 Let me turn to Theo, thank you very much for coming over from Seoul and give us the perspective of trade. You have been very much engaged in global trade negotiations, both on an incentive perspective, also on a protecting perspective. You have been, as I said, the Minister for Trade in Korea, and you have a very interesting perspective on the future trade regimes. So please, over to you. So thank you, Niklaus. Actually I'm the only one who doesn't know much about business, even though I'm advising our clients about the geopolitics and some legislation introduced by the United States and the EU, but I'm not really in the area of business, so bear that in mind. This afternoon I want to share some of my thoughts on the evolving landscape of the world trade environment, and as we all know very well, we all talk about this in the first session and second session, the global trade environment has been undergoing unprecedented transformation, and as a trade economist, I believe the most fundamental change is the increasing prevalence of negative views toward globalization and free trade among the general public. There is a widespread perception in many countries that domestic industries and labors have suffered from domestic companies' overseas investment and excessive imports from abroad, since they think that these have caused huge unemployment rate and also growing income inequality. Unfortunately, politicians have strategically promoted these negative sentiment on globalization and free trade to capitalize on the psychological state of law income voters predominantly composed of workers for their advantages in the election. Indeed, this has led to protectionist policies in many countries that prioritize domestic production over corporate overseas investment and imports from foreign countries. Another critical aspect impacting the world trade environment, we all talk about this, is the strategic competition between the US and China. Following the imposition of extra tariffs on imports from China by former President Trump, US-China disputes have broadened the scope of national security to include economic and technology areas. The US considers steel and aluminum, even, crucial element in its national security and is actively engaging in securing its dominant position in strategically advanced technology sectors such as semiconductor, electric vehicles, EV batteries, and AI and so on. In addition, the global companies, we all talk about this now, have experienced real challenges stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic and the war between Russia and Ukraine and they recognize the imperative need to restructure their supply chain. At the same time, major countries are actively promoting initiatives related to various social and environmental objectives including enhancing labor and human rights and reducing carbon emission and protecting the environment. Let me now provide some examples of major countries' policy measures. The US has introduced a chips and science act allocating $52 billion in subsidies to the semiconductor sector. The EU has also introduced the EU chips act which provides substantial amount of subsidies to increase the global market share of its semiconductor. It is crucial to notice that countries previously critical of China for providing heavy government subsidies to specific sectors now give themselves industrial subsidies to promote their domestic industries. Of course, China continues to provide government subsidies to key advanced technology sectors. This means that industrial policies may be revived, triggering unfair trade activities among major countries. The US restrict exports of semiconductor and semiconductor equipment to China which is hugely affecting the Korean companies which are operating in China. Samsung and SK Hynix are producing semiconductor in China. The US also introduced, in Korea we call IRA, but now ERA, which is Inflation Reduction Act, which includes provisions discriminating against electric vehicles assembled outside North America and EVs equipped with batteries manufactured with parts or minerals from the so-called foreign countries of concern which may include China. At the same time, leading nations worldwide have advocated for policies to establish stable supply chain particularly for critical raw materials. For example, the United States is endeavoring to establish a critical minerals club with the EU through the Trade and Technology Council, another club with the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework Member States. Also, the EU has introduced critical raw material act to limit its dependence on a single country for critical raw material to a maximum of 65%. As we can see, major countries are utilizing subsidies, trade and investment measures to achieve their national objectives in various areas including national security, the economy, technology, society and more. However, some of these measures may violate the multilateral trade norms of the WTO, such as the subsidies agreement and the principles of most favored nation and national treatment. Certain measures included in the US IRA are good examples of these violations. Nonetheless, the World Trade Governance, particularly the multilateral trading system of the WTO, is not effectively addressing these issues. As we all know, the WTO dispute settlement system remains incomplete because there are no judges at the appeal party since the end of 2019 and appointing the appeal party judges has been unsuccessful. So even if a WTO member wins a dispute through the panel investigation, the final legal result will be pending until the appeal party, which currently has no judges, can make a ruling. Therefore, it would be meaningless to accuse any members for their violation of the WTO norms and principles for the time being. So we now find ourselves in a world where major nations are adopting various unilateral actions, focusing on their domestic political agenda to achieve economic as well as non-economic objectives. The negative consequences of these unilateral actions on the world trade will progressively escalate. If this trend continues, world trade order will remain fragmented, increasing uncertainty in the global trade environment. Under these circumstances, it will be practically impossible for the whole WTO members to discuss sensitive issues. However, doing nothing would not be a desirable option either. So we should note that the WTO allows member states to take unilateral actions. If fair and non-discriminatory implementation of these actions is guaranteed, considering all these, it would be crucial for countries with similar interests and positions to engage in transparent and unbiased discussions on various issues, including new commercial rules, and come up with agreements. Of course, these agreements should be open to non-participating countries that may wish to exceed later. Many trade experts consider these so-called open prelateral agreements as the second best option for addressing important issues at the WTO. So in conclusion, I would like to note that serious efforts from major trading nations are urgently needed to respond to this crisis situation in the world trade environment and mitigate uncertainties in the global trade environment. Thank you very much. This is all. Thank you, Thao. And I think it's real that we, as you said, you speak about the crisis environment. I think the fact that WTO is not active anymore creates a vacuum, which we also see obviously in a kind of a multipolar world, where I think the clear institutions that used to steer that global economy have been massively weakened.