 I'm Usmar al-Razrari. You are expert on geopolitics and crisis management at the OCP Policy Center. And lots of crises, obviously, in Africa. But I want to turn to Asia, where you spent many, many years. Barack Obama talked about a pivot to Asia. I'm not sure if it actually happened. Today, Donald Trump is beginning a long voyage to Asia. What is your feeling about the crises in Asia, especially, of course, the North Korean one? Well, I guess that Trump's visit to Asia is somehow not connected to the basic plan of Obama, who was more associated to this democratic agenda to reconstruct or to find some linkings to go beyond the stagnation of the Cold War in the area, mainly in Southeast Asia. Obama is much more interested in the North Korea crisis, as you have mentioned, because it's getting harder and harder tensions and without any projection of what can happen tomorrow from the side of Pyongyang. But also there is an economic part, which might be very important in Trump's visit, mainly with the Japanese, somehow with the Koreans and with the Chinese. Yes, because he talks about renegotiating the trade deal with South Korea. Exactly. And this is somehow from our South Korean friends. It's making them in a panic because they were dreaming or they were living for more than five decades under this structure of this strategic security alliance with the big brother of Washington. Also the Japanese are fitting with the same lines. But now it's what I used to call in a different occasion with this project of Trump to switch from the strong states to the enterprise states. If in Europe we are talking about nation state, I guess that Trump is bringing, let's say, engineering this new concept of enterprise state. And he's bringing Washington to lead this project, which means all the services should be paid. There is nothing for free or moral in international relations. Alliances are economic, basically. And this new doctrine is bringing his friends in panic, I guess, mainly Asians. Totally changing the whole geopolitical structure. Mainly in the area of cooperation. But a final question, and there's obviously a problem with how to deal with Pyongyang and Kim Jong-un. How likely do you think conflict is as opposed to containment? Well, in my sense there is three scenarios. The conventional one, which is to bring everybody to the sixth table of negotiation instead of war. And this was taking a long time debate over the last two decades. But unfortunately what has happened, and personally I have this feeling, even as an expert of, I mean, East Asian security, there is a missing piece in the analysis, either the piece associated to information about the military building capability of Pyongyang, which might be over the capacity of missiles, something else that is making everybody to deal with Pyongyang in that way. I think we live in a very dangerous environment. Exactly. This is the feeling I do have in the last two experiences of testing missiles over. I'm in the north of Japan. And I guess that the reaction, even of Tokyo after that, Tokyo is resisting any military. I mean, how we say reaction, and talking that peace building and dialogue should be the only option. And that's why Pyongyang is repeating the experiences, despite of the fact that Trump is criticizing them. He was talking about mobilization of maritime force, but this fleet hasn't arrived yet since February 2017, we're almost 10 months. And this environment personally is making me as a researcher using open sources in confusion. And for Rosarito, thank you so much today. God bless you.