 Well, good morning, everyone. It's my great pleasure to open this first edition of the World Policy Conference Health. And I will do it first by reminding the context of the World Policy Conference. The World Policy Conference, since its inception in 2008, aims at improving the global governance. Well, what does it mean? It means that since the world is more and more interdependent, and compared to the past, it is a materialism. It's a qualitative change, at least as much as a quantitative change. It is absolutely essential to strengthen a regulatory mechanism. You can call that a control mechanism in physics. It is probably the word you would use so that whenever there is a shock, the system is not totally destabilized and subject to a butterfly effect. In fact, since 2008, that is the beginning of the WPC, we had many such shocks and a number of serious butterfly effects. I just mentioned some of them. The first one was during the first WPC in Avion in October 2008. That was the financial subprime shock. And then we had in 2011, we had the so-called Arab Spring, which was a terrible butterfly shock and were still living through its consequences. We had a number of such shocks within the European Union framework. We had also the financial crisis. We had Brexit and we had migration shocks and the list is not over. And now, of course, we are living the most important of all shocks since the beginning of the WPC, which is the COVID-19 shock, which is probably the highest category of conceivable shocks. So we have to introduce health as a fundamental subject in all discussions, all reflection about the future of global governance. Let me remind a few classical aspects of global governance. Usually, everybody talks of multilateralism and we speak of rescuing multilateralism after Trump and so forth and so on. In fact, multilateralism is not a very clearly defined concept. When we think of multilateralism, we think first of the UN system. The UN system is in principle legitimate, but it is relatively inefficient. And I say in principle legitimate because it is in fact less and less legitimate because the UN system as it exists today was formed after World War II and the balance of power has considerably changed since 1945. And this is why you have more and more questions about the legitimacy of the P5, for instance. That is the permanent members of the Security Council. This is only one of the aspects. So within the multilateral system, you have a number of institutions of which the WHO is part, but all these institutions are also questioned about both their legitimacy and their efficiency. And I think that such was the case in particular the WHO just mentioned with the COVID-19 crisis. But multilateralism as defined is only one aspect of governance. Political scientists speak more and more of plurilateralism. Plurilateralism means something like cooperation, but not with all the members of the UN system, but with some of them. For instance, the G20 is a plurilateralism institution. We have weak plurilateralism and strong plurilateralism. The OSCE, for instance, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is a weak plurilateralism organization. Now the European Union itself can be interpreted as a very strong plurilateralism organization. And in fact, in my own judgment, the European Union is the best model for multilateralism in the future. That is when a set of countries in more and more integrated cooperation becomes more and more efficient even if it has to go through painful stages as we see in the process of the construction of the European Union. And then you have a third category, which is mini-lateralism. Mini-lateralism in the extreme is bilateralism. For instance, the best example I can give is during the Cold War, arms control. Arms control was a mini-lateralism concept. And it was very efficient. It was starting to be very efficient between the United States and the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. And it created actually a number of very interesting developments. I'm talking of arms control, such as developing a common language between the two competitors, such as giving each of the countries a droit de regard as a legal and efficient framework for each country to look carefully at what was happening in the other country. And of course you had such systems at the so-called red telephone, which allowed easy communication in times of crisis. And if I insist on this mini-lateralism or bilateralism aspect of multilateralism, it is because I really think that in the field of health, something like that might be requested. And that is a system that would allow major countries to look within other countries, especially to understand when a major crisis occurs, such as a pandemic, to be able to watch what is happening inside other countries at the very early stage, which is something that does not exist at all today. Now, as I said, the WPC Health is a new concept within the WPC system. We thought of it very early. Actually, we had already the idea of doing that before the pandemic started. But with the pandemic, it is becoming a real obligation. So let me now say very briefly, tell you a few key aspects I see in this global governance issue in the health sanitary framework, a few issues that we will have to develop not only today for this first edition of the WPC Health, but for the future. I will make actually four brief points. The first one is I will start with the economic aspects of the issue because nothing can be done if we do not have a clear understanding of the economic stakes in this problem. My first remark, it should be a very simple one for anyone who have been trained in economics, is that of course, human life has no price, but it has a cost. And that's the difficulty. Human life has a cost. And when you say that, you immediately raise the ethical problem, of course. And here I would like to challenge the view that the vaccine, for instance, should be perceived as public good, global public good. For me, the concept as a former economic, as a former mathematical economist, I dare say that the concept of global public good is empty. There is no such thing as a global public good, because what is a public good? A public good is something, a good, which is non private. Non private, for instance, if I drink a glass of water, somebody else cannot drink the same water at the same time. It is impossible. Now, if I take a drug, a pill, nobody can swallow the same pill at the same time. So it is absurd to say that medicine, for instance, is non private. Of course, it is very private in that sense. Now, the other side of the definition of a public good is to be non-excludable or non-exclusive. What does it mean? It means that I cannot, for instance, if I'm working in a public garden, I cannot exclude the other people working in the same public garden to enjoy it at the same time. But again, in this field of medicine, of drugs, pharmaceutical products and so forth and so on, it is possible to exclude others from consuming the same goods. So I think the concept of global public good, we could develop that at length, but the concept of global public good is misleading. What actually we are really talking about is the issue of how to cooperate at a global level to make medicine, for instance, more accessible. But then you are back to the issue of cost. And you are back, therefore, to the issue of how to share cost. Who should pay for what? And this again leads to the ethical problem immediately. So we should not have a naive approach to this problem, to this economic dimension of health care. That's my first remark. My second remark is that there are other kinds of dependencies. For instance, if you look at the Fukushima tragedy in 2011, one of the first consequences of Fukushima was about value chains, about the location of industries. And I think in 2011 already, many people had identified this problem of vulnerability of globalization, which was related to this localization issue. And of course, we had exactly the same difficulty this year with the pandemic. And everyone identified this problem of localization or de-localization of pharmaceutical industry among others. So this is partially an economic problem and partially a security problem. And should I remind everyone that when one speaks of multilateralism, one thinks first and foremost about security issues. So we have a huge, serious security problem that is now clearly identified. The third dimension that I want to stress is the technological dimension. The technological revolution is the most fundamental aspect of globalization. It will continue, not only does it continue, but it's accelerating. And therefore, to explore all the facets of the technological revolution as far as health care, global health is concerned, is certainly and should be one of the most important missions of this WPC health endeavor. And here too, we find the interdependence problem and the vulnerabilities associated with it, typically 5G. Whoever controls 5G controls the world in some significant aspect. And the fourth aspect is the one I already mentioned several times, but I want to put it in a special category. That is the ethical dimension. The ethical dimension is extremely important one in every situation where complexity is involved. That is in any situation where it is not easy to say what is good and what is not good. You have to exert a judgment which is partially philosophical and in the same time extremely human because we are all in our lives privately and collectively confronted with difficult choices. But again, as far as health is concerned, as far as issues of life and death are concerned, these ethical issues are absolutely at the forefront. It should be at the forefront of any discussion. So let me now conclude in two steps. The first one is to tell you, to remind you what is the context, the global context of global governance including health in the coming years. This global context is clearly the rivalry between the United States and China. That is going to be the most fundamental aspect of international relations in the foreseeable future. And it is not an easy issue because the two superpowers of the 21st century are bound to cooperate in a number of dimensions because they are much more related to each other than where for instance the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. But at the same time, the competition is very tough just because the stakes is who will be the number one power in the world sometime in the next two or three decades. And I cannot imagine the United States to accept becoming the second power in 2049 for instance. Why 2049? Because it will be the 100th anniversary of the victory of Mao Zedong in China. And my friend and friend of WPC, Joe Nye, likes now to talk about cooperative rivalry. Well, cooperative rivalry is a nice concept, but that could work perhaps in the next few years for a number of reasons, but certainly not in my judgment in the longer term. So the issue is how to develop and strengthen global governance mechanisms in a context where you have both a major rivalry between two major powers and at the same time increasing interdependence. That's the big challenge. And I think it will make the contradiction between the two aspects will make everything extremely difficult, including in the health issue. And I invite all of you today, but all the WPC friends in the future, the main WPC next February in Abu Dhabi and other sessions later on, I invite everybody to speak about these issues in a non naive way. It's too easy to be naive. That's why I challenge the concept of global public good. So Dr. Tedros in a minute will mention also the false in my general concept of global public goods. So let us pay more serious careful attention to such concepts. So the organization of this WPC session in a minute we are going to hear Dr. Tedros, the director general of the WHO, and I thank him very much for having accepted to speak for us at the beginning of this first edition of WPC Health. And then we will have the first session, which is called the lessons of the COVID-19, such as we can see them today. And this will be followed by a second session, which takes the issues of technology, economics or the economic aspects of health and ethics as coherent whole as a coherent framework. And this afternoon, after the very good lunch that we will share together, we will have a shorter session on a more specific subject, which is on mental health and addiction, which is a subject which I think in the future will have to receive more and more attention. And when we thought of introducing this subject, it seemed to be relatively marginal compared to COVID-19, etc. But in fact, even with COVID-19, we are realizing that these issues of mental health are in fact at the core of the consequences of the pandemic. And that will be it for today's first edition. And now it is my pleasure and honor to give the floor to the director general of the WHO, of the World Health Organization. Excellencies, dear colleagues and friends, I would like to thank Mr. Thierry de Monbria for inviting me to address you today. WHO welcomes your initiative to make Health a core team of next year's World Policy Conference. The COVID-19 pandemic is a health crisis unlike anything any of us have seen in our lifetimes. But it's more than that. It has also shaken the foundations of social, economic and political stability, and put the multilateral system to the test. The pandemic has demonstrated the need for strengthening in several key areas. First, strong multilateralism. The pandemic has shown us that international cooperation is the only solution to an international crisis. Working together might not always be easy, but it's essential. We must rethink and strengthen multilateralism to address the pressing challenges of our world in a coordinated and coherent way. I'm heartened by the commitment made by heads of state at the UN General Assembly, the recent G20 summit and other fora to strengthen multilateralism and elevate health to the top of the political agenda. I'm also encouraged by initiatives such as the Alliance for Multilateralism, led by France and Germany, and the policy discussions putting forward new solutions for multilateral cooperation. Many countries have already emerged as leaders of this global reset, and I trust that the new U.S. administration will soon join this effort. Second, stronger global health governance. This means three things, the enforcing core institutions, more effective policy tools, and greater accountability at country level. Many leaders and institutions have already called for an expansion of political and financial support for WHO so we can deliver on our constitutional mandate and meet the high expectations of our member states. I especially appreciate the leadership and support of France and the European Union in this regard. At the same time, we need to strengthen both the international health regulations and national capacities. The IHR is a powerful legal tool, but the pandemic has shown it needs to be sharpened and modernized. A review committee is now evaluating the functioning of the IHR during the pandemic and is expected to deliver its recommendations by May. Third, stronger solidarity. Unparalleled financial resources have been mobilized to support the access to COVID-19 tools accelerator to develop vaccines, diagnostics, and therapeutics fast, and allocate them fairly as global public goods. The ACT accelerator sets a strong precedent for a solidarity-based global response to health threats. Almost 190 countries and economies have now joined the COVAX facility, which facilitates an equitable global sharing of COVID-19 vaccines. 40 countries and many organizations have signed up for the COVID-19 technology access pool to share knowledge and rights to research and technologies. The values that underpin all these innovative platforms and tools are the same, solidarity, equity, and inclusion. Their aim is to create more equal opportunities for everyone and ensure that all COVID-19 tools are treated as global public goods. I hope that these values will stay with us in the future and remain defining values of global health governance. Finally, let me say that the pandemic has shown us that health and the economy are interdependent. We need a new narrative that sees health, not other costs, but an investment that is the foundation of productive, resilient, and stable economies. I wish you a productive meeting. Thank you very much.