and it was followed. And I think this group of leaders have given one point a confidence. They assured people around the world that they're caring. They're trying to cope with the issue. And that was the big thing. In this coming one we'll be discussing bonuses, BIS and these are not that difficult for us to support because some Japanese business leaders said the bonuses of Japanese corporate CEOs are about two digits smaller than a, well, certain country. I don't have to mention. As for, I'll just say G20 has done a great job. How to use G20 from now on, continue whatever that's a leaders to decide. I was GHR with Giovanni and Al here and we work together. I thought I saw a good colleague over there as well and a lot of American colleagues. And at that time, I thought G8 has two merits over other summits. One, they were coping with political issues, non-proliferation or terrorism and more deeply than any other. Second, because the number were limited, they had real deep exchanges amongst the leaders. And I thought that was good. Second, on climate change, the new incoming government is trying to take the position that our goal for midterm will be far more bigger than what we have been doing. The previous government goal was 15% cut from 2005 and Ratsmer-Mercie was 17% come 2005. But I think what we'll be doing is nearly double those. And it has not, I think new prime minister will announce this in New York, but what he has been saying before becoming in the government was a very big number. So I think this is what some Japanese companies were concerned because they think that it's a little too high. Some industries think that this is a golden opportunity. In 1970s, we met all price hike and that really made Japanese economy more efficient. So we should take it. So it's not one voice in Japan. But one thing I can say is that according to IA, public investment in energy sector is done by two countries mainly, 70% by two countries, US and Japan, US 30%, Japan 40% in public investment in the energy sector. So I think the two countries have special responsibility and special also possibility to realize a lot of contribution in climate change to bring about progress in COP 15. Three, on APEC, we have regarded and we think it's very important because US is involved. It's the only real pan-Pacific community that we are discussing here. We have been continuing. And this year especially is convening Singapore, next year is Japan and year after next is US. So we hope that we can carry a torch in between Singapore and United States and have a very meaningful one. It should not be really only a technical issues that should be discussed. We have to really focus on strategic issues as well. That's about all I have to say. Thank you very much. Ambassador Kessler. Thank you very much. I hope I do not need to have these extra five minutes because what is important to have a contribution all of you about to discuss and try to find some solution for the new architecture and world architecture future. Because I think important is that yeah, there are some some data change. The world is the Berlin world in 9-11. The last one was the global economic crisis last year. This was an acceleration of the of the process of reforming the international architecture. But that was the last point. I think the international architecture needs to be reformed because it was conceived 60 years ago just after the Second World War. So you have the political institution, the United Nations, NATO, you have the economic institution, the IMF, World Bank and so on. So they are a complex institution that perhaps after 60 years need some great reform taking into account the world that has been changed. There's some rising power. There's Asia having a different role in Europe, but in America. And then this new team that were not after the Second World War was not yet tackled as climate change, food, environment and so on. So I think we are not to focus a kind of competition between G8 and NG20 or some national pride. We still have the G8 presidency and then you have the NG20 presidency that will change next year. But I try not to limit and not at all to avoid any competition. All this must be considered as tools to face the crisis and to reach a result. The important is the effectiveness, the accountability of an international institution. And what perhaps lacks on the G8, for example, is that there is not an accountability after years. We decide, we write hundreds of pages, nobody really reads, there is not a binding decision. So I think from the perspective of the Italian presidency, we tried not as because we are president but because of the effectiveness of the institution to organize a G8 that could be a response to the crisis and also helping the other institution to find a solution to the different teams that we are facing. We have a good record because Italy organized the G8 in 2001 in January. For the first time I think we opened the G8 to some African countries, some less developed countries. And that was when we launched for this global health fund that is still working in Geneva. So this year after the L'Aquila G8, that is not anymore G8, we tried to find a new solution to open the debate to other countries. So there was a different kind of a meeting that at the end included 40, around 40 countries because we had the G8 plus 5, then together with Egypt there was, and then there was a discussion to open also to Turkey, to Indonesia where there was another two big countries, perhaps could be including this G8 plus something. President Obama said the last one is that it is excluded, that it is always critical towards the formula of G something. But in L'Aquila was the G8 meeting that a certain sense is a form that has proven to be very useful to debate teams and issues that on a basis of a shared vision, that is the main point of G8, having a country which shared the same vision, the same political and economic vision, open to other countries that have greater responsibility in the world arena, and not forgetting other countries that can give a contribution to solving the problem. And the problem is now this last year we are focused on the global financial economic crisis. That is not to forget that there are other issues that seems now a bit far away, but they are still present. We don't talk anymore about food for example, food security, food need, and that is very important for many countries. We talk about climate change, environment, health, basic health. So the meeting in L'Aquila tried to focus not only on economic global and newer global economic governance, but also on other issues like this one. And so we asked leaders from African countries to come, the Union for Africans. So the service of it, you know, better tell me, service countries that took part to do this meeting. So our contribution as Italian Presidency that we still have until the end of this year is to contribute to build this new global architecture that is not a work for six months, one year. We have the same architecture since 60 years, so perhaps still we need some more time to find a new solution. G20 is a good solution. G20 because it was an immediate response, was a tool that we already had on our hands, so it's easy to say, to rise at the level of the chief of the aid of governments from the normal level they had in the last year, so the finance level. But I think it's not as some good aspect, but perhaps it's not as many say it's as representative as it could be. So I think it's more kind of first response to a crisis. We consider as a kind of a bridge perhaps to a final or definitive solution, and perhaps having some competent at other institution will not have. So this all is a bit of a working progress, not to stack just in one solution. So as we imagine as Italy, as G8 is a kind of a club or radio, some value added that has been proven along the years, but perhaps it's not anymore sufficient to give a response to the so many problems with the present world. G20, it's immediate response that can need to be refined and perhaps to focus on the competence. And then if you have time, talk about UN, NATO, IMF, World Bank, OCDA, and so on. It's a great task, but I don't know, we are always pushed by the emergency of the problem. This year has been the economic crisis. We hope that we are rebounding from this crisis and the starting and a new period of better growth anyway, stopping the decline and starting a new period. And then facing the other problems I was listing before. So I'm very interested to know also what you think about all this problem and together to give perhaps a contribution to the solution. Thank you very much. And by the way, in fact, I'm living in a few weeks. I will be in Rome in October. You are all invited to see me in Rome. But the United States for me is really a second home. I will come as often as possible to Washington, to the rest of the United States. And I know that I have many friends here and you have a good friend, a great friend in Rome. Thank you. Ambassador Kesslin, I think you may have many visitors from the audience given how beautiful Rome is, especially that time of year. So thank you very much. I think the ambassadors have done such an excellent job of covering such a comprehensive range. I'd just like to turn it over to our audience because I know so many people have such great experience and interesting questions. So I'd like to maybe start with the individual, the man right there on the third row, please. Thank you. Mike Miyazawa, I've got a question for Ambassador Fujisaki. At the first G20 summit here in November last year, the Prime Minister of Japan, former Prime Minister of Japan, pledged that Japan is going to extend a loan of $100 billion to the IMF. As everybody knows, there was a change of government in Japan yesterday. So I guess my question is, does this promise by the former Prime Minister of Japan still stand or has there been any change? That commitment was extended, and I think I have not heard of any changes. Thank you. Ernie Prieger, Manufacturers Alliance, just a fact, the U.S. manufacturing industry we project will decline by 16 percent this year. That's related to a position I understand the United States will take at Pittsburgh, namely that the United States can no longer serve as the import of last resort, recovery, where others can pursue export-oriented growth. It's particularly related to China where the big imbalance is, but my question here is rather, assuming the U.S. takes this position in Pittsburgh, will we get the support of others, such as the Europeans, Japan, South Korea, to some form of commitment that recovery should not be based on export-oriented growth that would lead to a bigger U.S. deficit and in effect a real challenge in the recovery of this manufacturing sector? I think you raised quite relevant questions as we recover from these global economic crises. We know all very well that the last four years or five years of rapid growth, mainly due to export, actually will not be the real momentum, may not be the real momentum for growth in the future. That means, I do not mean that the role of trade is somewhat downgraded. Trade is still very important in pushing for growth. It's a really interdependent world and globalization will certainly work in that way. But we know that the overall aggregate demand of the world will certainly be less than the bubble years. So the Pittsburgh Summit has one of its top agenda for G20, which includes all the relevant countries, including United States, China, India, Korea, Japan. And they will discuss on what will be the high, stable, sustainable growth framework in the future after the crisis. That is very important. It includes a lot of macroeconomic policies, but also some kind of a, you know, how to enhance the potential growth rate, which will require some kind of structural reform, balancing between the domestic and the, you know, external demands, and also some kind of rebalancing among the major players on the global economy. So they will discuss. There are some suggestions. Korea, Australia proposed some free-stage, some kind of solution for that. And there's also some proposal by Germany that charter for sustainable economic activities. And also there are one proposed by United States as the framework for sustainable economic growth. So all those are not quite apart from each other. They can find some kind of a common denominator for making the global economy more sustainable in terms of growth and the increasing the standard of living of the global citizens. No, as a European, I can't just say that our position is that when we can just rely on the American market to absorb our products, so I think our commitment will be to have a fair world market, which any tendencies to production can be avoid, and at the same time having an open market so we can also buy and sell our products all around the world. And of course the American economy is still the biggest economy in the world, so it must be important for us to have a fair exchange. And important is the basic thing that the world must be an open world for our products produced on without, they say, to change the rules of competition, so without subsidies, without some other form of inside helping, as you say. So that is there what the ideal world, we hope that we can reach at least some form of this ideal world. Thank you. Sir Fujisaki. Yes, just two points. I agree that countries around the table should commit themselves to increase domestic demand. Point two, they have to commit themselves not to introduce protectionism and that's to not to go down the slippery slope as well. These two has to come hand in hand. And I was looking around the room and yes, I thought I saw my good colleague, Sherpa, here, Edson as well, who worked with me. Thank you. I think there was a question up here in the third row. Thank you, Tricia Lerner. I'm a Senior Political Advisor at Greenpeace International and I have a question for Ambassador Fujisaki. Thank you for your comments about the New Japanese government's mid-term targets. They definitely are to be welcomed and this may will be a game changer for the negotiations under the UN Framework Convention. As you well know, there are only three weeks of negotiating time left and as it now stands, the industrialized countries and the developing countries are very far apart. They are very much pressed and finance is considered to be key to breaking the deadline. So climate finance is on the agenda for the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh next week and yet in discussions with people close to planning for the event, everybody's downplaying and lowering the expectations for what will come out of that. And so my question to you is, is there some way that the Hattoyama initiative might invigorate the discussion and try to get some recommendations coming out on governance and scale and mechanisms of finance so that this can inject some momentum in the talks, which are in crisis? Thank you. Much for the question. First, the new Prime Minister has to make his position known in New York. What he said was before becoming Prime Minister, I think that would, but that of course will be reflected. He said, yes, we'll aim at 25 percent, provided other countries would do that, but that was not as a Prime Minister. So let's see what kind of priority position he'll take. As for the Pittsburgh finance issue, we have been supporting to take up this financial issue in the climate change and I think that position will not be changed. But as someone has said, the new government has come in just yesterday, so it's a little too early for me to sort of explain the position at this juncture. But I'll try as my best. Hi. My name's Ira Strauss. I appreciated the comments of the ambassadors. In particular, I noticed there were some comments which justified the existence of the G8 and that's a change compared to most of what we hear in public discussion and international discussion and I wondered if you could pursue that a little bit with regard to a couple questions. First, the G8 is under attack not just for what it does or doesn't do, but for what it is that it's the rich industrialized countries. Is it wrong or right for the rich industrialized democratic countries to talk with each other? Is there a good thing in that or are we the bad people of the world who really shouldn't talk to each other? I think that ought to be addressed directly. If you think we're not so bad, it might be worth explaining why because there's an awful lot of discussion based on the assumption that we are the bad guys of the world. Mr. Lula has given voice to that, for example. Second, regarding the related issues of OECD and IMF, should the OECD be abolished as an institution of like-minded first world countries or is it worth keeping it that way and not letting in every large third world country also? And regarding IMF and governance, is it true that the world balance has shifted? The main shift I can see in the world balance is that the Soviet Union no longer exists. That has been the one really big shift I've seen in the lifetime of these institutions. Regarding OECD or the first world's weight, it is greater as a part of world GDP than it was in the 60s or the 80s. So I don't see this shift. I wonder, is it real? Isn't the IMF already giving some weight to PPP factors in its weightings which already distort the balance somewhat toward the third world? Would it really be advisable to distort it further compared to the actual economic weights? Those are my several questions. I think those are an interesting question. I think one of the dynamics that he has touched on is the tension between elite organizations and selective organizations versus representatives. I will just make myself short because there are three big questions. I'll take just only the first one. I thought there was some reason of existence in G8 in coping, for example, with infectious disease, that relief amongst those donors, and that was only possible if donors tried to coordinate their position. I know that there are some different views as well, but I'll just limit to my first point. Anyone else? You've got time maybe for two more questions. I'd ask if you could please keep it to one question given the time, and I'll take them both and then ask you to comment on the two questions. I want to go to the woman four rows back there. Thank you, Xiong Ming, a Chinese reporter from the 21st century. This is Harold. The question is also about trade, but more looking at the short term. The first important trade policy decision that President Obama has made is to impose a tear off on Chinese tires, and this has raised concerns worldwide of a possible trade war in the future. So I want to hear from the ambassadors to the G20 leaders, show the G20 leaders made a stronger commitment when they meet to assure that a trade war will not happen and to assure the world against protectionism measures. Okay, thank you. One additional question, please if we could take it at the same time, right here in the front, gentleman on the right. Hello, Robert Charetto, an international investor. I was surprised we didn't hear much at all about financial reform, regulatory reform. Can you each comment? Is there a single reason why we won't believe that another crisis could unfold in three or five years? It seems as though the G20 has taken very little action in this regard. What do you hope to get out of Pittsburgh in terms of concrete proposals that will prevent a crisis in the future? Either of those questions. Ambassador Hanam? I think on some kind of financial regulations which may prevent some of the recurrence of the crisis, I think the agreements made in Washington and London are well underway. There are some other issues which need further consultations and G20 is very active in making those consultations leading into some concrete results. And there are also some institutions engaged in that. And I think in that area, I think G20 can make some consultation very good results. The question is if we agree on that, then how will that be translated into domestic actions? Sometimes the domestic actions is not very clear and sometimes diverge from what we agreed at such a forum as G20. That is another issue that we should deal with, including all multilateral financial institutions to know that. Ambassador Fujisaki? Can I comment on this trading point? I think, as I have already said, I think leaders have to take a strong position on not to introduce protectionism at the same time. It's very unlikely that G20 leaders or even myself would comment on anything that is happening in bilateral context or individual cases because these have to be discussed with facts and findings. And without having those as a third party, usually you would not do that. Thank you very much. Yes, as you know, the European Union's basic position is to, as I said before, open markets or against the protections. But we have to understand what the intent for open market is, a market without any hidden subsidies, no unfair commercial practices. It's not just a question of the final price as a product. How do you get to form the price out both on your market? When you say open frontier, open border, it must be real open, not just the final position of taxes. That is our concept of a free trade and a free market. I'd like to thank all of our ambassadors here and I hope you'll join me in thanking them for their excellent remarks and also for their leadership on these issues over the years and helping address the crisis and chart a way forward. Thank you very much.