 Jan Paternum, I want to come to you last, please, for your thoughts. Excuse me, thank you, Monsieur. I think we can all dream of a new economic order, but if we really want to build a new, vibrant, multilateral organization, we need to meet, in my view, two conditions, like frankly, in any diplomatic negotiation. One is to define clear, mutual benefits. And the second is to have strong, equal players. So let me elaborate a little bit on that. How do we achieve mutual benefits? I think we are part of the problem we are all facing is that, in a way, we are flying blind here. We frankly don't have much information to assess, for instance, how much damage countries, companies are inflicting on each other and on society as a whole. So in other words, we must do a better job at understanding and mitigating externalities. And what I mean by externality, because we've all used the word, but it's anything that disturbs the level playing field between individuals, companies and countries. So let me give you two concrete examples of what I think are achievable goals with hopefully enough consensus. One is to curb excessive concentration of corporate power pretty much everywhere in the world. We talked a lot about inequalities, but I think that's at the center of the problem. There are reasons to be optimistic. The OECD countries, as you know, have already achieved a minimum corporate tax. And I think the issue now is to tackle the issue of tax optimization and in particular transfer pricing mechanisms. As you know, the US government is looking very seriously at the issue. Microsoft was given a very significant fine just a week ago or so. And I think to put things in perspective first, you may know that, but it is estimated that $1 trillion of corporate profits each year are booked in tax havens. It's a considerable amount of money, and I think we need to do more on that front. And that, again, government should have mutual interest because that's more money for their coffers. And the second goal I like to illustrate in the area of climate change is that, first of all, de-globalization makes it harder to achieve our decarbonization goals, not easier. So I think that's a very strong point to make. And to illustrate this point, someone talked about the WTO report that was issued just last week. One interesting statistic is that they looked at solar panels, for instance, over the last 30 years or so. And as you know, there's been a huge decrease in cost. And the WTO economists were able to assess that 40% of that decline was due to economies of scale that were obtained through international free trade. So, you know, in contrast, if we don't have this kind of economic efficiency, we are even less likely to meet our decarbonization targets, right? So that's the third point around defining strong mutual interest, and hopefully not too many of them, so that we don't get distracted. Again, it's like any diplomatic exercise. The second point about having strong players. I think we talked about GDP this morning and how the picture looks scary for Europe. In reality, in terms of PPP basis, so in plain English, adjusted for cost of living, GDP in Europe is only 4% lower than in the US, right? And actually, if you look per capita, Europe is actually in a better situation now than it was 20 years ago. So we have to put things in perspective. However, this is today and the past going forward. The situation is very weak for Europe, which is missing essentially the technology revolution and just one statistic that is very revealing. In Europe, private companies invest about $50 billion a year in technology R&D. In the US, it's five times this amount, about $250 billion. And China, which started from zero 15 years ago, is now well above Europe. So with less economic power, the issue for Europe will be how relevant it can be on the international scene and still influence the world. And then the second weak player for completely different reasons will be emerging markets. I think that's probably where we need to make collective decisions for the sort of long term common good, if you will. Thank you very much, Charles.