 Welcome to this arena session. Apologies for the late start. Just so you know up front, we must break this meeting in about 12 minutes time, because there's another session which is very generously given away a little bit of that time, so we could have this opportunity to speak with Foreign Minister Adel Benachmed Al-Jubeir. Foreign Minister, fantastic you made it here. We're really looking forward to it. You can see you've got a good turnout here, and this conversation is also going to be live streamed for those of you who are in the room and are thinking about what you're going to say, but live streamed on the top link and website. If you don't mind, I'm going to jump straight in, so we'll make the most of this time with you. And what I will do is this is an arena, and the arena is meant to involve people in the room. I would literally ask one or two quick questions and just get a few comments in from around the room and bring them back to you. We have a new president heading into the White House. The relationship has not been great, I will say this, with the Obama administration, especially towards the end. What would you like to see that would be different? More American engagement in the world, more American engagement in the region, rebuilding of relationships with allies, a serious effort to destroy ISIS, serious effort to contain Iran, and I think the change will happen. The U.S. goes through periods where it's looking inwards and it goes through periods where it's engaged with the world. I think that now it's going to go through a period of engagement with the world. Despite President Trump, America first kind of approach, and in particular just on Iran, the nuclear part of the deal, would I be right in saying the Saudi government could live with it, but it was the regional engagement that really has been the most, the greatest source of concern. If there's an opportunity for this nuclear deal to be revisited or not observed or somehow, is that good news or bad news from the Saudi perspective? I think a number of countries, including Saudi Arabia, have concerns about the nuclear deal. What happens to Iran's enrichment capabilities after 10 or 12 years when the limits on enrichment and centrifuges are lifted? Do people trust the Iranian regime in not trying to acquire a nuclear weapon? I don't think they do. That's one concern. The other concern, so the deal has to be implemented to the letter in order for people to be assured, and this is what the Iran administration told us would happen, and this is what we expect the P5 Plus one to do. Secondly, the bigger concern with Iran is its engagement in the region, its support of terrorism, its violation of ballistic missile agreements, and the fact that it has gotten away with so much over so many years is an issue of great concern. So we expect and we hope that the world will be serious about making sure that Iran is held accountable for its support of terrorism and for violating the ballistic missile arrangements and for its interference in the affairs of the countries of the region. There'll have to be, in a way, then, in that case, for that kind of outcome to happen, some type of pushback. In a way, Iran has much greater influence than it did before in Iraq, something I know that has caused quite a bit of frustration to Saudi ministers and your ambassador there. There's a pretty tense relationship at the moment between the Iraqi government and the Saudi government, and it would look as if, in Syria, the deal that will be done will be one in which, very possibly, Iran will get what it wanted, which is Assad in power for a long period, and the Syrian negotiating committee, which the Saudi government has supported, is excluded from the Astana negotiations. Do you feel that, in a way, although this is what you would like, the reality may be a stronger Iran, at least for the next two to three years regionally? I don't think so. I think the world is walking up to Iran. The region is walking up to Iran. Iran's capabilities, financial resources are limited. There are conflicts taking place within Iran in terms of where the direction of the country will be, so I doubt that this would be the case. With regard to Syria, the reason the Syrian High Commission is not involved in the Astana talks is because those talks involve the fighting forces on the ground, not the political groups. That's one of the reasons. The talks will be held at the level of technical talks. The objective of those talks is to come up with modalities for a ceasefire nationwide, then take the talks to Geneva and presume the talks under UN auspices on the basis of the Geneva 1 declaration and UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which is something that we have advocated for a very long time. Do you think that Iran could be a partner in fighting Daish? Daish is a pivotal moment in the conflict against it, at least in the region. It is a common enemy, I would have thought, at least on this issue. Can you see any areas where cooperation are possible or not? It's not an issue of cooperation, not cooperation. We look forward to cooperating with the Iranians and others in terms of fighting terrorism. But the fact of the matter is Iran has been single-handedly the most important supporter of terrorism in the region. Iran has created and supported Hezbollah. Iran has harbored terrorists, sheltered terrorists. The virtual board of directors of Al Qaeda settled in Iran after the American invasion of Afghanistan. The order to blow up three housing compounds in Riyadh in 2003 was made by Saif Al-Addel, the chief of operations for Al Qaeda, while he was in Iran, in a phone call that we have on tape. The three leaders of the terrorist attack in Skobar Towers in 1996 fled to Iran and had been living there ever since. Their leader, Al-Muqassil, was captured in Lebanon last year with an Iranian passport even though he's a Saudi citizen. We know of contacts between Iran and Hezbollah through Imam al-Muqliya and Osama bin Laden while he was in Sudan in the early 90s. I find it interesting that virtually every country in the world has been attacked by Al Qaeda and Da'af except Iran. Why? So let me just bring two other topics in very quickly. I'm just going to move sideways for a second. We had Xi Jinping giving the opening speech here in Davos this year talking about the importance of globalization, sustaining that track. It has become one of the key markets, not the key market for Saudi oil exports. Do you see China playing a different kind of role? Here you are, United States, which is not a big importer of oil from the region but is a key security ally. China, which perhaps is an even bigger economic relationship but is not really a security ally. How do you think you're going to manage this balance? Do you see China playing a bigger role in the region? Is this something you look forward to? I believe just by virtue of China's size, China will be playing a bigger role not only in the region but in the world. I believe that the rise of China should be a source of stability rather than conflict because as China gets integrated into the world and into the world economic and financial systems, it has a tremendous interest in stability of those systems and so I think the rise of China should be one that is welcome, not one that is viewed as a source of threat. With regards to our relationship with the US, the US and Saudi Arabia have had a historic strategic partnership, if not alliance, since World War II. That relationship continues. We expect it to broaden and deepen and grow stronger. Our interests are aligned when it comes to the issues of the region, whether it's Syria, Iraq, Iran, whether it's Yemen, whether it's terrorism, whether it's energy issues, financial issues. We have very, very strong people-to-people relationships with the US and I expect that this will continue. With your experience there, I'm sure you're going to be one of the people closely involved in this relationship because I know you've had significant experience as well on the congressional side. I'm going to ask one last question. We're being so disciplined on time here and then I'm just going to look around for two or three hands and you will have to be extremely quick and specific with your question if I take them and I've seen one already. Last point on this. You said the relationship with the US is one that you want to make sure remains strong. President-elect Trump has said that he looks forward to moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. And yet here we are at a time where many in Israel have been hoping that some version of the Arab Peace Initiative could come back again. This is a moment where Israel and the Gulf countries in particular, in the context of a common enemy in Iran, might be able to find a way to work together on a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Are you worried this is just going to go in the opposite direction under this administration? I hope not. I believe that previous administrations have called for moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, but when they recognize the dangers that this would entail, they have delayed that decision. Congress passed a law in 1996 calling for the US embassy to move to Jerusalem. It's now been 20 years and it has not been moved because people recognize the danger that it entails. The issue of Jerusalem is to be a final status issue to be discussed and negotiations between the parties. You mentioned the Arab Peace Initiative. The Arab Peace Initiative is still on the table. It was accepted not only by all of the Arab countries, but also by the Organization of Islamic Conference, which includes more than 50 Islamic countries. The initiative was amended a few years back to allow for swaps of territory between Israel and Palestine. I think it's become now the main basis for a settlement. We had a meeting in Paris on Sunday, where more than 70 countries reiterated the importance of maintaining the possibility of a two-state settlement, and reiterated the principles upon which such a settlement should be based, which is development UN resolutions in the Arab Peace Initiative. Our hope is that there will be enough courage and enough political will on both sides to be able to move to settling this longest conflict in our region. Right. Two. One, two. Two people put their hands up straight away and they're sitting next to each other, so it'll make life easy and our colleagues won't get too upset. For Minister Faisal Abbas from Arab News, Chasta, with a new administration coming to Washington soon, what is the best that can be hoped? A watered-down version of Chasta or a complete reversal, we know that Saudi lobbyists and the Saudi government has been working extensively to try to explain the Saudi point of view on this. So what are your kind of hopes for achieving with the new administration on that front? Okay. Just pass the microphone to your right, because I'll let you then manage the time quickly yourself. Mina Al-Arabi, YGL. I wanted to ask you about the visit of the Lebanese president to Saudi Arabia. We've seen tensions mount in the region in 2016. Is this the start of some of those tensions coming down? And how do you see the possibility of political progress in Syria? Thank you. Okay. With regards to Chasta, it really is an American situation. You could explain that just not about him. Chasta is called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, and what it has done is it has diluted sovereign immunities somewhat in order to allow for lawsuits against countries that are suspected of having been involved in terrorist attacks in the United States. The concern that we have, as well as over 90 other countries who have expressed those concerns to the U.S., is that when you dilute sovereign immunities, you turn the international order into the law of the jungle. For example, allowing countries to use your airspace in warfare could subject you to lawsuits. Using drones could subject you to lawsuits. The discretionary functions of government, these are decisions that government make as policy, are no longer immune to potential lawsuits. The agricultural policies of certain countries could be then viewed not as discretionary functions of government but as restraint on trade and therefore market manipulation and therefore subject to lawsuits. That's the concern that Saudi Arabia as well as over 90 countries have with regards to Chasta. There is a common view in the Congress that it was not thought through and that it needs to be amended in order to remove the unintended consequences of this legislation. There are attempts to try to amend it or modify it so that it does not dilute the discretionary functions of government and the sovereign immunities of government. Our hope is that wisdom will prevail and the Congress will do the right thing and make the adjustments. The country that has the most to lose from the dilution of sovereign immunities is the United States itself and American officials know this because America has the largest footprint in the world. They operate all over the world, they are fighting wars all over the world, they provide weapons to countries all over the world. If that principle is eroded then the US could be sued in virtually every country in the world. American officials and members of Congress know this and that's why they are trying to come up with a formula. With regards to the visit of the President of Lebanon, Saudi Arabia has always had very strong relations with Lebanon. We have always cared about Lebanon, we have always been at the forefront of countries trying to bring the Lebanese factions together. We were instrumental in ending the civil war in Lebanon where we hosted the TAIF agreement that moved Lebanon towards better future. We have been very strong supporters of Lebanon, we have more than 400,000 Lebanese who live in Saudi Arabia and who sent back close to $5 billion a year to Lebanon. So we want to have the best possible relations with Lebanon. Our concern is that Lebanon not be a source of danger to us, mainly Hezbollah, which operates in Yemen, which operates in Bahrain and which has tried to have terrorist cells in Saudi Arabia. The election of President Owen was a decision that the Lebanese made on their own. Our position has been whatever the candidate the Lebanese agreed to is fine with us. Hezbollah has acted as a statesman as soon as he was elected. He gave a very inclusive speech. He reached out to all Lebanese factions. He made it a point to make Saudi Arabia his first visit outside of Lebanon, to underscore the importance of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to Lebanon. I believe that he will be a statesman who represents all Lebanese, and I believe that he will contribute to the healing process in Lebanon given his history. He was a former army chief, he was defiant in the face of Syria's attempts to undermine the TAIF agreements. Now that he's moving from a partisan position to a nationalist position, we will do whatever we can to support the Lebanese in general. For a minister, we have to break it. We've gone four minutes a little over the time, the extra time that we'd set ourselves. But as always, you have covered the landscape extremely quickly and in my opinion extremely well. Could we please give a strong hand to for a minister for getting his time? My apologies again. I thought traffic was bad in Riyadh.