 I don't have a real presentation, I'm just going to give you two more thoughts about this. When I was invited four or five days ago to this, I was really delighted. I feel very much a man from the UN, and I support the idea of an international community. But I will start saying something you say, there is no way to disengage. You said, well, unfortunately I feel I'm more pessimistic now after Brexit, everything is possible. And when I read the title of this, what is the role of the international community, they said, well, they are a positive guy. They feel they know that they think it's easy that everyone is in agreement. Yes, I came in my mind with my old professor in Oxford at Hellebun, he said, okay, do you need to, I'm a contrastivist, I believe in ideas, do you see things according to how you think about things. And in this case, it's clear we have an international system, but now we're not completely clear that many people, if we have President Trump and maybe another Bolton in the UN, will believe really in that we have an international community. We need to convince, I think we need to go outside, we are the, I think we believe on that, the international community. But I think the people on the street, you will need to go there and say, look, there is, there is a need of international cooperation, it's not just because we have this kind of crisis, but because, I mean, there is no real rational alternative. But there is alternative to go back, I think, an involution to a situation where power politics will be reigning and you will see a very complicated life. So my first general comment, and it is very general, don't be so optimistic in the sense that still people on the street believe that there is something called the international community, that is international good, international institution, and I, and it came to my mind what happened at the UN when we were at the Security Council and we were deciding on the intervention of Iraq, you know, the use of force is very much clear in the United Nations, you need to have authorization from the Security Council. But at the end of the day, we both, there was no agreement on allowing, you know, intervention in Iraq, but they don't care about that. I mean, there was an international group of countries that they went and intervened. And something like that happens with regard to Libya. There was the idea of, you know, intervention for humanitarian reasons, but at the end things were changed a little bit. I think we need to use those cases and say, look, we now, we have the Chilcot report, the UK, there is another report from the parliament there that made clear that it was a mistake. And you need to, you need to tell people that sometimes it is important to respect international law, that the rule of law at international level is important, that even if you are a great power, you need to follow the rule of the game or the international sort of institution. So now I think we have a situation where we can tell everyone, look, you try that way, you know, and sort of go in my way anyway. And now you can have a very impartial assessment. It's not coming from the south. It's not coming from a very radical group that it was a mistake. So I think that my first point, I just want to say, we need to do something in terms of telling everyone that an international society is something important, that we should not go back to a situation where there is no rule and that whatever it is, you can do whatever you feel is appropriate according to your own national interests. So there is the idea of, I will say, international cooperation on collective security. So I went back, let me say, to my first time when I was learning 30 years ago about the international relation, I think it still is relevant. It's something that we need to continue working on that. My second general comment is that whatever is the international community, whatever is the meaning of that, and in some way, you give it here, as you say, UN system, donors, agents, NGOs, so you give it kind of broad definition of international. And I will say in any case, when we think of international society, if you want, or international community, it is the UN system. I mean, when people think about it, they think about the UN, whatever it is, they're right or wrong, but that is what they think about it. And when you think how the UN must organize collective action to confront this crisis, you need some priorities, of course, because there is full of crisis there, but then again, you need an analytical way and you need to demonstrate that are the relevant one that you are going to start dealing with. And I think in the 90s, we have all this UN conference that create the agenda for the 90s. And at that time, what I have in mind, for instance, for us, we were very much behind the idea of the social summit. And I remember Brazil on real, on environment. And then you have another in China, we have the on gender issues. So we have 10 or 15 very major things that were the reals. And at the end of the day, we have the STGs today that maybe this 17 goals are what more or less we think as international community in a positive way that what where we must go. So I think that in any case, whatever you're going to be doing, you need to prioritize, you need to make clear what are the crisis that you are going to be dealing with as a priority. And I do like the very simple concept of sustainable development. It means that you need growth, you need environmental protection, and also social inclusion. I mean, if you just have that clear, you have a very important set of goals. And when we were thinking in the social summit, for us, the key things were employment, eradication of poverty, and inclusiveness. Inclusiveness in a very broad sense, including gender. So you need at least some kind of parameters. What are the main goals in a positive way? I mean, we need to fight for that things. OK, that's my two very general comments of my experience. And also, I may say, and I will remember what was the financing for development, because that was a very key and for personally a very important goals in the last conference of this 90 conference. Because, and why we organize that? Because development, you have all these conferences on health, you know, environment, you know, poverty. But you never have clarity where you're going to get the money. I mean, there was a lot of things on that. And then we have, I think, what was called the Asian crisis. And you'll remember that the people say this is cronism, and it's never going to happen to us, you know, et cetera. And it was the conference organized mainly. It was pushed by, I will say, the Asian countries and the Latin American countries. Because we have a doctorate in depth, so international depth. So it was a very different kind of conference. And we divided things, if those who know that, on national, international, and systemic issues. And the systemic issues was the most complicated one. Because we say, well, you need to have an inclusive group of institutions, the World Bank, the IMF, et cetera, with some participation from developing countries on meaningful participation. And also, we said, and that is my last comment on this, people said, why are you organizing at the UN something about, you know, macroeconomic things? We are divided, we have the IMF and the World Bank and the WTO. Why the UN? Because, I mean, maybe you can deal with ODA, you know, but not with finance. But I think that at the end of the day, we have a very good meeting. Still, I was reading the document. Still, everything is there. The question is political will. Everything that happened later, if you follow what we agreed at the Monterey maybe 15 years ago, we never had this crisis. But anyway, that was one of the other priorities. And that was a priority not of Chile, but mainly from developing countries. But I will say, not the big developing countries. But I will say, those middle and lower developing countries, and it was a very responsible document, I will say, because nothing radical. It was not the new. I was always saying, because I was working on that, this is not the new international economic order. Because people say, no, you're trying to bring back this idea of the 60s or 70s that was the new international economic order. No, no, no, this was a more, so that I will say, pro-market rules, but a responsible response to what we see a very unjust system. But that are my two first comments. And if I have some money, I'm going to go now to two other, but more specific one, what kind of response you can provide from the international community to this crisis. One idea that I think is a good one, and I know that some people feel it's perhaps through narrow, is coalitions. I mean, whenever you have a group of countries who are really relevant in some issues, and they are willing to do something, it's good that they should go again with that. I mean, you don't need, and this was called, I think, minimalism instead of multilateralism. I remember some people were sort of as an academic way. First, I don't like it. I was feeling that something. But after being practitioner on this, I was three weeks ago in Washington, we have a meeting of our oceans. It is about environment, and they're taking care of acidification, of fisheries, and on creating marine environment, et cetera. It's a new way of doing things. And I think it's working well. And this is one way of doing things, I will say. And if you can have a problem, some kind of crisis, and you get together those countries who are relevant and who feel that they have the will to do something. And then with some champions, you can do that. I just gave you an example of our ocean. But I mean, we have for many years that the Antarctic Treaty, something like that, you don't have everyone, but you have the really relevant countries there. And they're doing a lot taking care of Antarctica. And then you can go to many other issues where I think these coalitions can be, there is a risk, of course, in coalitions, because you need to respect the global sort of rules and the global institution. And that is my problem sometime with the G20. But I don't think that it's a bad idea, the G20. They respond to crisis in a very strong way. But the risk, if they feel that they don't need to consult others and that they can go alone, and et cetera, that is the problem. And in particular, if they feel that they can treat the UN as something that's inefficient, there is too many people or whatever. But there is a problem of legitimacy. So we need to combine very well the global institution, the open with this other institution that are just group of countries that are doing something. And I think that we can manage that. But that there is a risk. And my last point on a more sort of narrow comment is regionalism and the sense of regional response to start, in some cases, are very irrelevant and very important. I'm thinking now on development and finance matters. We, as what I know is Latin America, we have a, and I know that in Asia now, you have different regional bank, et cetera. So I mean, you should allow that kind of things. And I remember the United States' first reaction to the bank in Asia was a little bit at this part of the chronism, et cetera. And you need the control of the IMF in term of just complying many things. But in regional response, sometimes there are institutions that are closer to your countries. They know better what you need. They are more easy to access from those countries. And in the case, I will say, it's not thinking of the Inter-American Development Bank, but we have also CAF, who is those who are from Latin America, know about that. We have some arrangement, let's put it that way, sometimes institutions that work very well. And again, this can be combined with the global institution. But on development and finance, we have many regional development banking, and even some national ones that like the big one you have in Brazil for promoting development that everyone looked at that sometimes support us. I think that is also so. I, to end, I will say, coalitions of those willing to do things just to confront any some challenges. And I must say that Secretary General made a proposal on partnerships that was about that. Unfortunately, it was not approved for some reason. Many people felt that was a risky thing. It's like a problem with global public good. Sometimes people feel that something is not there. But anyway, but the idea of partnership was in the Secretary General's mind, and I think was a good one. So these are my comments. I know that you get me exactly. So thank you very much for your attention.