 The next session, I will not compare in terms of importance the previous session of the future of the European Union. By the way, let me say that as I am the organizer of the whole conference, I refrain myself to give by specific opinions and certain subjects, but if I had been a panelist on the session of the European Union, I would probably have been much more pessimistic on the post-war situation of the European Union, and I would probably also have insisted more on the weight the role of the United States after the war and also the fact that this war is not, as somebody said, a war against Ukraine and the rest of the world. The rest of the world does not consider that Russia is fighting it, particularly typically a country like India for instance, definitely does not perceive the situation in those terms. So I just say that in passing and I switch to Indo-Pacific, but in a sense there is an intellectual link here, which will be the red thread along this coming session. What do we mean exactly by the Indo-Pacific region? The terminology in geopolitics is very important. The region we are talking about has received a number of names over centuries and over decades. For instance, in the 18th, the beginning of the 19th century, we used to speak, or our predecessors used to speak about Indo-China. Indo-China was not what we still call sometimes Indo-China. It was India and China and the seas in between. So the Indo-Pacific concept has emerged relatively recently. And the big question, the key question I would like to ask for panelists is, is this new geopolitical concept meant to represent something like an alliance against China? So most people who partly think that the answer is yes would say publicly no. So my question is simple. What is the, what do we mean by Indo-Pacific? And I will give the floor, I could take actually any order, but since I have Mr. Hiroyuki Akita, who is a very well-known commentator in Japan, I will give him the floor first.