 Let me just point out that it's about three points. The first one is about globalization or anti-globalization and populism and so-called some moderators said that the established intellectuals. And he defined that we are the established intellectuals. I do not know whether he includes me or not. But anyway, that's the definition. I'd like to talk about the little go-back to the 1999 in Seattle. We had WTO conference. Bill Clinton wanted to launch the new round after the WTO itself was settled in 1994. With 400 arrested demonstrations, as I instead saw there, as I said, thank you, sir, undersecretary, the complete mess. And we failed to launch the round because of an anti-globalization movement, mainly sponsored by NGOs and developing countries, talking about all the new additional issues rather than trade and services, such as investment and so on. And at that time, what was the biggest was is mainly the government, including the United States, tried to represent the support, globalization on behalf of the globalizing companies. Globalization and internationalization is a little different. International companies respect, more to say local authorities and local rules. The global companies want to keep their own global standard and push all the countries to accept such kind of global standard. That's a big difference between global companies and international companies or international standard itself. The significant issue at that time what we discussed is so-called investor state dispute settlement agreement, ISDS, that all the global companies can raise any kind of complaints or claim to the government directly, hosting government. This is the new dimension at that time. But suddenly, if you read a little that's about the article, USMCA, United States pulled out ISDS clause from the agreement between Canada and the United States. And at the same time, just one year before the almost 12th end of the TPP, when the United States finally pulled out, they said the one of the reason is because there is ISDS. ISDS itself is proposed by the United States on behalf of all the global companies, but finally they did it. Now they are coming back, too. In that sense, the local authorities or local rules. And I think that is one of the big phenomena that is going on, that is not the trade or trading services. Mainly, that is more what is an investment or some other agreement or regulations. That's one thing. The second point what I would like to raise is the US-China. The many people that I also asked many times in Japan what is the impact of the US-China trade war and so on. But I said this is not the trade war. Actually, the war in hegemony, in particular in the field of cyber, cyber technology or cyberspace and so on. You can say that, for example, the quantum computing, internet, you can pick up some of the cyber attack or some kind of cyber technologies or some domestic intervention made by the cyber attack and so on, which is already said by the United States. It's Vice President Pence. In addition to the intellectual property rights issue or some other way to say it, bilateral trade issues, blah, blah, blah, blah. But real core part is not really the trade. That's the second point what I'd like to say. And at that time, the maybe European Union's approach can be appreciated when we are going to solve this kind of question in the cyberspace. It's one that's not completely but a part of the solution is the GDPR, General Data Protection Regulation, proposed by the European Union. And many of the companies, including all the global, GAFA companies, have to oblige with all that kind of the regulations. And that kind of stuff is maybe a good thing to do. The third point as well as I'd like to raise is the North Korea. As a friend of mine, Don Johnson has already raised. I think for the time being, the real winner so far is Kim Jong-un. I think Trump is not making any success in that sense. Even though he says that, well, he protected United States or mainly this mainland US by stopping all the, what do you say, threat of the nuclear bomb into the mainland. But the issue is, as Japan or some other neighboring countries or international community is raising about deep nuclearization issue, I don't think that will go. There is no way to. At least when North Korea raised the issue about peace treaty, I don't think the Western world is ready. In particular, the United States is ready to go into that kind of peace treaty with North Korea, including China and so on. And in that sense, the issue itself, as I said, that it's not moving, and why Japan is not so much concerned, it's because the issue itself or the situation has not changed more than 30 years. Once North Korea started nuclear programs and so on, we are always under pressure and the threat with nuclear bomb and mid-range missile. US issue is ICBM. So for the time being, when the North Korea committed not to launch any ICBM, the United States can say that, or Trump can say that the United States is completely safe. But Japan, Korea, some other neighboring countries are not safe enough. But I don't think because the player is different, it will not go on. And Japan is not really the main player in this negotiation itself. I have to confess. So well, as I just have to conclude, I think there was no way to go about the North Korea. I'm pessimistic, but at the same time, as usual. Thank you very much.