I think we're at the end of a 300 year run of a liberal vision of the world. However you want to call it, maybe some call it the modern. And I think that vision is in some trouble, not predicting its demise, not yet. But it's in some trouble now because in the last 30 years to this day, since the end of the Cold War, that liberals around the world have pursued a rather extreme ideological version of modern liberalism, which precludes and excludes other possibilities, both intellectually and economically, to the point where I think the leader of the liberal world, the United States, of course, had committed what poor candidates define as imperial overreach, both externally and internally. It's gone too far in trying to impose its vision on the rest of the world on so many countries to some extent, in some cases militarily, to rather disastrous consequences. And internally it's taken this vision of the world which places the individual as the autonomous basic unit of society at the center of the universe. Internally it's gone pretty far since the Reagan and Sacher revolution with the neoliberal economic doctrine that has led to tremendous inequality in developed countries that are generating this backlash against both the liberal tradition and globalization itself. And these problems are not being solved. So I think that's partially how I see it from the outside, from a non-liberal society that trouble with the liberal vision. Jose Manuel, what's the course of the many crises we are facing? I think that first of all, I agree that globalization is the main driver for this anxiety that we have today in our societies. I'm speaking now more about the Western societies, Europe and the Americas. I think that was, certainly, very much aggravated by the financial crisis and austerity policies and the impact that it has for us in Europe. A very specific issue is this movement of refugees and illegal migrants that has put a lot of pressure in some societies that were not used to deal with multiculturalism or diversity or they thought that they had enough of that. That creates a backlash. So there are many causes. There is not a single cause. And by the way, I think we should avoid easy simplifications. In fact, that's one of the intellectual devices, if you may say so, of populism. The handsome plicicator is to make these kinds of simplifications. I do not agree that we are in a worse position, out than 30 or 40 years ago. In fact, I think we are in a better position now. If you look at Europe today, okay, we are not happy with all the political systems and we are not happy with all the governments, but it's certainly better than when we had half of Europe under totalitarian communism. I mean, it's much better. I mean, situation in Poland or in any central European country is better from all points of view, economically, socially, in literacy terms, in openness. So I don't agree. Liberal societies have these rulers, these elites, that somehow take their legitimacy for granted. So they say, we're legitimate because we're liberal. Liberalism grants us legitimacy, it doesn't matter, no matter what. And you're illegitimate because you're illiberal. Therefore, so that kind of complacency, I think, made the feet liberalism, which will be unfortunate. I like to see a world where there are many different ideas of how to govern, but I mean, that will be the danger of liberal societies. Current Chinese party in a state are not in danger of that because they are constantly in the sense of crisis and how they're delivered. And that's what I mean by legitimacy. What you rest legitimacy on is on one hand just an empirical question. All governments succeed only to the extent that they deliver in some way. But the issue that you raise with Taiwan, I think, goes to the heart of a very important problem. And that is, if there are millions of people who want to govern themselves, does nationalism always trump self-government? Well. And that seems to me rather urgent matter, especially since the nationalism that would trump self-government, is that of a one party state? Well, it depends on the people. And that's not a question of the problems of liberalism or evident. But the fact that liberalism or Western societies have enormous problems, and I come from a country where we have a very, very big problem, starting with the president, the fact that there are problems doesn't legitimize any other form of rule. Well, that's exactly my point. The fact that we have problems doesn't legitimize you.