 At this stage, let me say a few words about where are we as a global community from an institutional perspective? Where are we at the global level in moving towards better preparedness through pandemics? Are we drawing the lessons? So starting point I already mentioned is that despite warnings and past lessons of SARS, H1N1, Ebola, Zika, the world was not prepared to COVID-19 because we're going into these cycles of panic and then neglect. And to repeat myself, I do think we are in the phase of neglect again at this time. Last year at this conference, where do I have to press? Can I have the next slide? I have trouble. Thank you. The next one, press again. Last year at this conference Ambassador Anders Nordstrom, who was part of the independent panel on pandemic preparedness and response, of which I was also privileged to be a member, talked about the six main recommendations that came out of the independent panel work to the international community. One is the need for sustained high-level political attention and leadership. We have lacked strong leadership and coordination in our response to COVID-19. The second is modernizing our surveillance and alert system so that we can respond much faster to infectious outbreaks in the future. The third, as El Storelli discussed, is to build a new platform that will ensure equitable access to all in need to medical countermeasures. The fourth, and thank you Minister Barakat for mentioning that, is that we need new funding. We need new funding for pandemic preparedness and response. Fifth, we need a strong, independent, well-funded, well-functioning world health organization. And sixth, at national level, all governments must start investing in better preparedness now. And following what Antoine Flahaud said earlier, one of the obvious areas of work is improving ventilation and quality of the air. The next slide. So at the global level, there are three ongoing processes out of the four that we had been recommending as an independent panel. The first is that for the first time in history, a special session, high-level meeting on pandemic preparedness and response was held at the UN in September 23 in the margins of the last General Assembly with a political declaration. I must say that this was a high-level meeting, but it was hardly attended by any high-level head of state. And none of the European major heads of states was there. No Chancellor Schultz, no President Macron, no British Prime Minister, no Madame van der Heyen, no one present, which to me is a strong signal of the phase of neglect where we are. Minister Barakat, we met in New York, so you were there. Congratulations to the UAE. The second is that we have now started negotiations in Geneva since February 2022 of a new pandemic treaty. A treaty that would be a binding treaty according to international law, and this is negotiated under the auspices of WHO. You may know that in the constitution of WHO, there is room for negotiation of international treaties. The first one that WHO had negotiated was the International Convention on Tobacco. Third, there is a more technical process of revising what is called the International Health Regulations, but that is a very, very sensitive negotiation because this is where we're discussing about how countries will inform the world about a new pathogens and also whether WHO will have or will not have the ability to move to a country and investigate a new outbreak in case it happens. The fourth, which is not currently in discussions, is that we had proposed that there is a Global Health Threat Council established something like a Security Council on threats so to elevate the issue of leadership. As we were discussing with Madame Barakat, the Secretary General of the UN, Antonio Guterres, came with an alternative suggestion a few months ago, suggesting that the UN creates next to the Security Council a platform on all threats that are, let's say, non-military, food, water, climate, and health, and that will be discussed at the Summit of the Future next year. Next slide. So the big issues, next slide, please, the big issues at stake in these discussions are governance, the topic of this conference, financing, and in terms of financing, we need financing in order to prepare ourselves to the next pandemic. We also need surge financing in case something happens, and then, as Els alluded to, we need to build regional resilience so that in every region of the world there is now an ability to develop, research, manufacture, and distribute global common goods that are personal protective equipment, oxygen, vaccines, therapies that are essential in containing an infectious outbreak where and when it occurs. The next slide. As we speak, the latest draft of the pandemic treaty is on the table in Geneva, and there are four very sensitive issues that are being debated. One is access to pathogens. You may know that in 2007, during H1N1, Indonesia said that it will not communicate the sequence of the virus to the global community because, and I make it simpler here, they said if we give this sequence to the world and then it serves the rich country industry to produce vaccines that will be sold to us at unaffordable prices, then this is unfair. So there is a lot of discussion now in the pandemic treaty negotiations around whether country should always give free sort of access to their new pathogens or whether a country that provides the information should have benefits from that information. And there are major debates around medical countermeasures as Elce Torelli alluded to, including the sensitive issues of intellectual property, of research and development, modalities of technology transfer. There are discussions about financing. Financing pandemic preparedness is a global issue for everyone, so we all agree that everyone should contribute to funding pandemic preparedness, whether you're a rich country or a poor country, but of course with so-called differentiated responsibilities. And that's what is difficult to define in the negotiations. And finally, WHO had suggested that it could come up itself with a system of providing equitable access of countermeasures, vaccines, therapeutics to the world, and that is being negotiated. I don't think at this time that it is likely that these negotiations will come to an agreement by the deadline of May 2024. More time will probably be needed, but viruses don't wait, and that's the problem. Let me add an optimistic note here, which is that whatever the challenge is, there is a word that is everywhere, every day in the negotiations, which is equity, and I think the main lessons that everyone has been drawing from the pandemic is unequitable access, and now we need to find a system that would guarantee equity. Next slide. As in every negotiation, now the geopolitics are there. And the difficult negotiations that we're currently witnessing in Geneva show how closely health is now intertwined with geopolitics. And particularly between the tensions between the global north and the global south. Your Holiness Bartholomew, you alluded to that in your speech talking about the fact that they occur so strongly despite the diversity of the south, I think I'm quoting you here, and that is what we're seeing. Vaccine nationalism, the fact that the rich countries overbought all of the vaccines as they became available with no access to poor countries, has really left profound scars that we see in the negotiating scene in Geneva. And then of course, there is much less trust at this time in the multilateral system, and then domestic, international, but also partisan political agendas has somehow forcefully entered into the global health discussions. Because of the attacks on WHO by President Trump and his administration or the misinformation campaigns from the Bolsonaro team. So that unfortunately, the pandemic and health is no longer the one issue that brings countries together in those negotiations. It's in fact contributing to the polarization of our geopolitical world. Next slide. So what is clear now is that global health, as I put it, is a matter of global politics. And that is why, Thierry, we need global health in the WPC, as you allowed it to happen. Because the pandemic at national level has impacted every sector of policymaking and therefore at national level, it is no more just an issue of ministers of health, it's an issue of whole of government. And at global level, it's an issue that is negotiated now at the level of heads of states, ministers of finance, ministers of trade, ministers of development. It's a key issue at the G7, we will hear from Aruca in a minute, at the G20. It is on the agenda of the UN General Assembly and all regional organizations, such as the African Union or the European Union. And it's become particularly an important interface between health and foreign affairs. And I think it is remarkable that in the UAE, we have a minister, an assistant minister of health and research within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. So the next slide and the last slide, the question is, are we ready for the next pandemic? To me, the answer is no. We're not, but it is our choice if we wanted to be so. It's a choice now to put in place measures that will allow us to identify new outbreaks rapidly and to respond to them in speed where and when they occur and prevent an infectious outbreak from becoming an epidemic or becoming a pandemic and becoming a social and economic catastrophe, such as the one we've seen. And to quote here, Ellen Johnson-Surleaf, President Surleaf, who was the chair of the – with Madame Clark of the Independent Panel, she said, new pandemic threats are inevitable but pandemics are a political choice. A political choice whether we stop an outbreak or whether we let it move to the pandemic stage. Let me say I think the ongoing processes, however difficult they are, offer an unprecedented opportunity now for the world for focus and transformative change. Thank you.