 It, in some ways, sows a great deal of uncertainty around the world about what the future of America's regional role is. On the one hand, there are some people who say, well, Trump is an anomaly. He is someone who has been elected because of a particular anomaly within the United States in the 2016 election, and therefore all we have to do is wait out the Trump years and we'll go back to America as usual. There are others who say, actually, Trump represents a sea change in the United States and that this growing number of angry people within the United States will keep on electing populist presidents who will be elected partly on advocating a retreat of the United States from its liberal internationalist role that it's played in the world since the end of the Second World War. And so an inability to kind of make a call on that and an inability in terms of what Trump will do with American foreign policy while he's in office because there has been no articulation of what that is, you know, what that will entail in terms of a foreign policy doctrine has sown great uncertainty into the world. I think it sows an element of unpredictability into regional security. On the one hand, the gap between what Trump has said he would do and what Trump has actually done has been quite wide and seems to be growing. He talked very tough on China during the election campaign, and yet everything that he and his administration have done in relation to China has been quite conciliatory so far. He talked quite tough about Japan and other allies as well, and yet that in terms of real action has been a conciliatory policy line as well. And yet we're not quite sure what he will do about the North Korean issue. So that element of unpredictability has sown a bit of volatility, a bit more volatility into what was already a region that was quite volatile anyway. The concerns really arise as to whether you can trust anything that he says. I would think that people like the Japanese Prime Minister, the Chinese President, probably have left the United States thinking that they've had a positive set of meetings with Trump, but whether he will actually act on what he says is another big question. It's that, again, that very large gap between rhetoric and action for Trump, which makes it very hard for people to take him at face value and to understand him at face value. The other element is, of course, Trump's rather volatile personality, which means that how he will act seems to depend on what actually happens. So rather than there being any clear policy line that he will try and cleave to, he seems to react on a fairly visceral and emotional level, take the Syrian cruise missile attacks as an example. He seems to have completely changed US policy based on how he reacted emotionally to that particular incident. So Trump sows uncertainty into the US-Australia alliance. I think the government's approach to it so far has been to rely on the other strands of the alliance, the multiple strands that bring our two countries together to carry us through while trying to get a measure of the president and how the White House works as that continues to evolve. The policy prescriptions, I think, are about right, not to panic, not to be overly bombastic, to try and rely on those very deep and very long-standing ties to impart a little bit of stability into the alliance relationship and wait till the alliance relationship evolves to see what we're going to make of it.