 Well, I suggest we get started. It's obviously been a long day, and we have only the heartiest souls still before us. We had a session just before on terrorism. That's one aspect of much violence that takes place in the world. Some countries have civil wars. If one thinks around the world today about the prospects of interstate conflict, three places come to mind. One is Syria, where there is, in fact, a proxy war going on at the present time. A second is Kashmir, which tensions rise up between India and Pakistan from time to time. And the third is East Asia, with three large powers surrounding the Korean peninsula and remote power of the United States, having an alliance with two countries, and a very peculiar country, North Korea, in the midst of this surrounding territory. We have three experts, each representing one of those countries to talk about political stability and economic stability in the East Asian region, looking forward, not to next year, but longer horizon if they can stretch their minds to what the both unpleasant possibilities and any solution to the unpleasant possibilities might be. And I'd just like to start with the ambassador from Japan to start us out, giving us a Japanese perspective on this region, and then we'll proceed in the order on the schedule that you have. Thank you very much, Richard. I'll just look back a few years ago. Only three years ago, the new government of Japan, led by Prime Minister Abe, was seen by some quarters of the region and the world as a revisionist country, which is trying to change the status quo of the history, or the history. Now, there's no such voices as far as I know. And Japan is seen as one of the countries which is bringing instability to the region. It's because our relations have changed with countries around us very drastically. Starting from North Russia, now the middle of December, Mr. Putin is coming to Tokyo, Japan to discuss our territory issue, which has been lingering on for years. The reason Japanese government is thinking this is the right time is because we have strong Prime Minister, they have strong Prime Minister, President, and also Russia is not in a strong position in international arena, those three reasons. However, Japanese government has repeatedly said that we will not change our attitude regarding sanctions. We will go along with these other countries. China, our relations have become a lot better in the last two years, leaders are meeting and they're accepting our huge Chinese, Japanese delegation, economic delegation and high level people are meeting. Of course there are issues. Japan like other countries are concerned about South China Sea and we are concerned about East China Sea as well. So law of the sea issue is already there. It's not only Japan, China, it's more a legal issue. One thing that bothers me as a person who really respects so much China, friend to China is that the words used sometimes regarding the arbitration of the court by high level officials, litter or that's nothing. And those very negative words are not used in my large powers usually. So we are a bit concerned about it but I think all in all Japan, China relations are getting a lot better. Korean relations is getting better as well. We had to put a comma, have not 100% of the so called comfort women issue and Korea and Japan relations are a lot better. than before. India, Mr. Modi was there, Philippines, New Territor was there so all in all the relations have become a lot better. Now, the most important issue is United States the country which is far from us but the country we have alliance with, the only alliance with. Some people were concerned about what Mr. Trump has been saying during the campaign but that tone has changed with Korea, with NATO, with Japan as well. And he's now saying that Japan US relations is the basis of his policy and he would put importance into that. Maybe there could be discussion with allies on burden sharing but I think he will know that we have done already a lot of burden sharing and that is not the real base. Now TPP COP 21, those new policies it may not come through right away but we don't have it anyway. So what's most important is alliance and if that alliance is confirmed we do not have to change our security policy. That is the key but if we cannot defend of course that's a very different story. This is the very issue and we are now being assured we think. We'll wait to see how it will be implemented in the years to come but this is where we are now. Thank you very much. Well thank you very much for the invitation. Basically I think if we look at the past year the situation in the region has been you can see the positive side and negative side. On the negative side first we do see a deterioration of the situation during the better part of the year. One first the major powers relations are problematic. China and the US had problems over the South China Sea first over China's construction and expansion on the rocks in the South China Sea and then China's protest against the US conduct of the so-called freedom of navigation patrols and then the US and China had separate joint military exercises in the region and China-Japan relations still somehow affected by the disputes over the Diao Yi Island and the adjacent waters. Once in a while you will hear the media reports on this kind of maneuvers in this area by the boats and planes of the two countries. And also public opinions in the two countries about the other country is still very low. And China and South Korea relationship deteriorated with the announcement of the decision on the part of the South Korean government to deploy the Tha system. This led to a downturn of the relationship with joint military exercises between China between the US and its allies and friends on the one hand and China and Russia on the other. Many are concerned that the military maneuvers and confrontation along this line is taking shape. In the meantime regional security mechanisms are not working are not functioning properly. We have the six party talks but they have remained suspended because of the North Koreans resistance to give up its nuclear weapons. And also confronted with the South China Sea disputes the ASEAN finds it very difficult to respond so it's quite divided. The hotspots, one of them is North Korea's nuclear development. This challenge is approaching to a threshold. The North Korea conducted another round of nuclear tests and as a result it is suspected that it will have the capability of launching a nuclear attack against the US continent now with the missiles and the warheads together. Precisely at this moment, maybe because of China and South Korea becoming over the Tha system the North Korea launched another round of nuclear tests and at this moment China is divided as to whether and how much to work with the US and South Korea to stop North Korea's nuclear efforts because the Tha system is perceived as a strategic threat to China by the Chinese government. In the South China Sea the situation for a while it was getting very bad when the military ships were confronting each other. And also in the South China Sea there is lack of progress in terms of the negotiation of a code of conduct in the South China Sea. Despite the fact most countries or almost every country wants to have a code of conduct in rhetoric. But there are also positive news. The positive news include first, well we do have us, we do see a stabilization of the situation in the East China Sea. Despite lack of an agreement on how to manage the disputes over the sovereignty claims of the Diaoyu Island, China and Japan have made sure that their activities in the waters adjacent to the Diaoyu Island managed in a way that they don't have a direct confrontation or collision or accidents. And also we also see a stabilization of the situation in the South China Sea. I think after the ruling of the court of arbitration and China's rejection of it, the situation actually has improved. In part because of this miracle of Filipino election, a result of Filipino election, the new government of Philippines headed by President Duet adopted a different approach toward China and he managed to visit China and come up with an agreement with China over how to manage the disputed territories and waters in the South China Sea. And of course in return, we got a big package of aid from China. So China's disputes with the Philippines under control actually of China Filipino relationship way improve as China promised to help the Philippines to build infrastructure projects. And then we saw the visit by the Malaysian Prime Minister to China appeared that the relationship between the two countries have been good despite overlapping claims over certain waters in the South China Sea. And in the meantime, China and Vietnam are conducting talks on how to manage their relationship including the disputes in the South China Sea. So as a result, the waters in the South China Sea are coming down for good reason, at least for the time being. As the situation in the South China Sea and East China Sea quiet down, China-US relationship over this issue has become less confrontational. When we look at the future, we also see positive side and negative side. On the positive side, I think China favors more stability now it appears. China has been balancing between the need to defend its legitimate interests and the need to have stability. If you talk about the previous years, probably China gives more emphasis on the former and now it seems to me that there is a trend toward the latter, that is some favoring stability. There is no sign of new construction efforts and also on the Chinese part and China also makes greater efforts to push for the one belt, one road which requires relative stable international environment especially around China. And also, China always faces the need to focus on domestic issues. The new, the Xi government has a lot of reforms proposed and they need time and energy and resources to focus on these reforms to make it work. And Japan and most other claimants in the South China Sea and East China Sea also have an interest in stability and in finding a way to manage the disputes. On the negative side, recently we see news that Vietnam is conducting some kind of construction on an airstrip in its controlled artificial island in the South China Sea. It is reported that it's longer than one kilometers now. So I don't know how that would affect the stability of the region which is very fragile at the moment. Also, a bigger challenge is the result of the US election. So the president elect Donald Trump, he has said something and he has not said something but because he had no experience in government, his ace, we do not know. So his election poses a lot of uncertainties. We may see a more rocky relationship between China and the United States. Recently, Alexander Gray and Peter Navarro published an article in foreign policy. It's called Peace Through Strength, Donald Trump's Asia Pacific Strategy. They are believed to be advisors to President-elect Donald Trump. In the article, they condemned Obama's policy of pivot and rebalancing for being too weak, too soft. They advocate a policy of strength on the South China Sea and the East China Sea and also Taiwan. So we don't know what's going to happen if President Donald Trump takes this kind of position then we may see a more rocky world volatile relationship between China and the United States. And also, if you believe that Alexander Gray and Peter Navarro's position is Donald Trump's position, then we'll see more forceful measures against North Korea. They also criticized the previous government for being too soft on North Korea. So maybe a preemptive strike is in the list of their action, you know, alternatives. And also the campaign, during the presidential campaign, we see Donald Trump talked about, you know, raising the demanding the allies to pay more for U.S. protection. And that probably would alienate U.S. allies in the region and may cause some additional instability, at least uncertainty in the region, in security terms. So in the region, most countries, we share a lot of common interests. We need political stability. But at the same time, we have different countries have different views and approaches as to how to attain them. The region therefore demands wise leadership more than ever. However, chances are, it is more likely to be, I mean, the region is more likely to be disappointed than not, especially given the implications of the campaign rhetoric during the recent U.S. presidential elections. So I will end with that, not quite positive note. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chiu. Okay. Okay, thank you very much. Over the past 71 years, East Asia has marked a big economic stride and development, winning over the winds of the Korean War and Vietnam War. Democracy and social justice and fairness has spread a lot. But still there are sources of instability here and there. Number one issue in the region is, of course, the question of relocating the, you know, new fashion, the balance of power relations between United States and emerging superpower China. That's why every people, like everywhere, times their attention to what the first coming Trump government will take action, will take a new orientation toward Asia. And we have to see and follow up. South Korea's position is to help promote cooperation and harmonious relationship between United States and China being situated in between. And we found a lot of commonality that can be shared by the two powers and we have to really encourage the kind of harmonious relations to be evolved in the future. United States government alliance with Korea and Japan will remain strong, leaving the issue of adding up for the burden sharing problem. But I hope that, and also I sincerely believe, at the same time that this method of burden sharing can be set to the properly in due course of time as we have done so far in the past. So let us try for that. And a TPP launch failure was set back for important country like Japan and others who participate. We are not a member of the TPP yet. We are ready to join in the second round of trade liberalization program, but actually it has not been done yet. The FTAAP or ALCEP will be there as promoted by China and other countries in the region, but that will take quite some time and we hope very much as a free trading country, we want very much that this kind of liberalization will be realized across the Asia Pacific, including all participants, including United States, Japan, China of course, and ASEAN countries in Korea as well. Rather we expect that there are bilateral FTAAPs still ongoing and ongoing negotiation of trilateral FTAAPs among China, Japan and Korea still pending, depending on the further causes of action by Trump government, maybe we can find enough dynamism to relaunch the trilateral FTAAP making exercise. China, Japan direct confrontation of the Senkaku Island recently has been wound down, of course the root cause is still there, but overall, even though there are differences of the interpretation of the past and this problem of the island, the tension has been wound down a little bit and we hope that this kind of renormalizing ties will continue to keep on going and certainly the forthcoming trilateral summit meeting that will be held in Japan may help there, for the time being, due to internal situation in Korea we have some problem, but we hope very much that this December this meeting can be held in Japan so that we can mark all the progress in promoting reconciliation among the regional countries. Regarding our ties to Russia, Russian president Putin wants very much to develop a far eastern region and he launched so-called far eastern economic forum for two years ago and last September Prime Minister Abe of Japan and President Park Geun-hae of Korea attended and they made some agreement to push forward cooperation at the sub-regional level and we tried on our part very hard to link the railway with Russia through North Korea and we are about to sign last February, but because of bomb testing, first bomb testing of nuclear weapon by North Korea we have to cancel all the signing programs and we are being delayed. We have deep question whether we should wait permanently until North Korea open up to do something on European, Russian context. So we have to think about the theory and our idea of doing something not passing through North Korea but linking the far eastern part of Russia, China, Siberia, and then lead up to Europe so that we can start building the long process of Russian cooperation level. But the most important and foremost imminent threat for our region is North Korean nuclear ambition. As people say that North Korea had some around eight to 10 nuclear weapons already and it continues developing nuclear weapons and it continues develop long range delivery vehicles and the SLBM agile. So it is extremely dangerous and if left unchecked, North Korea might have 100 nuclear warheads in three to five years time. And nobody can control North Korea now and it will be even harder by that time. So we have to embark on serious effort to bring North Korea on board to force it to come back, to come from stable to forget about the nuclear weapon and open up the economy and accept our extended hand. Otherwise, if North Korea continues to be recognized, continues to develop nuclear weapon and be recognized as nuclear de facto and the regulated weapons state, that will mean the end of the NPT non-proliferation treaty system and IA will be seriously damaged in terms of its region debt. And this means a serious threat to world peace. It could direct threat to security of South Korea and Japan and other neighboring countries including China and also entire world will suffer from this cogmire. I think the United Nations, namely the permanent members of the Security Council should join hand and take standard measures to address this issue. The UN resolution 20270 should be implied completely and the first coming new resolution will be even tougher but should be implemented as correctly as possible so that North Korea might accept to negotiate again. There is a serious human right problem of North Korea. Everybody knows about North Korean human right violation and recently UN General Assembly adopted another resolution condemning human right violation of North Korea and put that case, or put the responsibility of the leader of North Korea regime to international criminal court. At the moment this is General Assembly but I think if North Korea doesn't behave, doesn't elevate the human right situation better direction and continue to develop nuclear weapons that threaten the entire humankind, we have to level up the pressure and we really think that even the Security Council should take human right resolution for the sake of preventing further human calamity and extreme human right violation. But we don't mean only through pressure we want to achieve this purpose. My government has suggested different means and measures like our proposal of setting up North Sea Station Development Bank and North Sea Station Peace and Cooperation Initiative that is to promote our regional security dialogue, structure and mechanism. That way we can provide safe haven for North Korea to find room for breathing in terms of its own security and survival of the region because you are being part of the family of nations in the region so you don't need to worry about survival issue. So that is the main reason why we promote this so-called North Sea Station Peace and Cooperation mechanism and this North Sea Station Development Bank in addition to AIB can help rebuild the North Korean economy and this bank will be very much useful for building the three provinces of China and Far Eastern region of Russia as well. Everybody will take benefit and in doing this bank we definitely think that United States and Japan should join in the bank together in China and Russia. But even if we do all these efforts and openness to embrace North Korea, if North Korea continues to obstinately stick to nuclear weapon program and doesn't listen to our call for coming back to conference table, then it is better to address that situation as clearly now rather than later, five years or six years later that nobody can address this issue with physical means or whatever means. So we really hope that North Korea change mind but if North Korea doesn't abide by this joint call of the international community and develop nuclear weapons, threatened the NPT regime and all the faith about of the humanity, then we have to take bold action in terms of addressing North Korean threat. In the last previous section, we got on the terrorism, there were debate about the region, region depth of the regime change or not. Nobody wants to see the collapse of North Korean regime because it provoked a lot of digesting problem. But if there is no other alternative, we must accept that fact and take bold action as some measures together with the international community and the United Nations Security Council. And to do that, the South Korean government should embark on very serious negotiation with the Trump government, first coming from government to set up a joint plan of action and on that, on building on that, we have to discuss with China and Japan and Russia, mostly with China to set up common position and also discuss with Japan and Russia to set up a five-party joint proposal and present it to North Korea to take it or leave it. We hope very much that North Korea accept and come back to come from stable and that is best way for us to help for peaceful unification of the peninsula, which was left by the modern 71 years. I think among key partners, we need deeper talks. We need very frank communication regarding the future of Korean peninsula, future of the nuclear bomb that North Korea has. All these type of things, we need to frank discussion and deeper communication among the parties. We need to restore six-party talks. If it is necessary, we have five-party meetings, trilateral meeting of Korea-Japan United States, trilateral meeting of Korea-China United States and other countries as well, or even bilateral meetings with North Korea. We need to reach out all these means to settle this program. This will be a long and arduous track. It will be very much difficult. We must also go hand in hand with pushing our peaceful unification of the divided peninsula. A new or true and complete solution of the North Korean dilemma can be found only in the promoting peaceful unification of the peninsula and the people. I fully wish support of the audience here and continue the action together for a right cause. Thank you. Thank you very much. I don't have firm guidance from management at the present time. We're actually at the end of our hour on the schedule. But let me at least raise the question whether the audience has any questions they would like to put to our speakers. We have a tremendous amount of expertise up here and it's an ideal time for you to put questions with respect to East Asia. Yes, over there. Thank you very much. That's almost from Japan. I have a hypothetical question to three panelists. Short answer is fine, but North Korea is developing nuclear weapons seems to be almost unchecked. And they are already ready to install on the head of bicycle missiles possibly. So once they install all these weapons systems and what if they may use against any of three countries? How China, Korea, Japan, America may react? What is a possible scenario or reactions? Thank you. Any of you want to take that on? Well, maybe I picking up on what Professor Jia said. Maybe I say something about Trump administration. We actually have no idea what Trump's foreign policy is gonna be in general and particularly toward this part of the world. He said he obviously has an animus against imports from China to the United States. He said he's unhappy with contribution to the U.S.-Korean alliance and the U.S.-Japan alliance of those two partners. I'm not aware that he's addressed North Korea at all, but North Korea is trying very hard to develop a three-stage missile. And there's only one reason. We had an interesting session earlier today on space, North Korea I'm positive as no interest in space exploration as such. It wants to reach the United States with a weapon. That comes just this close to an act of war. And the question is how the Trump administration would respond to it, but one possibility is that they will shoot down the missile. And Professor Jia suggested that some of his advisors have suggested that. He also suggested that China wants stability in the area, but North Korea does not want stability in the area. So moving to destabilize the area, at least in the respect of nuclear weapons. And so I turn it over to Professor Jia to ask how, I know this involves conjecture history, which Chinese scholars are uncomfortable with, but how China might respond if North Korea moves very seriously to further missile testing and the U.S. threatens to shoot down the missile. Well, it is in China's interest to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. But China has to balance between the means of stopping North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. In terms of means, we are talking about economic sanctions at different levels. At the maximum level, we have a problem of humanitarian problem. In other words, if we stop food from going to North Korea, then North Korean people may starve to death. And then you have the military means. The military means creates a lot of uncertainties in terms of how you are going to deal with the situation, whether you'll be able to secure the nuclear weapons or destroy them and create a nuclear disaster or and also what if the situation became chaos and then you have some army officers taking control of the nuclear weapons and that become a problem. And also in case of a military conflict, then what about the refugee problem? So there are all kinds of things involved when you try to think about what's the best way to deal with the North Korean nuclear problem. I think on top of that, we have a problem of coordinating with other countries, especially with the United States. Many Chinese suspect that the US wants to contain China. So if this is the case to these people, China should not coordinate with the US as much because North Korea, however threat is nuclear program can be for China, can be a distraction to the US. So and these people have their own voice also in China and affecting of the Chinese government. So it's a complicated problem. I think over time as the North Korea develops more nuclear weapons and more missiles, China's position or conduct more tests, China's position would harden to the extent that if they try to test, I mean, hypothetically, if the US shoot down one of the testing missiles, it's China probably would not feel bad about it. And of course, if North Korea attacks another country with nuclear weapons, then definitely China would decide with another country if the attack is not provoked. So it depends on the situation, but certainly China, it's in China's interest. Personally, I believe it's in China's interest to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. It's in China's interest to work with other countries to make sure that this happens. But at the level of tactics and strategy, probably we need to have more consultation. Thank you. Some years ago, I've forgotten the exact date. China found that it had some problems with the pumps that pump oil to North Korea. And that, for three days, I think North Korea did not get any oil, and that got their attention. And I suggest that should be added to the menu of possible things, which can send a message without being as provocative as some of the other issues you mentioned. And best. I think this is not maybe the time to ask my colleagues panelists to ask questions for me, but I was very intrigued by two words, uttered by each one of them. By Korean friend, Dukcheolki, he said, Korea may have to take bold action twice. Bold action, what does it mean? That's point one. For China, he just said that maybe there's a possibility of Trump administration taking preemptive strike. In that case, I think before preemptive strike, Americans would ask China, can't you twist the arm of North Korea more? If not, we'll go with preemptive strike. In that case, what would be the reaction of China? These are the two issues that come up to me. I'm not a moderator, so I'm sorry to ask, but. Yeah, I think because of all these crisis or the critical elements, we need better negotiated through diplomacy and find solution while we still have one, two years time. I used to say from the beginning of my government four years ago, we have to do in two, three years time, but we spend only two years. We spend largely 20 years without finding solutions. So we only have two, three years to settle and we have to find the clue from next year. So that's why we need to talk very candidly among the key partners and deep talks. Not just cosmetic talks and a renewal of just a suggestion of things, but we need to engage very seriously. We need to discuss all problems. And at the same time, as I said, we are remain open to help North Korea build up, because we are one compatriot. And we need to help North Korea in economy if North Korea only abandon nuclear weapon program. And then we can realize nuclear free Korean Peninsula so that we very much need keen and talks and frank talks among the key partners, among the secret council members, permanent members. And then still I think we can find clue of the solution. And for the time being, North Korea doesn't want to talk even to Chinese about this nuclear problem, but they want to help survive the dignity, dignity of the regime. But the dignity of the regime that might face criminal tragedy at the International Criminal Court. That is the serious blow then even the strike or whatever. So we need to combine all these efforts and engage in serious dialogue with North Korea both bilaterally and trilaterally to bring them to come out for conference table. And bold action, but if doing all these things, we fail to catch prevent North Korea having 100 nuclear worries. I think South Korean public will not just wait and live with North Korea having nuclear weapon of 100 and we are just there. So it will be very serious problem and I think still we have an optimistic way of approach and we should engage all our means and we have very much the start of new government. We'll go for the direction in the United States and we engage in serious talk and train solution. Thank you very much. My name is Ido from Japan. I'd like to ask the all three speakers about the cooperation trade. As Mr. Juchu Ruki has commented, Japan is a member participated in the negotiation for TPP and Korea has expressed the intention to participate or to join the TPP negotiations. On the other hand, China and Korea have made the huge progress in the FDA. But on the other hand, in comparison with the big progress in the financial cooperation in East Asia or among the three countries, after the currency crisis in Asia, under the framework of ASEAN plus Japan, China and Korea, I think that we have still more room to do in the area of the trade cooperation. I would like to ask sort of, and in Japan also recently we have heard that maybe considering the present situation of TPP, we should put more effort in the negotiation for RCP and so on. So I'd like to hear this time from all other speakers your views about the trade cooperation in East Asia. Thank you. I could supplement that question. I think it's fairly clear, at least for the next two years, President-elect Trump will not touch TPP. He will not submit it to Congress. The U.S. will not join. Raises, there are 11 other countries who have signed on and it raises a question about whether TPP could go forward without the United States, perhaps the U.S. joining at a later time. So if I could supplement the question that has been put by adding that, who wants to begin? I think trade liberalization is all the more necessary and we have to help save the WTO mechanism and also regional trading mechanism. And we have built a lot through APA process, forward declaration, quite many achievements have been done and the APA is just still ongoing. So in due course of time maybe we can address this question together. Of course the U.S. TPP keep alive and we may join as a second tire. But again, if there is something from Korean perspective it is better engage China as well rather than, you know, electing one by another thing. That goes to our side as well. So with our position, we are the only country who has established FDA with China, with the European Union, with United States. So we are quite okay and but we are very much promoting promotional in terms of trade liberalization. So we really hope that way and we have responsibility as a big trading country in the world while Europe is suffering from setback also then we can take our responsibility pushing forward the kind of liberalization agenda on keep alive. I think the Chinese government certainly favors RCEP because the threshold is lower for membership and also it's more inclusive. Recently President Xi Jinping talked about, you know, Asia Pacific, the other regions, you know, freedom, free trade area. So on the basis that this is inclusive, not exclusive. I think TPP is not a bad idea. It's a good idea. But the problem with TPP is from the Chinese perspective is the way the President Obama tried to sell it in the Congress. Now he used China as an excuse. Maybe this is, he thought this is a good idea to let the Congress to get congressional support. He said, you know, we should pass the TPP because in this way the U.S. would make the rules rather than the Chinese, you know. So I mean, this is the way that make a lot of Chinese think that TPP is against China. Personally, I think probably TPP is more a pursuit of, I mean, the U.S. championship of the TPP is more a reflection of the U.S. pursuit of its own interests than anything, than to target China. But the problem is a lot, most people when they hear how the rhetoric and also the rhetoric are the part of the people who don't like China in the U.S., they think that TPP, or at least U.S. efforts to promote TPP was a conspiracy against China. Thank you very much. It's really saddened to hear that so much negative story about TPP. However, I think now we are living in the world without TPP, so why can't we wait for some time until U.S. may change? So if it is clear that U.S. cannot change the attitude towards TPP, is this a possibility that we may change the clause regarding the validation of the TPP with the GDP clause and have it started without United States? But I think we'd rather have U.S. in it, and I think we'd like to have Korea-China in it as well. I agree with Chinese friend that it was not a very good way of selling that TPP, saying that hey, we can't make China to have the rules, making rules. So I think it's not easy for China to join without that kind of statement, but I think it doesn't mean that it's exclusive. And after four years, we've been able to make a very high-level FTA, which we have never done. And so I think we should keep to that and try to have them rather than renegotiate, restart everything. And it's like a sort of pearl necklace, and each pearl was shined very carefully in 12 years, in four years, the 12 pieces, and the biggest one is now sort of out. But still, I think we really would like to finish it if possible with that biggest pearl. Because I think we were able to attain it because U.S. was there. If without U.S., we would not have come this far. So we'd really like them to rethink although how practical in the next two years I sort of share what Richard just said. Thanks. Thank you very much. We've gone well over the hour on our schedule. I think it's time for me to bring this session to close. I think I can share all of your view that we've heard from three very authoritative and interesting speakers.