 We see the humanitarian landscape changing. We are experiencing in real time the huge challenges of humanitarian access. And I think sometimes we have not been ambitious enough of the potential of working together. The needs are not in the nation and therefore I really believe that it's partnerships for meeting needs. That's why it's so important. We need to find the right people, the right competencies to be able to do that fast but also with a lot of consistency. And that's what makes the Red Cross Red Crescent so powerful and what makes also partnership so strong. The moment Red Cross is not there, the question is where is the Red Cross? Why are we not there? The Red Cross Red Cross Red Cross is a humanitarian message. You can't expect anything from it to come out if it's not there. But the basic meaning is to be able to cover up the issue. In order to solve the problem, in order to solve the problems that exist. The Red Cross is there as a human resource. And the Red Cross is there as a greater resource to continue together. And that's the main goal of a human resource. First, we were in Syria. There was a lot of talk. People used to come back and say why is the Red Cross in Syria? After discovering that we are from Syria and Lebanon, both of them, more than each other, have changed their perspective. The need to respond, everybody knows who you are. So when they get out into the field, they are ready to provide neutral independent services. And for that, the emblem has not been put into question. Because it's the service that's there. As a volunteer at the Red Cross, we try to give him the pride of not belonging to a political party. And we have principles that no one else has. We should be proud of these principles. They're as relevant today as they were 150 years ago. Neutrality doesn't mean you sit on the fence doing nothing. We always take the side of the victims. They don't have the right experience. So with them, we are the people who are exposed to danger. And the people who are exposed to danger are very welcomed by the international community and by the Red Cross. Since people are used to the Red Cross, to work with the Red Cross, the service is accepted because people are not the distinction. And when national society or ICRC creates some problems in the field, the impact will be very negative and we will lose our reputation. We would like to proudly talk about our strong 189 national societies. We know that in reality not all of them are strong. And accountability and transparency and anti-corruption work is a prominent feature of the discussions on the agenda. The problems that they have here in the community, in the environment of drug addiction, violence, armed conflict, poverty, what are the advantages of working with the ICRC that comes to these communities, that comes to parts where the police doesn't even come, so we can intervene. We can easily enter, talking to the people who provide the invisible barriers, we can get here, precisely to work with these children and take them out of the environment. Working together protects us, our volunteers and the people that we're trying to help. The National Society volunteers, they are from the same culture, they can respond and they can understand things maybe in a way that we would not. And can receive the people in a dignified way in their own cultures. I think that this is a very good example of proximity supported by the ICRC. So I was there basically when the tsunami hit, I was stationed there and I had to deal with the immediate aftermath. I think this was something quite amazing to see people accepting the fate, nevertheless, and trying to help those who needed help. The best example most likely is the PMI, the Indonesian Red Cross. I mean, they did everything they could possibly do to help their own people. Without them, I think it would never have been possible to do as much as we were able to put in place. We are a big organization, but we cannot do it alone. That's very clear. And we absolutely need to find the right partnership to increase the impact of our response. The advantage of working together for so long with the ICRC is that people now know each other. People are used to each other, and when there is a crisis, we feel more reactive together. The personal issue is very important, the personal relation, but we need to have a clear standard operating procedures to formulate everything in practice. How we can work together to complement each other in operations, especially in operations we can sit, we can discuss in the meetings. It's nice. But in the field, let's see how we can manage. The trust wasn't clear. The partnership wasn't easy. And this is why we decided after building our capacity and supported by ICRC directly and indirectly, we realized that we need to complement each other. Sometimes we work independently, but we inform each other of what we're doing. We may not completely agree, but we respect what each other does. This terminology about using each other, does the ICRC use national societies for our objectives? My answer to that question is, I hope so. And I hope that national societies use the ICRC in their operations. I think that it's only when we are openly and transparently using each other that we can really take the best out of the movement. I have asked partners in South Sudan at a recent partnership meeting, what are you doing to invest into the South Sudan Red Cross? It is very clear that there are competent South Sudanese. So, you know, I think we really have options and choices to make in terms of investing into our own staff or investing into the capacity of the host national society. I think we are very innovative in the way we adapt our response to the people in the field. We have to because we're close to people. British Red Cross, we've really tried to prioritize an expertise in cash-based responses. In the ICRC, it falls under that sort of echo-sec economic security area of work of which the ICRC has been able to draw down on to deliver some really significant cash-based response or livelihood support for people affected by crisis. I think it's much more flexible than just giving them, for example, any kind of assistance that they might not proceed as good for them. So, it's more about giving them a choice. We as humanitarian, we will have to continue to respond to very, very acute emergencies. And the only way to be able to do that is to have a strong partnership, which allow a national Red Cross, Red Crescent and an ICRC to really be able to answer with all these different competencies and to be prepared for the worst. And we have to be prepared for the worst. It's quite easy that the donors will find other humanitarian actors to do business with. And we're either in this business professionally or we are not.