 So, your Highness, last year you contributed a lot to the success of the Monaco World Policy Conference and thanks to you we made the front page, the headlines of the front page of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. Thanks to your provocative answers to my provocative questions and therefore I think that we should try to do at least as well this year. So again, thank you very much for having accepted to have this dialogue this time and thank you very much to be a regular participant and friend to the WPC and what I suggest to discuss is the broad picture of the Middle East because there are so many flash points in the Middle East but it would be interesting to have your view of the global picture. So why don't we start with this? Monsieur de Monbril, ladies and gentlemen, it's good to be back in Korea. This morning, of course, hearing the President of Korea deliver such an important speech was very informative and equally attractive for someone like me to come and hear such words of wisdom. When I was in my previous work as an intelligence business, of course, Ajahn provocateurs were always a target so you can bet that I'm sure you are always a target to intelligence businesses. As you said, if you ask provocative questions, you will get provocative answers. But let me start by mentioning three issues, of course, in the Middle East. Everybody knows them. We have terrorism. We have conflict. And we have what I would say the remnants of the colonial period but also new developments that have something to do with military intervention and previous colonial practices. And of course, in terrorism, everybody talks about the so-called Islamic state which is neither Islamic nor a state. And from the point of view of not just Saudi people but also, I think, in the majority of the Muslim world, if you look at all of the surveys that I've looked at, you will see that the appeal of that group has not achieved the aims that it wanted to achieve, not only to hijack the Muslim world but also to create an area of confusion that would allow for the conflict to keep continuing. In that issue, they call themselves, as you know, the Arabic acronym for ISIS is Daesh. And those who know Arabic will know that I've been calling them Fahish. Fahish in Arabic is a word that comes from the root word fuhish, which means literally the worst of the worst. And I think we should continue to call them Fahish instead of giving them the very high value name of Islamic state. And that is one aspect I think of how we should deal with these groups is not to allow them to take on these exalted descriptions that they want to show themselves as being representatives of. So in terms of the media and in terms of propaganda, if they have had any success, it is because people have accepted that attitude or that guise that they put on themselves. Now let me just read you one thing, if I may, which I delivered in September 2011 in the United States to an American audience. And at that time, it was September 2011, I said, when it comes to difficulties facing our region, one must still admit that terrorism remains an important threat, but it is not just Al Qaeda that continues to plot against us. There are also various emerging and re-emerging non-state actors who are moving in to take advantage of power vacuum created by shifting political dynamics. With governance in Libya, Yemen, Tunis, Egypt, and Syria in such tenuous conditions, the perfect conditions for terrorist cells to take root and conduct deep and conduct desperate evil and anarchical acts are created. And this is exactly what has been happening with the growth of these groups. When was that? September 2011. I think just before the Islamic State in Iraq became the Islamic State in Iraq and Sham or Syria. And I think this is something that will continue to happen as long as we don't treat the illnesses and continue to treat the symptoms. And definitely Fahish is a symptom. The main disease in that area are the failing states. If you look at Iraq, for example, after the American invasion, which completely removed government institutions in Iraq, a vacuum was created. And even after the constitution was set up in Iraq and a government was elected, the way that the proportionate system of the division of the Iraqi society was devised in that constitution allowed for sectarian differences to increase rather than to decrease. And so you had a very sectarian Prime Minister who ironically from day one continued to get support, not only from the United States, but from Europe and also from Iran. And it was that Prime Minister that eventually led to the rise in these groups that have accepted not only the challenge of marginalization of a large part of Iraqi society, but also to take advantage of the misconduct of his government when it comes to security and the capabilities of the Iraqi armed forces. Once Fahish invaded from Syria, the Iraqi army collapsed and you had the occupation of Mosul and other towns in Iraq. If you allow me to... Be provocative, Monsieur de Montréal. Not really, but how do you explain that at least the Western governments and to my knowledge most intelligence systems were taken by surprise? And as late as June of this year, they of course they knew that Fahish was operating, but they did not measure the scale and in particular the strength of its organizations. How do you, as an intelligence man and an intelligence man, how do you explain that? I don't think I can because there is no reason to fail to see how these groups will take advantage of the vacuums. And how the misconduct of the governments in Damascus and in Baghdad would create a situation where a big part of the population will be marginalized and will be available to be taken advantage of such groups. As I mentioned in my previous statement from September 2011, one could discern that there is going to be a problem that is going to grow rather than to decrease. And if intelligence services in the West and in other places did not manage to identify this growing threat, I think you'll have to look into their practices. But definitely in our part of the world, one could see how things were coming. And even in the places concerned in Iraq, there were many people warning American officials and other officials from Europe that the conduct of the government in Baghdad was going to create this kind of situation in Syria. You saw after the demonstrations that began to take place in March 2011, many European and even the American embassies and the ambassadors there were reporting back to their governments that the situation was going to get worse unless something was done. And yet we continue to see that the West in general and more particularly Europe and America continuing to deal with the symptom rather than with the disease. In Iraq situation has changed because of the change of government. And you have a new prime minister who has offered to the Iraqi people the opportunity for an inclusive government that will bring all shades of political and social makeup of Iraq into responsibility. So there is a bright step has been taken in Baghdad. Unfortunately in Damascus there seems to be a universal opinion in the West and in the East and in America that nothing can be done about the really horrible way that Bashar al-Assad has been treating his own people. More than 200,000 Syrians have been killed. The majority of them have been killed not by Fahish or by Jabhat al-Nusra or by other terrorist groups. The majority of them have been killed by Bashar al-Assad and his supporters. And yet ironically you see even European contributions to the fight against Fahish, the aircraft that are bombing Fahish, European aircraft and other air forces coming from as far away as New Zealand and Australia, they are fighting Fahish in Iraq, not in Syria. For someone living in the area it is not only confusing but it is absolutely unbelievable. It's the same disease, the same symptoms and yet you choose to treat one part of that symptom and not the other. So not only the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia but other countries like Turkey, like Jordan, like Gulf States in general support the fight against Fahish. But all of them believe and you've heard this not just from me, I am not an official of course but also from official people. Just a few days ago King Abdullah I think was in Washington and he made a statement that treating with Fahish is not enough. You have to go to the root of the problem which is the way that the Syrian government has been marginalizing and actually persecuting the majority of the Syrian people. So what was the problem, what would you recommend and my provocative question because there is one is don't you think that to find an agreement with Iran could or should be the beginning of a possible solution to restore an order in the Middle East. And that of course poses the question of the attitude of Saudi Arabia vis-à-vis Iran. It's not just the attitude of Saudi Arabia. I would pose the question perhaps provocatively also. If you're going to survey the opinion of let's say 100% of the Syrian people as to whether they would like to see Iran participate in finding a solution to the Syrian problem. I would suggest that the answer would be that more than 80 to 85% of the Syrian people would tell you that Iran is our enemy because Iran has troops on the ground in Syria, killing Syrians. It has called its allies from Lebanon, from Iraq and from other parts of the world to kill Syrians. And to invite Iran having become if you like a partner in crime with the government of Damascus would be I think not only unjust but it would be a cruel and very callous turn of events in a world where we see so much cruelty taking place but not as to the scale as happening in Syria. The kingdom has always said publicly and in private to our Iranian neighbors you have to stop interfering in Arab affairs. And if you look at the belt from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, there is a very strong connection between Iranian intervention in these countries and the insecurity and the instability and in the case of both Iraq and Syria the outright murderous attitude of people there who are supported by Iran. If Iran were to get out of its interference in these countries there would be nothing to hold us back from cooperating with them. You know in September this year our foreign minister met with the Iranian foreign minister in New York although the kingdom has been inviting the minister to come to Riyadh since President Rouhani was elected. He has not seen the time fit to do that. Nonetheless they met in New York and I would assume I was not present at the meeting that our foreign minister told the Iranian foreign minister what the complaints of Saudi Arabia were and I'm sure the Iranian foreign minister equally told the Saudi foreign minister what his complaints were. Hopefully having exchanged these ideas and words of complaint that they can work out a formula where they can reach a reasonable outcome for this. But unless and until Iran stops killing Syrians, unless and until Iran stops supporting these militias that go and kill others, we see it in Iraq today. Shia militias supported by Iran are supposedly fighting against Fahish and they go into towns in Ambar province, clear out Fahish and then clear out the population of those towns. So it is unacceptable for not only Saudi Arabia but I think for other countries to accept that attitude from Iran. And this is what the kingdom has been proposing to the Iranians. So far President Rouhani having come in as an elected moderate representative of Iranian society, he has said many good things in public. But in actual fact Iran has continued to pursue the same attitude and the same actions in Arab countries that the previous government of Mr. Ahmadinejad did before him. And what about the other main actors of the region? I am thinking of Turkey, Egypt and Israel. Israel is still an occupying country. It is a country that continues to maintain its colonization if you like of Palestine. Not only with expansion of so-called settlements, I prefer to call them colonies. But also with the way that it is treating its own population of Palestinians. We've seen the rise now in these incidents in Jerusalem and in other parts of occupied territory and even so-called proper Israeli territory. How can anyone expect otherwise when people feel oppressed and their rights not granted and they turn to violence? Because that is their only way that they can think of removing that oppression and that mistreatment. Nonetheless the Arab world has presented to Israel what I would consider to be a very fair and very equitable solution. Two states, borders of 1967, with acceptable swaps and a return of the refugees through negotiation and removal of the hostility and the end of war between not just the Arab world but all of the Muslim world and Israel. Not one Israeli government since that proposal was made in 2002 has accepted this proposal. Even to say, okay let us sit down and negotiate. We've heard from several Israeli leaders like Shimon Peres for example that there are some good things in this proposal. But none of them has come out and said let's see what can be done about that. And I think unless and until any Israeli government that is in power in Israel can accept this deal, the Arabs will continue to be untrusting of Israeli intentions as they see the expansion of these colonies taking place in the West Bank. And it is for Israeli leaders to make that decision. Today I was reading in the press for example that the present I think minister of housing in Israel in a conference like this in America declared that well the Palestinian problem may not be resolved. So what? There are many problems in the world that have not been resolved. These are his words. And he continued to say that maybe in 40 years time we will annex the West Bank as we already annexed Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. And this is a minister in a government that has declared it wants to negotiate a two state solution. Now if someone on the Palestinian side had said from Mr. Abbas's government let's say no, no, no. You know in 100 years time we're going to drive these Israelis to the sea. You will see the big outcry from not just Israelis but from American leaders, from European leaders, from everywhere. And yet nobody takes Israeli statements and objects to them. There is a double standard here I think that should be resolved by the Europeans and by the Americans. Turkey. Ah, Turkey. Turkey not you but the. Yes, well. Turkey. I'm glad there is that clear. Turkey is an important player in our part of the world. Historically, culturally, even in terms of family ties. I have Turkish blood in me. My grandmother was a Circassian and she was born and raised in Turkey. My mother was born in Turkey. So that's the kind of relationship many Arabs have with Turkey. But there are problems with Turkey obviously from Saudi Arabia's point of view. We think that Turkey should be very, very helpful in bringing stability and peace to the area. Not just on the Syrian question where we and the government of Turkey agree on the root causes there that the removal of Bashar al-Assad is necessary to reach a solution there. But on other issues, we differ with them. They still maintain a very hostile attitude to the present government of Egypt, for example. We, on the other hand, think that we should help the present government of Egypt because hopefully with the roadmap that was devised after the removal of the previous president in Egypt, there is going to be one more step to be taken by the Egyptian people, which is the election of the parliament. They've drawn up a constitution, which I think from everybody's point of view is an inclusive and quite fair constitution. They've elected a president. Now the next step is to elect a parliament. And I think this is the only way that you can go to reclaim the stability and security of the Egyptian people. The kingdom will continue to support Egypt. And I think it's not just the kingdom, but even now I think Europe and America have come around to accepting this new factor I think in relationship with Egypt. Other than that, we have no problems with Turkey. Their position on Palestine has always been very good. And they've tried to intervene. I remember at one time they were negotiating some kind of deal between Bashar al-Assad and the previous Israeli government back in 2008. Nothing came out of that, unfortunately. So we will continue to agree with Turkey on certain issues, but I think we will disagree on others. And if we look at the external major powers that is essentially the United States to some extent the Europeans, European Union and Russia, do any of them have a vision about what should be done? I think the Russians do. At least if not what should be done, they have a clear vision of what should not be done, particularly in Syria. But we're still talking to the Russians. Recently we had a visit from the foreign minister and our foreign minister visited Russia. At the G20 meeting in Australia, recently our Crown Prince met with Mr. Putin. And what I read in the papers is that they discussed issues like Syria, like terrorism, etc. So maybe through these discussions we can hopefully make use of Russia's very strong position in Syria. As you know, they helped in bringing Geneva 1 and Geneva 2. One of the ironies of Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 is that they proposed the establishment of an interim government in both Geneva 1 and Geneva 2. Yet when the Arab League made that proposal to the Security Council a couple of months before that, the Russians vetoed that proposition. So there is some kind of discrepancy there, which I hope that by these engagements we have with them that they can clarify. And I think they have also questions about terrorism, because as you know they have this Chechen problem and other problems in Russia. And what we try to tell them is, if you solve the issues in the Middle East, these problems of the nature of violence and so on will hopefully decrease in other places as well. Because it is these awful pictures that people continue to see on television and YouTube and Facebook and other means of communications of people being killed and massacred and so on that bring out this violence and very, very nihilistic and anarchical attitude from some people. Yes, from our communities, but it's not just our communities who are delivering young people to Fahish. Look at how many Europeans have also joined Fahish and how many Americans have joined Fahish and so on. So it's a problem that affects all of us and I think to be able to treat it in such a manner is the best way to go about it. You say that you agree with the Turks in particular that the Assad regime should be overturned but to be replaced by whom? Definitely, like what happened in Iraq by an inclusive interim arrangement. If you look at the Arab League proposal in 2011, the end of 2012, it envisioned a government made up of the present setup. It even named Bashar Assad's vice president as being a representative of that government in a coalition with the opposition. You know, France, Saudi Arabia, US and other countries recognize the Syrian coalition council as being the legitimate representative of the Syrian people. So you can have that engaged in it. There are ways of bringing people in. I see that the Russians now are talking to the council, which is a good step. And they're talking to other people from within the framework of opposition in Syria. So the Kingdom is not opposed to any formula there as long as it is inclusive. And the problem with Mr. Assad, of course, is that as it is with the Iranians vis-à-vis the Syrian people, he is the main culprit, if you like. That the Syrian people would like to see taken to the international court, a criminal court, as Mr. Milosevic was. Milosevic, how many people did he kill? Maybe 100,000, 150,000? Well, Mr. Assad has surpassed that figure and will continue to surpass it. So it is that kind of situation where a truly inclusive government in Syria, I think, can be the way to resolve the problems there. So last question before taking a few questions. Well, if I try to sum up, all the major powers disagree in a basic way among themselves, at least on one, if not more issues. So that cannot produce a solution. So the Europeans sometimes, you know, when they think of restoring an order or European order, the classical, historical reference is the Vienna Congress after the Napoleonic Wars. So do you think it would be possible to convene a bigger Geneva conference or whatever involving the main powers of the region, the main regional powers and the main outside powers, which of course would assume that there would at least be an agreement on the deserability to get to an agreement, which is not even that, is not sure, of course. So do you think what I'm saying makes sense? And if it does not make sense, which is possible, what would be the alternative? It seems the President of France has an idea like that vis-à-vis the Palestinian issue. We read in the papers that he wants to propose an international conference on reaching an agreement on Palestine. That might be good because as we can see in the United Nations framework, that issue has been on the books for more than half a century without much achievement there. And we've just seen perhaps it's going to be the last effort by an American Secretary of State to try to bring the Palestinians and the Israelis together. So a new route perhaps there for international community to do it might be a way of doing that. If it succeeds in Palestine, it might take on another momentum perhaps and go to other places to resolve. But I would say on issues like Syria, for example, I think it is really an issue that should be if at all possible that the Syrian people themselves can be invited to find their own solution. And you know how you can do that because in Syria you have the major composition of the people is the city dwellers with villages and towns that have elected their representatives from Ottoman times. They've been doing that. And even under the bath party of Mr. Assad, they have been doing that. And you have the labor unions in Syria, like all so-called socialist Arab nationalist governments in the Arab world. They use the labor unions to maintain their influence and power over different parts of society. You also have the tribal composition of Syria. We hear about how much Fahish is killing in these tribal areas in both Syria and Iraq. And representatives of those groups can be invited, if you like, to attend a national congress in a neutral capital. It could be anywhere in Europe or in Asia, perhaps in Seoul. Why not? And let them come out with their own ideas of how Syria should go on from being the fractured state that it is now for a solution. The coalition council can be a member of that makeup. And representatives even of the present government in Damascus can be invited. That way you get away from the sensitivities and the issues of who supports whom and Turkey supports that. Saudi Arabia supports this. Iran supports that. America does this. Russia does that. And I think that might be an idea that could be made to be brought to a better understanding if it is worked on. And there are many people with brilliant minds here who can perhaps be helpful in promoting that idea. And the World Policy Council perhaps can play a role in that. I hope so. Yes. And I hope that some brilliant minds here will bring the solution in the next 10 minutes. But do you think the Sykes-Picot borders will survive in the long run? You know, everybody has a view of the Sykes-Picot. My view is that if we try to change the Sykes-Picot borders now, where are we going to stop? And just consider the Kurdish issue for a brief period. We have Kurds in Turkey, we have Kurds in Syria, we have Kurds in Iraq, we have Kurds in Iran. Any consideration of an independent Kurdish state will have all of these countries in conflict with the Kurds. If you take other nationalities or ethnicities in these countries, the Alawites, for example, in Syria. Well, there are Alawites in Lebanon, there are Alawites in Turkey. More than the Alawites in Turkey, more than the Alawites in Syria. Are you going to stop only in Syria or is it going to go on to Turkey as well? And so on. So maybe you can start something there, but who's going to put a stop to it? And I don't think now we have the kind of either military wherewithal or perhaps moral wherewithal that perhaps the Versailles Treaty had after the end of the First World War where people accepted that borders should be done the way that they were. Thank you very much. So we have a few. Miguel, would you like to say something? Miguel Moratinos and then Ria Tabet. He is one of the brilliant minds. Yes, this is why giving him the floor. Yes, thank you. Your Highness, thank you, Thierry. I think you already cover whatever we can say and not tomorrow, but you give us some ideas and we'll elaborate. I think I fully agree with His Highness about what 100 years after Saïd's Pico to start moving to chains, borders, drawing maps, it could be quite difficult. But what really have changed is the new Arab reality. And I think my question will be how in due new world after 100 years, well 100 years, start the Arab nationalism and bring up Arab states. And now that they came with the Second World War, well the tremendous tragedy of Dorokos, Israel as a new state, but now it's a new era. So my question, because I fully agree with your analysis, how the Arabs in this new challenge war is going to have their own say. Is there more maybe United States, of course it will be there. Maybe Korea or Japan or China now they have their own oil concern. While the previous agreement of Saudi family with United States, all universal security, now the United States will continue to be some issue on energy. But maybe Japanese, Chinese, Korea's ones. And what is that up on position in this new world? Yes, please. We take two questions since we unfortunately will have to stop and of course all this is an appetizer for tomorrow's discussion. And I hope Your Highness that you will be there and contribute again to the discussion. I think that it's important to have also an Asian view. Well my name is Im Sung Joon, formerly served in the Korean Foreign Service, especially as Korean ambassador in Egypt. So I want to go to Egypt. Well, I think this is very rare opportunity for all Koreans to learn about what's happening in Middle East. Thank you for your presentation. I have a short question about the general situation in Egypt or the Middle East in general. We in Korea have closely followed with some hope and expectations. What we have transpired in the region when Tunisian people surprised the whole world during the so-called Jasmine Revolution, a kind of popular revolt against its dictatorship. Well then Tunisia was followed by Egypt's Harid Square Revolution which ousted President Mubarak and its military government. But we saw a dramatic turn of events in Egypt last year when Muslim Brotherhood-backed Morsi government was brought down last year and a new military-backed government was launched this year. What impact or implications does this change have over the whole region in Middle East? Does it mean that popular democratic movement in the region has nowhere to go or just came to an end? Thank you Sung Joon. Riyadh David from Lebanon. Thank you Mr. President. Your Highness, I'm going to ask you a provocative question. Again? The Montreal didn't ask, but I'm going to continue in French. Everybody noticed that many... This is French? I continue in French. Maybe you should try Arabic, I think. Yes, if Arabic is accepted, I'll do it, no problem. Everybody thinks that there is an important number of jihadists who come from regions of Europe and the United States, Africa, North and elsewhere. And the question is, why? There is a real problem on the ground. There are constructions in these countries, where there are Muslims, of course, from Moscow and the Khoran school. The financing of these Khoran schools, where there are also teachers who come from regions of Middle East, come from the countries of the Gulf and elsewhere. The teaching of Islam in these schools is a teaching that I can say unilateral. It is done in regions where the students don't know Arabic. They are not able to see what there is in the Khoran in their school. So they teach a little bit, oriented and directed. There is a kind of brainwashing that is done, which produces jihadists who come to jihad in Syria elsewhere. Another question related to this one. Most of it goes through Turkey. And you said that you have a good relationship with Turkey. Could you also tell us what is the goal of Turkey to favour these infiltrations, apart from the desire to leave Assad? There are other strategic objectives of Turkey in the region. If you could tell us. Thank you, Riyad. I'm not going to speak Arabic this time. But Prince Turkel Faisal speaks very good French, but maybe he will choose not to have understood part of your question. But I hope he will choose to have understood the question. So I suggest your high net that you answer now. Unfortunately, time is exhausted. But please answer because these questions are very important. Mr. Moratinos, you probably know the situation more and better than even I think. But your question is important. And I think for us in the Middle East to be able to treat with these important issues, there has to be an Arab opinion. Unfortunately, the mechanism for that, the Arab League for many years, has not provided that needed mechanism for us. But I would say that when you take the Arab League actions during the turmoil that has taken place in Libya, in Syria and in Yemen, there has been an Arab League contribution to those problems and positive contributions. In Syria, for example, I mentioned the Arab League interim government proposal that unfortunately the Russians and the Chinese vetoed. In Yemen, as you see the situation now in turmoil there with the Houthis, again a very destabilizing group that unfortunately has also the support of Iran. But the Arab League and the United Nations are still playing a role of trying to bring stability to Yemen. But on the whole, I would say that the Arab world does need a new mechanism that can contribute more forcefully, if you like, in the affairs of the region. The GCC countries themselves have not hesitated to be the instigator of Arab League action when it came to Libya, for example, when it comes to Syria and in Yemen. And I think a coalition between the GCC and other important Arab countries like Egypt, hopefully when it stabilizes and has more ability to be active in the area like Jordan. A very important country in the area of Morocco is also a very important country in that context. And perhaps other countries can join this coalition. Maybe that will have an impact on the wider situation. But I would say, if I may, if we start by, as the Chinese ambassador this morning said, the situation is not that difficult or complicated on some issues, but it is simple. And for me, starting with the Palestinian issue would be the simplest way of beginning to solve the problems in the area because everybody knows what the solution is. It's a two-state solution, as I said, based on the 67 borders with swaps, et cetera, et cetera. What is lacking there is simply the political will. And if the world community is willing to put the pressure on both sides to achieve that political will, I think this is what we can start with and go from there to solve other issues. I always tell my Israeli acquaintances and my Jewish friends, once this problem is resolved with Jewish and Israeli money and Arab brains, we can go a long way in fixing the rest of the world. So that is one proposition I think we can do. The other issue that you asked, sir, about Egypt. Exactly Egypt is a missing piece of the puzzle that can be very helpful in reaching all of these problems. Well, just look at the last problem we had in Gaza. Even with Egypt's constrained ability to do things, if it wasn't for Egypt, there would not have been a ceasefire between the Israelis and Hamas in Gaza. So its ability to do things is borne out by that very important accomplishment that they managed to bring about. And the Kingdom, of course, as I said, will continue to help Egypt, but that's not enough. It's up to the Egyptian people themselves to pull up the bootstraps, as they say, and do the necessary issues. President Sisi, I think, was very brave in proposing these very important subsidy cuts on energy in Egypt. Imagine, this is something that has been going on for the last half century since the Revolution, 1952. Yet no leader, not Nasser, with all of his popularity, Sadat and Mubarak and so on, were able to do and take that step, and yet he did, and the Egyptian people accepted it. That is very important, and it shows a sense of responsibility, not just on the part of the President, but more importantly on the part of the Egyptian people who are willing to undertake that added hardship on their lives. But there's always, you know, when such popular uprisings take place anywhere. The momentum for a period of time in any country, even in Tunisia. Tunisia is not yet a firm base from which the Tunisian people can reach stability. It's still a work in progress. These uprisings will take their time until they settle down and new developments take place. And Egypt is going through that difficult period. I don't have a particular solution for Egypt, but it is the Egyptians who will find that solution. And they've proved for the last 6,000 years, that Egypt as a country has been known as an identity, as a border, as a geographic and geostrategic location, et cetera, et cetera. And its contributions to humanity are countless. So I have no, I'm not pessimistic about Egypt. I think they will come out and do the right thing, but first they have to establish stability. And unless and until they do that, no country can go forward from there. As to our friend from Lebanon last time in Monte Carlo, he also asked another provocative question. So maybe he is the Ajahn provocateur more than you. Yes, jihadism is an issue. It's an issue with all of us. And as I said, it is not just the Arabian Peninsula that produces jihadists. We've seen that, if you like, that epidemic spreading worldwide from Europe, from America, from China, from Russia, even from Japan, and I don't know if there are any Koreans involved, I hope not, but it's a universal issue. And I would say that these schools that you mentioned, particularly in Africa, I've heard the accusation that Saudi Arabia particularly has given money and sent teachers and so on. And I've always asked people who make that accusation, do you have a name, a bank account number, a telephone number, a postal address, any indication where the authorities in Saudi Arabia can then follow whoever has done that. And we have proven that we do that after particularly September 11th in America. We worked with the Americans, we worked with the Europeans, we worked with the United Nations. And so if there are these accusations, I think they have to be backed up by facts that can be treated with, soberly and neutrally and effectively. But just simply to say that Saudi Arabia or other Gulf states support these schools and so on. Without identifying which schools, which persons and so on is not enough. The Kingdom is willing to undertake whatever is necessary because look who are the victims of these people who go in the name of the jihad. Saudi Arabia is a victim. And to think that Saudi money will go from Saudi Arabia to these jihadis in order to come back and make Saudi Arabia a victim, I think is beyond my comprehension. And added to that is the fact that we have taken action against these jihadis. Just today in the press, the Kingdom just arrested something like 120 people inside Saudi Arabia. Nearly a third of them from other countries in the area. From Syria, from Iraq, from East Africa and so on. So just tell us who these people are, where they are, and the Kingdom will do what is necessary. But to simply throw accusations whether at the Kingdom or at other GCC countries I think is not enough. And I'll be happy to sit down with you and if you have any addresses and so on, please give them to me. Okay, so Riyad, if you have those addresses, telephone numbers, please do it bilaterally with Prince Turkey El Fesal. And then the question arises, how come he knows these addresses? Absolutely. Well, your Highness, as always, this has been a fascinating discussion. Thank you very much. So tomorrow we will continue the discussion of the Middle East in a different way. By the way, one of the speakers will be also the advisor, the councillor of the King of Morocco, and since you mentioned also the importance of Morocco, I think this is quite interesting. So thank you very much indeed. And we will discuss, well, you will discuss with Riyad about the accounts, and we will discuss together how the WPC could contribute to improving the situation in the Middle East, why not. So now we are going to have a very, you're already behind schedule, but so we are going to have a very brief coffee break, actually as the cocktails will be served immediately after the next session, which is quite important too, on Africa. And since tonight the Minister for Foreign Affairs is coming for us, I think we should not be late to move to the third floor after that. So your Highness, thank you very much again. May I just say one thing? We say in Arabic, Hamza Hamida. So thank you very much.