 Now we have a little bit of time. I think this is Karl Kaiser, who is a German and American. But then you would say 75 German, 20, no, 70% German, 30% American. Listening to the two of you, I am struck by a possible interesting peril. As we all remember, and if we and other European institutes did studies in the 70s and 80s on this, at the beginning France was the clearly leading space power in Europe. Fire ahead of the others. And it pulled the others along. And I still remember very well when the French had to put a lot of pressure and persuasion on the Germans to make the move into this area, because only by being a group you have sufficient resources, because it's very expensive to do these things. But there's also political motive behind it, as we all know. And Madam Minister, it seems to me, aren't you now going possibly the way France once did, being the leader of a future coalition of partners, possibly in the region, in order to gather enough resources to do more than you can do nationally as a country alone. So that would be one question. And the other one would be, do you see a possibility that like Europe you may move to an area which is not just only civil, but possibly for other uses, observation satellites, for example, Europe's doing that, which can be used for civil purposes, but also for, for example, control of arms control agreements, or possibly even military purposes. So, two questions. Please, Madam. So on the topic of the first question with regards to the collaboration within the region, like you said, space is really expensive. And the riskier it is, you spoke about constellation, for example, of communications, that's a paradigm shift. So we're at a time where any program that you take is riskier, therefore more costly in some instances. You're creating paradigm shifts in sectors. So the earth observation sector of imaging, earth and various wavelengths has been transformed over the course of the last 10 years. The next 10 years we'll see a full transformation of communication systems. I think navigations will come in sometime in the next decade. So you're talking about entire paradigm shifts that requires you to reinvest in infrastructure, reinvest in methodologies of development and so on. It's natural for coalitions to be formed, because like you said, you need to offset risk and you need to have various resources to create the right impact that you'll have. It's a natural progression for a region to move towards working, and it's not about force. It's about the mutual benefit, which is what happens in Europe. It's mutual benefit that pushes this development forward. There will be competition, but it will be healthy competition to further advancement and development. So that's on the front of cooperation. When you're talking about utilizing space systems, yes, there are civilian uses of space. Space started as a military endeavor. What we're looking at at the moment is economic drive and economic development for the UAE's purposes. And that's where a lot of resources and investment is going in. Do countries utilize space for various uses? Yes, it's normal. It's natural. Everyone does it. But the primary purpose will remain from the space sector in the UAE for the economic development. So now I will take three questions. You are identified. Wait a second. I suggest that we take the three questions together and you answer not to be too late. And I start with Farid Yasin. Questions that is very biased. I used to be a scientist. Money for science is scarce. Money for science is scarce. People fight for it. There's competition. There are areas that are very trendy, like space exploration. There's particle physics, which you mentioned. There's quantum computing. The topic I want to mention here is fusion. Why? Because we're all under the threat of climate change. And one of the silver bullets that is being talked about as a solution to the problem, the energy that we face, is fusion. Europe is very active. I'm sure you face some competition for the funds that you get from people involved in fusion. And in fact, the new international reactor is being built in Kedahash, France itself. My question to you is, are you being affected by this new focus on funding towards addressing climate change? And the second question that I have has to do with the involvement of the private sector. Most of the projects involving fusion are publicly funded. But now in the United States, in Canada, in the UK, we are seeing private investors building Tokamax or equivalent machines at a much lower cost in the hope of finding a much cheaper, quicker silver bullet. Is there a similar project in France or elsewhere in Europe? And if there isn't, why? In terms of the number of space actors who, by the way, this multiplication encourages cooperation, at least for peaceful activities or civil activities, which are now dominant. But I remember that when I was in the United Nations, the big question of space was the arms race in space. And the question of the arms control that Carl Keiser had earlier. It was the idea, it was the big debate on this subject. So today I think that military situations have not decreased. And space is still decisive for communications, for surveillance, for military operations, for nuclear destruction. And the treaty of 67, which remains today the space chart, which contains some principles, which are simple principles and principles that have so far been respected, the question I ask the experts is, is this treaty sufficient today? Because it is essentially devoted to military issues. It is very precise in terms of the non-proliferation of weapons in space, and even the interdiction of placing massive weapons in space. But it is very elliptical on the rest. So is this treaty sufficient today for the users? Or is it required to be transformed? Because it was actually concluded between the United States and the USSR. And it is possible that it does not respond exactly to the needs of current utilizations. That is why I would be very happy to have the point of view of the panelists. Thank you, sir. Last question, Daniel Handler. I'll be brief because the two previous speakers were excellent questions. So first of all, I'm not entirely reassured by the fact that right now the non-military activities seem to predominate. I wonder whether when push comes to shove, the military won't sort of take hold of the field and make it go in the direction it wants. So that's my first question. My second question is about cluttering. I've heard that there's a big problem of satellites cluttering the space and how that problem will be solved. And the third one has a little bit to do with the fact that there are limited resources. And I was wondering whether, especially Philippe Baptiste, thought that we had the right sort of young inventive engineers and scientists to really fuel progress in the space field or whether we should start thinking about new ways of training our young engineers and scientists. Thank you. Thank you, Daniel. So I would like to give you the last word. So I give the floor to Philippe. Thank you very much. Each of the questions deserves a long debate. Maybe a few elements. Do we feel a competition, for example, between the questions around fusion, sorry, switched to English? Do we feel that there is some kind of competition of resources, of funding between a research program on energy like fusion, for instance, and space? I would say the answer is no, not directly. And typically I would say that the countries that invest the most in either program also invest the most in the other one, because basically those countries are the countries that do believe in technology and do believe in the fact that technology can really change the world. So I'm not really scared by this competition of funding. I would say it really goes in the same direction. Just perhaps a word on militarization of space. This is, of course, a big issue. I just want, if I just perhaps focus, the question is very wide, but if I just want to focus on launcher, which is only a subset. But today I think that we have worldwide something like 250 companies, either small ones, startups, or larger ones, that wants to develop a mini launcher. So a mini launcher is really very close to a ballistic missile. So the question of proliferation and the question of how do you manage this technology, I mean of course the rules are the same and all big countries will do their best to monitor what happens and to forbid some kind of lots of technologies to avoid this kind of usage of launchers. But still the question will be there because when you have so many actors who are developing technologies everywhere in the world, I mean this question will be really key. Again I go very fast because we are out of time, but the question of debris and the question of how do we manage pollution in space is a key question, especially in low Earth orbit. So the orbit which is very close to Earth and where you have an incredible increase of the number of satellites there, it's an exponential low, it goes very very fast and we will be in trouble. The question is not to know whether yes or no we will be in trouble, the question is to know when we will be in trouble, trouble meaning collision. And collision meaning that you have much more debris and the probability of collision which is heavier again. So the question is how do we regulate space? We at some point this question has to come and I think that we have limited choice, we have to think about that and we cannot only rely on good wills of private actors. There has to be some kind of global strategy, worldwide strategy on this question. Perhaps finally to answer the question on private investors and if I can reformulate the question, the question was basically where are they in Europe? I would say that we have limited number of private, of people, of billionaires who do invest in space, at least in France, I'm afraid I know none of them right now but I hope they will come very soon. Still we have a lot of companies that invest in space and we have many new, I'm not talking only about Airbus and Thales which are giants and which are key players in space but they are also new ones. Let me mention for instance Kineis which is a young company which manufactures small satellites for many different usage, especially IoT. It's very young, it's very dynamic, it comes with very low price. So I'm pretty sure it will be very, very successful soon. Well, there are many of them. Still I really believe that we have to put much more effort in this new space sector because it will really boost space, technology all over the society and it's a huge economic growth too. So we will invest a lot of them. Thank you very much, Madame. I think we touched, if I got this correctly, the questions were across three different streams. One with regards to militarising space and proliferation space. It's about each actor being responsible for what we've all signed on. There will be more and more companies up and coming around the world like you were mentioning and it's about how the local regulations reflect the intentions of the countries in terms of proliferation of space. On the aspect of the private sector, I think it was specific to Europe but for the private sector itself what it gives us and what we've seen that it gives us is new innovations because these companies are up and starting and they develop things different than it's typically developed in agencies that have been around for 40 and 50 years. Space I think is as innovative as it is, it's a highly indoctrined mechanism of design and development especially in larger institutions and a lot of it is inherited from failed missions. There are policies and procedures that some entities are following that are from failed missions in the 70s as an example. When you get new entrants into space, countries that are entering new link to space or companies that are entering new space, they don't have those baggage of what I call relationships that went wrong. They can start a fresh page and therefore they're able to innovate a development. Therefore there needs to be a nice balance between the two. What we need to see in terms of investment, I know there's a big hype in investment, parts of it are hype, parts of it are real. What we need to play as space agencies is ensuring the sustainability of the real investment to carry through over the course of the next decade because that's the way that we're able to develop new mechanisms of retraining engineers and new mechanisms of thinking in terms of space systems development. We can find better products and services coming to space and we can find a solution to the clutter that we have in low earth orbit because what we can bring to the table today is discussions on a policy front and an international policy front. The real innovation will come in ensuring that we're accessing space. Finding out early if there's collisions but more importantly understanding better how do you in a low-cost manner declutter space and that's an innovation that will come from the private sector and I don't think we have concepts but no solutions that are real for those. I hope I did answer the three questions but that's what I got from those. Thank you very, very much for this very interesting and stimulating discussion. I can assure you that in the coming years the issues of technology, space in particular will play an increasing role in this world policy conference but in a world policy conference there is the word policy and it seems to me that we are I would say at the beginning of a collective reflection on how policy should be approached. We have spoken a lot in other sessions of the idea of flexible alliances, cooperation all that in a world that we want all of us, the middle powers to remain as open as possible but I like to call it reasonably open and there is a lot of work to do to become more operational in these extremely exciting fields. So I can tell you that for myself I am not a candidate for a trip in the extra atmosphere even if I were a billionaire and even less a candidate for Mars when the day comes I will be elsewhere. Thank you very much indeed.