 I'll get them from Express and I will ask you what is the main take here so far, you think we should take with us? Well, my main take is that we are meeting this year in a very special context, extraordinarily emotional all over the world, with the international situation in general, which is deteriorating for a number of reasons, plus on top of that, this new war between Israel and the Hamas, but with the huge regional and international consequences, we are meeting in the Gulf, in a Muslim country, and the question of course that everybody was asking before the beginning of this meeting was the kind of consequences it will have on the meeting itself. And therefore my main take is that it went extraordinarily well in terms of ambiance. The WPC, we are not specialized, that is, year after year we discuss all kinds of subjects with the spirit of global governance, even if this term is a little bit obsolete now in certain ways, but nonetheless it still means something because if there is no longer such thing as global governance, the world will evolve in a chaotic direction, if you can say chaotic direction, it's two worlds do not go very well together. So that's one point. We have always stressed the concept of middle power, which is I think more relevant than ever today, and we have always promoted the concept of what I call a reasonable openness that is far from the initial utopia of globalization, the idea that nevertheless the world should remain open, but not too much because too much openness, unprepared openness can lead towards greater difficulties as we see with the migration problem for instance. So the interesting thing is that we could discuss all these issues. We could allude and refer to the immediate short-term difficulties, including the two wars, Ukraine and Israel Hamas, and everything went in terms of exchanges, of style of communication among us, etc. It went in very smooth and mutually with a lot of mutual respect for everybody, and I think it's a great success because this is what we have aimed to do with this World Policy Conference, you know, a club where from the people, countries coming from the four, five continents, and to be able to discuss, to listen to others, to express the viewpoints of everybody, but also to pay attention and respect to the viewpoint of the other. In that sense, I think it was a real success, and I think we need in the current world more places where this sort of communication can be practiced. So sorry for that long answer, but I would like to ask one footnote. Today we are Sunday, if I am not mistaken, and we had this morning meeting session on religion, but something not in the classical sense because in conferences like this, when you speak of religions, you think of the political aspects of religion. I wanted to have a session on religions, on the major, what they call here the Abrahamic religions. I wanted to have one session where we could discuss the issue of religions, but from the viewpoint, how do religions contribute to the good of humanity, whereas there is a tendency to consider, unfortunately, religions more and more as troublemakers, and we associate more and more religions with wars, unfortunately. So the decision to have such a session had been taken much before the 7th of October. The question after the 7th of October was, is it reasonable to keep a session like that three weeks after the beginning of the Israel Hamas war, and I decided to maintain it and to maintain it with people who represent something in the three major Abrahamic regions, that is, Christians, Muslims and Jews, if I take the order in terms of the... In the time perspective, I should start with the Jews, Christians and Muslims. And frankly speaking, and until the last minute, I wasn't sure about how it would go. And I think it went remarkably well, much beyond my expectations. In two ways. One is that we really, that was short, one hour, that really the speakers spoke about the subject, I mean, that I had assigned to them. They did not try to escape. And the second good surprise, I must say, is that the Muslim speaker, who is an important person, he has an important position, spoke essentially the same language than the other two, which means something. It means something because it shows, it's very courageous. I think that in a country like this, in a Muslim country, to speak the way he spoke is very significant, very significant, because as everybody knows, the public opinion in the Muslim world is extraordinarily emotional about the events. Of course, the Jewish community as well. So if I take an optimistic interpretation of this, I take it as meaning that there are people in the Muslim world who are responsible people and who seem to be prepared to work, to change, to ask to take the lead, or of a more positive approach to these formidable problems that we are facing. So I mention this because it is today, the third day, the last day, and it was, as I said, an original session. And so I take it as a big success for our concept. Sorry, it's a bit long. It's okay? Yeah, yeah. Okay. Thank you for your explanation. I'd like to talk about, like you said, global governance. As of now, it's a new world. So Israel, Hamas or the former war. So Ukraine, Russia is ongoing. But there are some opinions or stances depending on the countries. And so I'd like to know how should each government do in future to make global governance much more better? I'd like to know your opinion. You see, the big problem is that the world today is very much divided. Because you have conflicts at various levels. Today, the most important, the deepest conflict is the one which is today still cold, if I may say so, that is between the competition between the US and China. This is the most fundamental conflict. It's very difficult to make specific predictions on how it will evolve. By the way, one of the mini-sessions here which was I think quite interesting for at least some participants was the discussion with Mr. Long, who is a former Chinese executive chief of Hong Kong who made extraordinarily clearly the attitude of the position of mainland China on Taiwan. Clearly, China is not what he said is not particularly original, but his style of expressing was very, very clear on an issue such as Taiwan. China wanted to absorb China as soon as possible to full stop. And the whole style of his intervention, of his answers to my questions was difficult to be more clear than he was. So that means that the possibility of major conflicts is still there. It is clear that the American approach to global governance is not compatible with the Chinese approach to global governance and so forth and so on. Now, at lower levels, we have a series of big conflicts. If we take the case of Ukraine, the Ukraine war is far from the perspective of an end to that war is very remote today. And as we have seen, Russia is now becoming more and more a junior partner of China. The so-called global south now is much closer to the Russian position on Ukraine in the sense that they consider that this is not their problem, that the West, in fact, is behaving still as an imperial power or a collection of former colonial powers and so forth and so on. So what I mean is that Russia is much less isolated than what most people say. We see that Iran, for instance, has clearly moved in the eastern direction, et cetera, et cetera. So we have a collection of problems like this, Middle East, as we see the Gulf. So the division of the world is at various levels. So the question is that in such a context, what does it mean, global governance? Because the ideal of global governance can work only if there is an agreement between the major, the great majority of countries, an agreement to have it work. You have to agree that there should be something like global governance that has to work for the benefit of the world, but if there is no disagreement, if there is no agreement, on the end, you will not have an agreement on the means. Global governance is a means to an end. If you don't agree about the end, it cannot work. So one of the consequences of this is that the common goods, the global public goods, if you wish, are unlikely to be treated correctly. I am thinking particularly of climate and health and global health. On climate, of course, we had here, especially from the Emirates, a positive approach because they are working very hard to have a successful COP28. But as we know, the last cops were not particularly successful. I hope that the COP28 will be more successful, but it's not sure at all because how can you have bold agreement, for instance, between the US and China in such a context? It's very difficult. So the remarkable thing is that the very concept of commons of humanity or global public good, it's a concept that is relevant now, but 10 or 15 or 20 years ago. It was an abstract concept. Today it's no longer an abstract concept because we all know it everywhere in the world. For us, climate change has become a reality everywhere, everywhere. But the capacity to act collectively to face this reality and to improve the situation is lacking for the reasons I just tried to mention. So if the question is, are the conditions ripe to allow improvement of global governance and climate, my rough answer would be very unlikely. And the same for global health. This morning also we had the session on how to fight or to prevent future pandemics. The brief answer is clear. We are not progressing at all in this issue. If we speak in clear language, that means that the probability in the next few years to have decades but relatively near future, the probability to have another pandemic is very high. Because we have not taken, we have not even started to take the measures, the collective measures that would allow to kill the pandemics at the very beginning if it occurred. That would be the main reason of that. That's kind of a paradox that topics are much more interconnected than before and the world is even more divided than before. How can we overcome that paradox? First, I don't think it is a paradox because this interconnection is also the cause of divisions. So it increases interdependence in an erratic way, but at the same time it exacerbates tensions, divisions. That's the paradox of communication. The paradox of communication is very multi-dimensional. For instance, if you ask the question, globally is the world as a whole, are there more tragedies today than there were during the Middle Ages or even 50 years ago? The answer is probably not much more, but everything is visible. Today, everything which is happening here in Abu Dhabi can be observed everywhere in the world and vice versa. In the Soviet times, there were tragedies every day in the Soviet Union, but nobody heard about them. At the time in the 70s, at the time of my beginnings in the field of international affairs, you had the Vietnam War. We were, of course, informed on the Vietnam War, but we didn't go the details. Today, you would know every detail about the atrocities that were committed every day in Vietnam. So there is also a perception problem. That's why I'm talking about a reasonably open world because when any every country imports the problem of the others, it becomes unlivable. You cannot live like that. We are talking these days about the issue of importing the Israeli-Palestinian issue in Europe, for instance, or in France because of the Muslim community particularly. But this problem is not only about the Israeli-Palestinian issue. It's a much more general problem because politics starts with emotions. The rationalization, the abstract thinking about problems comes, of course, at a different level, but the problems politically start with emotions. So this is why I think that this is why I use this term, reasonable openness. So again, it's a long answer to the question. It's not a paradox. My name is Insan Khan from South Korea. I noticed that you have put a lot of effort in this year's WPC to talk more about technology, including AI and so forth and so on. It is an opportunity. Nobody would say no to that. It is an opportunity. But in this time where a lot of countries are preparing for elections next year or sometime this year, where do you think the global government should put more focus on starting from now to maybe regulate and to prevent its side effects or to promote so that people can explore the infinite potential of the technology? That's, of course, a very interesting question. Now I will refer to a conference that you know well, you personally, which is the World Knowledge Forum of your boss, Chairman Changdae Won, the Maikung Group. And as I told you privately, in Korea, they have been the last for a number of years at the center of the thinking on new technologies, taking the best of these technologies to develop a smart this or smart that. Everything is smart. And I have always learned a lot of things through this World Knowledge Forum, including last time, which was in mid-September. So that was one and a half months ago, closely. And I was very much struck by two persons, the founder of Open Artificial Intelligence, the young men who, well, they developed charge-GPT. And the other one was the co-founder of Apple. Vosniak, I think it's a Polish name. And the two of them made very clear, including what is Altman, the guy of Open AI. Said very, very clearly, Artificial Intelligence is, well, I say it in my own words, but the idea was very clear. It can be very dangerous. So we should think of regulating, you know. And since then, because at the time, that was the first time for me that I heard that recommendation made so explicitly by prominent people in the field. It was very interesting because just ten years ago, all the young leaders, business people of the Silicon Valley and elsewhere, would never speak of regulating the internet or whatever of the digital world. Well, today they seem to be frightened or scared by the consequences of their own creations or creatures. So, and since this meeting a few weeks ago, I am more, of course, careful to following the opinions of the various actors in this field. And of course you have two camps, but I think the camp of people who think that regulation is necessary is increasing in numbers. Now, the big problem is that once you have recognized that, what do you do? Because to speak about regulation, it's a word after all, but to regulate what and how. And it's always the same problem. For example, in the U.S., usually they do not like to regulate, but if one country, let's say, the majority of countries regulate, and you have one, two or three of the major actors who do not, the result is easy to predict until some sort of catastrophe occurs. So it's a very good example of the current world. We have a vague understanding that things cannot continue indefinitely as they do, but we don't know too much what to do. I said that global governance, you have the first thing is just to have an agreement on the end and then on the means. But if you agree neither on the ends nor on the means, you are in trouble. We may be in such a stage today. Go back to reformulate what I asked you in the first place, but it's a bit different. What did you learn? Is there anything you learned during these days? I surprised you. Something that surprised you? Someone who said something that helped you? It's more important than that, yeah. Or maybe not. No, learning is not easy. I learned constantly, including from you. So I am a machine learning by myself. So learning, I would say the question perhaps. So learning, I learned constantly, just sometimes listening. And you know when I am here during three days, I do so many things at the same time that sometimes it's difficult for me. Even if I look concentrated on what they say, I may think of a totally different thing because when you do too many things at the same time, it may be difficult. But so there are a number of details that I learned. So what do I do? I say, well, I should be more careful to understand this or that, to dig a little bit further on that issue. But you are not talking about this sort of learning. If you mean by learning being surprised, no. I was not surprised because I follow things constantly, so I was not surprised. And you know when you are prepared in detail, you know, an event like this, it's unlikely that you are really surprised. This is why I answered the general atmosphere. My initial answer may be sort of a very sexy answer. But nonetheless, again today, I repeat that, today the way the religious, the session of religion went was, I can tell you that early this morning, I had reasons not to be sure at all about how it could evolve. So, you know, in international affairs and more generally in complex situations, all the difficulty is to assess correctly the small signals. You have to be very careful about the interpretations of certain facts, et cetera, that most of the people would not even care about, you know. So perhaps, I hope I am not too optimistic, perhaps if I take a global view about the discussion of so many subjects, if I take that all together, my conclusion might be that on the whole, positive attitudes, or attitudes of responsibility seem to prevail over negative attitudes. But I could be slightly more precise. For instance, if you take the Israeli Hamas issue, I prefer essentially Israeli Hamas because I am not sure that it is easy to really a Israeli-Palestinian problem. That's going to be discussed, you know. So Hamas has become an actor in a section, in itself. But when you talk with reasonable people about it, they say that there is no government, apparently, you know, there is no government even in the region who really want to create chaos. If you look in detail to the declaration of Mr. Nasrallah the other day, yesterday I think it was, and clearly it illustrates what I am saying. So if it's actually in Iran, it's unlikely that they want to commit to start a real war or to have to confront the United States directly. It's very, very unlikely. So where is the real risk? Apart from the tragedies for the people who are in the middle of the fight, that is the Israeli and the Gaza people. I think the answer is the public opinions and the public opinions in the Middle East, in particular, but not only the Middle East because we see in Europe, et cetera, et cetera. And that is not controllable. So whereas governments can at least control their decisions, but public opinions, mob movements, demonstrations, this you cannot control easily. So this reinforces my remark about responsibility. I think all the speakers here, depending of course on what they were talking about, their field of expertise, et cetera, but I think they spoke with a sense of responsibility. And I like that. So you can tell me that I did not invite people. No, no. But they said there is a bit of a contradiction because you previously said that the world doesn't agree nor the objective on the means. So I would ask a little bit, as I would ask to a politician, have you ever seen such a configuration in your lifetime? This reminds me of a story of a church, a man in a parish, a priest of a protestant parish somewhere, who asked an artist to paint an angel for his church. And after a few weeks, the artist comes back with a beautiful angel. And the priest discovers that the angel has shoes. Shoes, shoes. So he tells the artist, well, have you ever seen an angel with shoes? And the other guy says, and you, have you ever seen an angel without shoes? So he laughs, not you, but he laughs. I'll make a special one for you. So that's, do you speak about a paradox of contradiction? This is an apparent contradiction, the sort of contradiction that you find in complexity. When there are complex situations, you always have an apparent contradiction. But in this case, I don't see that two ways of looking at the same events, but I don't see any contradiction. It's still uncharted territory, a situation where nobody agrees on the objective on the means. Yes, but the specificity is that if the two of us disagree fundamentally on an issue, we disagree on the description of the issue itself, we disagree on the aims to be attained, we disagree on the means, et cetera, et cetera. But at a certain moment, we discover that the two of us are losing control of the situation. And we discover that without understanding exactly what is happening, we could both lose the game. Then we agree at least on one thing. We are on our guards and we understand that we have a common interest, which is precisely to avoid the full loss of control. So this is the sort of my answer to the question. I like the answer. So as you said, have I ever seen in my life a comparable situation? The answer is no. The answer is no, and that takes us back to the question about technology, because I remember very well personally the beginnings of what was not called at the time the digital technologies we did not use, we spoke of informatics and this sort of thing. That was in the 60s, in fact, in the 1960s. Of course, from the scientific viewpoint, we had communication theory and all the basic, the scientific foundations were born earlier. But digital technologies as a new world started more or less in the 60s. Since then, those technologies have accelerated, the technological progress has accelerated constantly. There never was a pause. So if you compare this extraordinary industrial revolution to all the previous industrial revolutions in history, it's totally unprecedented because all the previous revolutions were limited in time, they had huge consequences, but to have 60 years of constant acceleration of technological progress. It continues because the current prediction is that it's very likely the acceleration will accelerate further in the near future. Of course, we had at this conference, we had some presentation of this evolution, but we have that everywhere. In a sense, it is extraordinary, we are very much impressed because it's fantastic, but it is scary too, and that raises another issue which may take us back to religion. That is, what is the capacity of human beings to adapt to constantly accelerating change? Because we are very adaptable animals, the human beings are adaptable animals, but there may be some limits. So that's really unprecedented. And when they say that with the tragedy or other similar technologies, it could develop in a viral way, like a pandemic precisely, it is a serious question. It comes back to the World Knowledge Forum meeting. I mentioned two people, but there were others. One of the questions raised during that meeting was what is the horizon of predictability? And the consensus was that even five years, maybe too long, even five years. Five years? What is it five years? Take elections. We have been discussing fake news and this sort of thing for a number of years, but with tragedy, PT and similar technologies, it will become more and more difficult to separate reality from virtuality. Who tells me that you are not virtual, by the way? We stop here.