 I'm Inge Park, working as a president of Korea Foundation for Advanced Studies. I chaired the third workshop on China. We had focused on four points. The first point is the outcome of the 19th Communist Party Congress and its implication. And second, on the future trajectory of the China-US relationship, especially in the light of bilateral trade economic issues in general and related security issues, especially with some thought to analyze the Moody's and S&P's downgrading China's sovereign rating while IMF raised China's growth forecast from 7% to 6.8%. And third issue was how China will respond to the North Korean nuclear crisis. And first, new Chinese foreign policies, including One Belt, One Road, and also trade policy, including the future of the TPP and RCEP, especially on the trade debate. During our workshop, we had two panelists from the United States, two from China, one from Korea, one from Japan, and one from France. Given the sensitivity of the issues, we debate on the understanding that all debate was based on everybody to not speak on behalf of their government, just exchange on their personal views. At first, one Chinese panelist started his statement by responding to my opening question. Why President Xi Jinping had three and a half hours long speeches in the 19th Congress? And he responded that it was a very special occasion for President Xi. And he wanted to explain his thought in a very systematic way. And now Xi Jinping thought on socialism with the Chinese characteristics in new era, a little long, but is included in the Communist Party charter. But at the same time, the Chinese panelist expected that it will very likely become inserted in the Chinese constitution maybe next year. So but he also points out some principle contradiction as one of the highlighted one, notably the inadequate and unbalanced development and people's needs for a better life. So now, even though the China's economic development is no longer backward, but it is not easy to meet the demands by the people for the better life. So that is a key point. Then on the foreign policy issues, he points out the both elements of continuity and change. In terms of change, in the past, China always talked about how to reform world order to make it more just and fair. But now China talked about maintaining world order while continuing to talk about making it just and fair. So he also points out that China has benefited from world order. And it is now more responsible stakeholders. As China rises, it increasingly becomes a superpower. And a superpower cannot take a free ride, but must maintain order. He also argued that China's successful development experience can now be a model for other developing countries. So Xi Jinping himself had talked about socialism with Chinese characteristic. What do you mean by Chinese characteristic? Which means that there is no Chinese model in a universal sense. But at the same time, China is also saying to developing countries that they don't have to follow the Western approaches in development, but they have to find their own in light of the Chinese past development. So in the next five years, China will have more continuity than change in foreign policy. And there will be more Xi imprint. And third, Chinese foreign policy will be more pragmatic. After he argued in that way, there was some counter-argument from the panels saying that by the year 2050, China aimed to become the arbiter in the Asia Pacific politically or militarily. So we could easily expect that China will be more assertive in the next five years to come. And also, another panelist argued that China has 14 land neighbors. But they don't want alliance with China, even though they want to enjoy more trade with China. And also, China has entered a conflict with many neighbors. So she should try to improve relations with neighbors after the 19th Party Congress. And we had talked on the economic issues, which were represented by another Chinese expertise. He mentioned there's two un-changes and one changes. The two unchanging factors are the first. China basically, in terms of basic national conditions, China still and will long maintain in a primary stage of socialism. It will not change. And second, Chinese status as the world's largest developing countries has not changed. I don't know how many people agree with their status. That is the key point he presents as two un-changed factors. And the other one changed the factor is that in the past there was major contradiction that between ever-growing material and the cultural needs of the people and the low level of the production of our supply. But now the contradiction has been changed. The current description of the major contradiction is the between the people's ever-increasing needs for better life and inadequate current development situation. So that's why China will pay more attention to quality than quantity to achieve better life and better environment. And also he mentioned three step phase for the next 30 years in China's main policy. The first stage is from now to 2020, China will finish building a moderate prosperity society. And during truth through 2035, China will basically realize the socialist modernization. And the third stage from 2035 to 2050, China will enter a great modern socialist country. Maybe you might have some. It's not easy for us to make some what's different between three concepts. But his conclusion is that there will be normal GDP growth target as China's focus will shift from the quantity to quality. And also there are some new development strategies. There is one belt, one load initiative. And also they will improve, evolve from free trade zone to free trade port concept. The free trade zones expected to 11 cities earlier. But now Xi Jinping explores to make some new concept of free trade port like Singapore. On the question, SMP and the Moody's downgraded China's government rating for the first time in more than 20 years, the Chinese panelists, you know, categorically denied by saying that the two organizations made a big mistake. And they used an incorrect model. And other US panelists also agreed that the two institutions cannot, we cannot trust the two organizations analysis. And after that, then one US panelist suggested his statement by saying that while Xi Jinping delivered 32,000 character speeches, the US president only give 144 character tweets. So now, you know, unipolar power has shifted now. There's the reemergence of multi polarity and balance of power. That's why the US needs to protect the alliance in Asia while China gain influence. North Korean problem is very serious and urgent. And, you know, the problem is, you know, his analysis is that there's too much focus on North Korea. When he talked to a US citizen in Washington, 95% say that the answer to North Korea is not in North Korea, but in China. So he thought that's misunderstanding, even though China is a necessary part of dealing with North Korea. And at the same time, he proposed five stages. First stage is North Korea hasn't demonstrated the entry vehicle of ICBM. So it is not ready to talk yet. So maybe there are six months or one year left until real talk can start. And second, we need some ramping up the missile defense system. The US has to build more launchers, even though the missile defense is not even 50% reliable. I'm not sure this statistic is right or not. Anyway, he argued in that way. And third, stepping up the intermediate range of missile in North East Asia. The US is the only one defending the INF Treaty while everyone else violating it. The US needs to leave INF and put a middle range missile in North East Asia, threaten North Korea and reinforce deterrence. And then, first element, he supported the reintroduction of tactical nuclear weapon on the US vessels to lower the likelihood of Korea and Japan scoring nuclear. And also, ramping up the COVID action against North Korea. So right now, the $7 million are being spent on the COVID action. During the Cold War, much more resources were pulled into Eastern Europe, that's what he argued. And also, he suggested that on the strategic area, US should turn China into more or less responsible stakeholders. US should depart from the traditional Indo-Pacific strategies. US pivot to Asia during the Obama administration was almost just like another NATO. No action, talk only. So the US should adjust its position to China's one belt, one load, not to oppose, but refresh the Bretton Woods system. It's kind of brand new ideas. And also, another US panelist made some his own assessment on the Trump administration's initial 10 months achievement in a various way. I will make a very lovely wrap up. In four categories, one is which area there was successful attempt, and which area unsuccessful attempt, and which area he made a big mistake. So we had a very good discussion time. And also, we had one observation from the future of the trade conflict between China and the United States. One Korean panelist who served as a trade minister, he has some great concern on the possible conflict or trade war between US and China in describing some point why he has such concern from the Chinese side and the US side. And also, Japanese panelists argued why Abe is influential, because he argued that he maintained very close personal relations with Trump. From his observation, Trump cannot sit for more than three hours to talk about something important. So the best way to spend several hours with him is to play golf outside. So that's why they will play golf today. So he expected a great thing. And also, Japanese panelists mentioned a reminder of Abe's previous idea, Asia's, under the name of Asia's democratic security diamond, which includes India and China as a new concept to be embraced and create norms like freedom of navigation. But Chinese panelists strongly opposed to that concept because while Abe insists on such idea, but he openly challenged by creating US, Japan, India, Australia's coalition to isolate China, which means that it is contradicting from their argument and real implementation. And then we have some suggestions by some analysis of the One Belt One Road system by European panelists. He fully supports Belt Road Initiative as a new Marshall plan for the 21st century, and especially including 33 billion population. And also, there is a first thing. OK. OK. So maybe I have some other interesting items. But I will share with you during the intermission. Thank you.