 I'm going to ask Karl, who comes to us from the WTO, to address what is a question that was raised in the previous panel, and that I think is on the minds of many of us, which is what on earth will become of the WTO in the current situation? I must confess we are in crisis mode. We are in crisis mode because we are about to lose one of the features that distinguishes the WTO as an international organization from other international organizations. We have a well-functioning dispute settlement mechanism. When you join the WTO as a state, you subject yourself to this compulsory dispute settlement. So if a state wants to sue another one, there is no way out. You cannot prevent that litigation is going to take place because the others were also very disciplined in using only five to seven minutes. I will not explain how the system works. I will only say that it has been very successful over the last 23 years. It has been used more than 530 times. It is also used by countries who have their own bilateral arrangements among themselves and their own dispute settlement, but they prefer to come to Geneva and have their dispute settled there. We have a very good compliance rate. States comply also in reasonable times, and now all this is in danger because the appeal function in this system is losing heads. We have seven members of the appellate bodies. Normally right now we only have three. There are four vacancies and the US blocks the filling of those four vacancies. So the question is why does the US do it? And I think we have already heard two significant answers to this question. One has to do with sovereignty and the other has to do with China. It was in fact the US who at the end of the Uruguay round demanded the establishment of an appellate body to solve disputes that would arise in the WTO. And the idea of it were the Europeans who were afraid of it because of the agricultural policy. But the Americans insisted on it, and the Americans had the idea there was massive liberalization through the Uruguay round, through the establishment of the WTO. And this would be matched with targeted protection. So they should have strong instruments of anti-dumping, anti-subsidy, so that wherever an unfair situation would occur, they could protect themselves reasonably. They were already in the early days of this dispute settlement mechanism disappointed because the court took, sorry, I used the word court. The Americans would never call it a court. It's a dispute settlement mechanism. It used a methodology in determining dumping, which weakened the instrument of anti-dumping. And on the subsidy front, and this has a lot to do with China, on the subsidy front, they developed approach to determining what illegal subsidy is that also looked at who dispenses the money. They requested a public body to dispense the money. And because there are many ways of moving money into your economy, the way of one could attack subsidies was limited. So the Americans were not happy with, they were disappointed in the expectation of having massive liberalization and targeted protection. The protection was too weak. They also criticized that this institution, the appellate body, developed the law. They filled gaps, they called the Americans attack it as overreach. One must understand that this is the only, let me call it court for the sake of provocation, the only court to which the Americans subjected themselves to the only international court. And they introduced a number of ideas by which they would make sure that this would not lead to an extended transfer of sovereignty away from the US. The Europeans have no problem with it because the Europeans are used to their European court of justice all the time deciding in favor of the Union and taking pieces, small pieces of sovereignty away from the member states. But for the US this was a problem, is a problem and has already been a problem under the Obama administration. So there are other issues I only want to say while we are sitting here in Canada, there are a group of ministers joined together under the invitation of Canada to discuss reforms. The Europeans have put something on the table which they think takes on board. All the grievances of the Americans is so fantastic that the Americans, I spoke to an author, he really thinks that, that they could not reject it. So if we could really get together, create a spirit of cooperation, then reforms would be possible. There is on the technical level in the WTO right now a strong spirit of cooperation. But whether this transfers to the higher political level seems, must be seen in the future. If we do not manage reform then we will get back to the rule of the jungle. For me this would be regression of civilization and we would replace the rule of law. The WTO is about rules guided globalization. We would replace the rule of the law by the deal of the day and that would be very bad. Thank you very much. Thank you. Well that's an optimistic interpretation. And I certainly agree that the rule of law is better than the rule of the jungle. I would point and that many of the proposals that have been suggested are in fact workable and sensible. I would point out in the spirit of Mark Nolan's pessimism that the administration at least members of the administration have said that they reject a rule based international economic order which is a problem. So one thing is what makes sense intellectually and even normatively and the other is what is feasible politically.