 Thierry de Mont-Briel, president of the World Policy Conference, congratulations, this is the 10th anniversary. What have been the lessons you've taken over these 10 years in terms of global governments, the state of the world, geopolitics in general? Well, first of all I would say that the first lesson is the relevance of the project, because the key idea originally was that globalization as a flat world in the Tom Friedman's way is not workable. And I was convinced of that, and I was convinced that if the world is to remain reasonably open, we have to strengthen at all levels governance. But governance, what does it mean essentially? Rules of the game, rules of the game that different actors accept to follow. And we have seen those 10 years that, you know, the financial crisis of the so-called Arab Spring, you know, that has created more and more disorder and then Brexit and so forth and so on and now Catalonia. So this is the key to the success, to the viability of an open world. And I would say the second lesson, well there are many others, but is the importance to talk, you know. For instance, this year we had, close to the opening of the conference, a debate between the prime ministers of Serbia and Albania. Of course, you know, Serbia and Albania is not the epicenter of the world, but it's a key area in Europe, in the West Balkans. And the remarkable thing was that these people now agree to disagree on certain points, but they do so very politely and they accept to talk on many other issues. And if you dream of having this sort of debate among actors in the Middle East, for instance, or Korea, Peninsular and so forth and so on, that would probably change the world. And that's, I think, part of the mission of the World Policy Conference. And you did mention, perhaps as a joke, that we're wonderful if you get Iran and Israeli representatives here next time. That's exactly the case. You know, Iran, it's a joke in a sense, but it's not in the sense that it is a direction of intention. But you could take many other examples. For instance, the Arabs themselves, you know, more often than not, do not like to talk publicly about their affairs. Yeah. A final question. I mean, you mentioned at the beginning of the opening, and you've mentioned just now that you've had the global financial crisis, Arab Spring, etc. We've also, of course, in the last year, had Donald Trump. What do you think the impact of Donald Trump has been and will be? Two things. Donald Trump as Sachs, Donald Trump as Donald Trump, and Donald Trump as maybe a deeper syndrome. On Donald Trump in a restricted sense, the impact is already quite significant for the credibility of the United States in the world, or soft power, if you prefer. You can also say that that credibility had been damaged by his two predecessors, George W. Bush for obvious reasons, because with the new conservative policy, he is responsible for the great disorder in the Middle East to a large extent. But also Barack Obama, and just one example among many, he let Mo Barak down, and that has an impact which is long lasting on the Middle East, especially in this country where we are now. And perhaps also the red lines on Syria. And of course to talk, you know, I have nothing against talking about red lines, but if you talk about red lines, you have to be credible. That is, you have to know what you will actually do if the red lines are crossed. He has recognized this, by the way. But if you now take the longer perspective that Donald Trump as a syndrome, I think one of the points that emerged yesterday in the debate on the United States is that the trend towards some kind of isolationism might survive Trump and be much more long lasting. I think that emerged in the discussion. Absolutely. Well, Mr. President, you've made the WPC a very, very credible conference. Thank you very much and congratulations. Thank you very much. Thank you.