 All right. Thank you, John. And thank you, President Thierry Montréal and his team and all the organizers for the World Paris Conference, especially including Sangim. I think it's an excellent occasion to be joining this wonderful team of panelists. It's my first time to attend this World Paris Conference, but it's really enlightening and informative. I think that's something that I just want to make highly of what I've been seeing. And I'm representing the Federation of the Korean Industry, so I would like to share with you all some of the business perspectives, especially in relation to the increasing geopolitical risks and uncertainties across the Indo-Pacific. And increasing geopolitical uncertainties precipitated the return of so-called economic statecraft. Every government is putting economic policy priorities linked to long-term national security interests. Intestification of U.S.-China strategic competition is leading us to be put under increasing pressure to choose between the two sides, particularly in relation to high-tech industry investment. And secondly, the shift has been necessitated by various forms of economic coercion from China and other countries, as well as examples of unilateralism that has been exhibited by the United States. And there are two very fundamental questions that CEOs in the boardroom ask themselves at a deep psychological level. One is, what kind of geopolitical risks is most relevant to business decision-making? The first one, and the second one is, does economic security, which is kind of the buzzword in these days, make the business environment become even safer or more stable one? That's two questions. Let me first touch upon the first question. I think there's first and foremost, the most fundamental threat or risk that they are feeling at the business dimension is the U.S.-China rivalry. It's no doubt. As U.S.-China rivalry intensifies, the economic security, whether it's a policy or initiative or even defensive reaction to what is being charted out within the context of the hegemonic competition, the governments of big powers and even middle powers are trying to adopt more kind of protective and sometimes kind of fortification of his own economic structure. And economic security is bringing not only just limited to controls on sensitive technology such as high-end semiconductor production equipment, but also it is also extend into value networks, especially critical minerals and rare earth minerals securement. It could also expand into building a broad industrial base, including products with relatively few national security implications such as electric vehicles. Let me just cite one example. That is Samsung electronics. Samsung has been enjoying quite a significant share of the market in smartphones up until 2016. It has been on the top of the market share. Now, it has been gone down to almost 1 percent of the market share in China. And Samsung has shut down. We've thrown these production plants in two important cities in China. And they have shut down the TB manufacturing plants in China as well. So most of these plants have been relocated either to Vietnam or to India. So India is now having largest manufacturing plant of smartphones to be run by Samsung electronics. So it's kind of the general relocation and the alignment of the whole manufacturing facilities within the Indo-Pacific era area, especially when it comes to a certain specific company. And the second question is related with is economic security really makes making this business environment a safer and stable one? My answer is not really. Actually, economic security is causing a lot of increase in input prices and also instability sources stirring up social and regulatory pressures on business, widening geopolitical schemes, leading policymakers and regulators to structure and administer their respective economies and business environments differently. Businesses are increasingly navigating administrative, logistical, and brand reputation risks. So rapidly inflating input prices are creating cost issues for business and reduced labor flows are also forcing business to spend more on these workforces. Lastly, I just want to touch upon what Professor Yuichi Osoya has mentioned, especially on the improvement of bilateral relations between South Korea and Japan. I do echo what Professor Yuichi Osoya has mentioned. It's a bit of game-changing effect upon the regional structure, not only in the security and political realm, but also in economic and trade realm as well. So one kind of landmark example is the Camp David leaders meeting among South Korea, Japan, and the United States that was hosted by President Biden in August this year. So that is the first time ever stand along trilateral leaders meeting among three countries that has been enabled by the warming up of bilateral relations between South Korea and Japan. That's a very encouraging point to end on, actually. Yes, indeed. I think when you talked about how the spread of manufacturing from China has gone into Vietnam, et cetera, do you think that decoupling or re-risking is just words which actually don't really have much practical effect except to make things perhaps more difficult at the political level? Is it an empty phrase that industry and your real businesses can simply ignore? I will get back to you later when the first round is complete. Fair enough.