Today on the breakfast, Senator Menz-Electoral-Ap to allow statutory delegates to vote at party congresses and conventions, what is the implication for the general election? Also on the breakfast, 18 registered political parties seek extension of debt line for conduct of primary elections to pick candidates for the 2023 elections. And don't forget also we will be looking through today's newspapers and analyzing the biggest stories of the day. Welcome to the breakfast. It's good to have you join us. Good morning to you. My name is Justin Acadone. And I am Messy Boko. It's good to have you join us this beautiful morning. Yes, it is actually a Wednesday morning. I'm sure Messy forgot today's date. I know. We're going to say Thursday. No, I wasn't going to say Thursday. We're going to say Tuesday. No, because it's good to be here. We're going to say Friday, Saturday. We're waiting for the weekend to come already. No, it's beautiful morning. No, no need to say whatever week of the day it is. It's just a day. It's a Monday. We'll catch you. We'll catch you. You know what they say about them, the wind blowing and everything. I'm not going to go into the local parlance. Well, glad to have you join us. Let's just slide on to what is trending. A whole lot is actually trending, but let's start with this one. Remember the presidential pardon? Well, it has actually not died after all and a list, a full list has been published or reviewed or posted, whatever word you want to describe it. It has gotten a whole lot of Nigerians talking and then people are saying that murderers and hired criminals were actually giving pardons. So let's start on this particular note. Presidential pardon is a long time practice. I mean, it's a practice that's been going on for a very long time. The right of pardon, if you want to say the prerogative of messy, it's recognized under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended in 2011. And so if you also want to look at the sections that talk about it, section 212, subsection 1, 175, subsection 1 and 2 gives part to the governors and the president to actually grant all of that. But I think that if we really need to look at this because constitutionally it's recognized, but usually you'll have the outcry when you find out that those who have been granted pardon, why should they be granted pardon, we're talking about fraudsters, those who have been involved in money laundering, terrorists, bandits, what a view. But that's what the constitution says. But this principle, because it's an ancient principle, it's a practice that's been going on for a very long time. You find that the ideology surrounding this is to temper messy with justice. And that you can relate to, yes, that's where it comes from. Justice with messy. Justice with messy. Okay, did I say justice? It sounds like just, you know, okay. So tempera. Justice with messy. Justice with messy. So I said tempera. Justice with messy. I think I'm to follow myself. That's a good one. That's a good one. Okay, but on a serious note, justice with messy, that's the ideology surrounding this. And you can trace that back to William Shakespeare, okay, you know, proponent of all of that. But I know the reason why, the reason is very obvious. I mean, if you look at the list, you have people who are fraudulent people. They've been, they've done a lot. Look at that list. Yeah, so a whole lot, the breach of trust, our forgery, the murders on people didn't spend up to even three years when they have like 14 years to spend. The money laundry, you also have some oil issue, conspiracy, several issues, bribery issues. The lease is endless, right? The lease is actually endless. But the reason why you have migrants reacting, as always, because at the time, also, you remember when Jonathan granted that pardon, you know, to Alamesia, it also became a very... Yeah, became very controversial. I mean, it generated a lot of reactions across board and you had all of this. But unfortunately, the constitution is the constitution. And the fact that the constitution has not been very explicit is quite worrisome. One is, I mean, those... If you say that the governor or the president, whoever is going to be exercising this right, should exercise it with a higher sense of responsibility, but how do you now... Because I can never tell how responsible I would be with my decision and action. And that's where it comes. We have not been very explicit at what points, you know, do we draw the line? Where do we now say, okay, there should be a stop? It shouldn't be. But over time, I don't think it is actually for... Especially in the space, in the Nigerian space, it hasn't been very palatable for us because you have society, organization, Nigerians reacting every other time where you have a pardon. The constitution also states that there should be... The applicant, the convict should apply. Now, what's even funny is, I don't know if all these persons who made the lease applied at the same time, they're supposed to be an application. So you apply for all of that and then the president or the governor, I mean, whoever at this point in time, would have the right to reconsider, reduce the sentence, not even consider it, reject it and all of that. So, I mean, the lease is almost endless because he's been given that power to do all of that. And at the end of the day, we're hoping that, you know, discretion, like you have mentioned. But how do you now define all of that? So what if that's his prerogative? We understand all of the reactions have been put out, some people say the president has granted, you know, pardon to criminals, criminal elements. And that's the... That's what... That's what they are. They were actually sentenced. The fact is that for them to be granted this and pardon, that means they actually have committed, you know, the crime on one or the other, or maybe they have spent so much time awaiting trial. That's several reasons. Even the judge, the chief judge of the state, can actually, you know, reduce sentences of, you know, some inmates, some for some who have actually spent so longer time awaiting trial than, you know, what the sentence would have been passed on to them. Let's say you did some crime and maybe it has not even been proven yet, but you have spent like five years and you're still awaiting trial for a case that could just be seen as some misdemeanor. By the end of the day, it is sort of prerogative. That's the underlying word. They say the prerogative of the governor, the president, and to decide whoever they feel like, you know, given to them. At the end of the day, it is here at the scene. The issue of discretion, the issue of fairness, equity, morality, with all this sort of... So the bonnock of intention here, I mean, Nigerians need to understand that as much as they feel very pain, because the argument over time is that you have all of this pattern granted to political benefactors. And that's what it is. And I'm asking, if you have the constitution saying they have to apply, did all of these persons on the lease apply? Did they apply? Do you have all of them applying? Did they apply at the same time? Or, you know, it was over time and then you have different times and then you have all of this. So that's number one. But how do you define discretion? Because discretion is discretion.  But that's what the constitution says. That's what the principle is. It's expected that whoever would exercise this would be in his senses. He would actually be responsible. He would also be fair in all of this.  For instance, there's a name that actually stands out from the list. Someone who was supposed to serve him, 188 years. At the end of the day, he served them 144 years and eventually he would basically look at the margin. He was supposed to spend 188 years. That's almost like life in prison. And he had spent just four years and he was, say, go home and sing no more. Well, I don't know, but... But then some issues that would come to mind would be of, okay, granting them pardon, what justification, you know, what are the... There's no justification. There's no justification. Is it they have changed over a turn of a new lease? What exactly have they done with their lives? The constitution also stated that these persons who probably would have been of good behavior and also would have met the time. So it's not that they would have probably have done the time. So it's possible that the president or the governor could grant that pardon when a certain person or convict had met the time. He could have done it at the end of the time or he probably would have been in the process. You have other option, reduce the sentence. Because the power has been given to you, you have the discretion to use it however you like. But how do we define discretion as the problem? Because Nigerians are reacting, and I know why they are reacting because this power that you have, the power to grant pardon, the peregrative of mercy that's been, you know, it's on the constitutional right. It's that the governor and the president hold this in public trust. So you're holding it in public trust. But the fact that they're holding public trust and they expect that whoever is going to be taking this decision should be in their right, should be in the interest of the public, and then, you know, should be in the right frame of mind, the decisions that will be taken, do you know, how do you even define all of that? So it's a lot. Yes it is a lot. I don't think that we, because it's like why are you crying? The constitution has given the president, he says he has discretionary powers. He has to act. We're talking about the administration of justice at this point in time. Also the same constitution mentions the fact that you also need to, there's a section of the constitution that talks about corruption, and the fact that you have fight against corruption, and that's why Nigerians are speaking and calling. So if you look at the people that have been granted this pardon, the tongues are wagging already. You have different reactions. How do you grant this person's pardon, but that's what it is, that's why you have that pardon. I'm going to think it's a cross. We're hoping that we get to a point where you have, you know, a governor or the president acting, and then you see, you know, they are using the powers judiciously. But how do you define judiciously is the question. All right. Let's move on now. The 2023 election, the momentum is actually, you know, very, very, very active, and a whole lot of people, you know, have indicated interest. A lot of people have paid a hundred million, specifically for the expression of interest and domination for the presidency, for the all-progressive congress. One of such people who actually is at the Mugarba, the second, he actually is withdrawing from the presidential race, and this time around, it's got Nigerian talking because from reports that we hear, 83 million, you know, was actually, you know, raised from online platform and, of course, from other sources from verse Nigerian, and he actually has, was drawn. He's, you know, his intention, and a lot, he's got Nigerians talking that why collect them if it's three million from people at the end of the day, you see you're not one. Okay, let me just read a bit of it. At the Mugarba has withdrawn from presidential race, scheduled for next year, raising 83 million Naira from Nigerians. Garba told, reported us, even though he had withdrawn from the exercise, it wouldn't be the end of his quest to govern Nigeria someday. Garba said that 100 million Naira for nomination forms of the ruling all-progressive congress is exploitative and may not encourage good governance. But this development comes after politician raised 83 million Naira, although he had said that people would turn pro-form of payment or so, they should come, email on them, he will be reforming all of the money back. Well, and as he took to Twitter to say, we, however, requested all those who donated online and who require reform, send an email with evidence of payment, you know, to send an email, I assure you of a complete reform upon request. That has genuine reason. A lot of people say they will not believe until they have seen all the refunds made. No, but that's so he's asking that if you require to reform, why would you be saying you require to reform? The fact is that it's not even if you required it. No, but that's what I say, so you're not saying that it's possible. You're not even supposed to tell the people that you require to reform the money. So people might not want their money back. But the thing is that... You know, you donated the funds for a certain purpose, but it's just a lot for me because I have seen a lot of persons who are waking up to say they want to become a president, they want to become president in 2023. And so you find a lot of persons declaring, making intention known, especially in the APC.   But I'm asking, what exactly is going on here? A whole lot of things. If you look at the statistics, you need to understand your environment. You need to understand the politics that's been played.  You have to become a flag bearer of the party. So you look at yourself.  I mean, you know, speak the truth, right? So do you start a chance of becoming a flag bearer of the party? So why do you now get to involve the people to raise funds for you? When you need the amount and the vote. And the move Garabashewu should have waited upon till he becomes the flag bearer, to ask Nigerians to send him money. So it's not that you are the party. You should have, wait, wait, I think, say that again. He should have collected money after he's become become the flag bearer. Yes. How would he have raised 100 million? No. From himself, private. I don't know. He should find a way to raise it. He finds a way to raise it. So you're raising the money now when you don't even know. If you look at the persons who are competing, let's be realistic. Let's tell ourselves the truth. They should tell themselves the truth, not even me, because I'm not even in that system. I'm saying you look at it. You should understand the dynamics of the game that's been played. You don't stand a chance of becoming the flag bearer. So why do you even engage in the first place? And then you're not trying to raise money to look at it. The fact, again, is that even people who would have contributed. What did he say to them? How did he convince them? He didn't force them to contribute. They have maybe most have contributed in their own volition. Maybe they believed in him. Maybe they believed in his aspiration and everyone has the right to dream. Everyone has the right to have some sort of ambition. So maybe he spoke to some people and they believed in him and they feel that he can actually drive home their interest in all of that. At the end of the day, so they decide to support him. That's my own opinion, really. Well, they decided to support him at this point. If you supported a project or a particular course and it has failed, then it's important that you reform. I mean, saying that if you want to, why do you put that clause? The clause is the case. Re-fund the money, if you're required to get the funds. Just send the funds back to them right to the bank and let them, you know, reverse the money because I'm sure that everyone that made that transaction, that definitely will be a detailed bank account or something. So he should be right into the bank and not come to tell the people. Send you one cobalt back to them. That's if they want it. No, you don't have to say that if they want it. Send it back to them. Don't give them the condition that if they want it, they actually sent it for a purpose. The purpose has failed. So don't begin to say, oh, that's if they want it. Did he say that's if you want to support me? See, that's what I'm saying again. It's still dependent on who sent him the money. Oh, Lord. Anyway, let's just move away from that. I'm not trying to hold before any politician right now. Another thing that is also trending is the former president. Good luck, Jonathan. Remember, yes, the, you know, I was not here to discuss that with you, but it was trending. You were here, however. I guess I was late a bit, you know, the president, you know, rejected it. He said it was an insult for the northern group to have purchased the form for him, that he was not actually in support of it.  But now there is another twist. Like I said, Amitya Allah has come out to deny purchasing the form for the former president. Good luck, Jonathan. I also read somewhere that said there were two governors involved in this particular drama, this particular issue, one from the northwestern part of the country and the other from the northeastern part of the country. But right now Amitya Allah, who we were told were in support or who were part of the purchase of this particular form, has come out here, the bomb hit. So, who bought form for him? It's me. I'm the one. I didn't. You and I. You and I, come on, give me 50 million. No, you and I did it. I mean, you can't be in denial. I'll go to Bahamas. No, so you and I are the yacht crews. No, you and I actually contributed. So it brings us, you know, to the same conversation and very interesting, really, really interesting. But I don't understand because you would always hear that without, for every particular story that you have, for every, I mean, there's no fire without smoke, right? No smoke without fire. No smoke without fire. It feels like I can't. Why are you just inverting everything today? No, that's enough. No smoke. No smoke without fire. I don't get it. So it's not me, Amitya Allah that did the purchase of the farm. The former president is pissed at the fact that he's been insulted by whoever did the purchase of the farm. And he was also in quotes saying, sleeping with the enemy. You know, he was. He actually actually. Yes, because it was a picture of when you said the enemy. I mean, that's a very strong word. No, no, no, it's actually, I said in quotes, sleeping with the enemy. It's actually a movie, Julia Roberts. Okay. So not the enemy. Not the enemy, as I was saying. There was a picture of him with the chairman of the AM. Well, I mean the enemy, you know, he's PDP and then they are APC. That's what I meant. I don't know, but you also have other quotes saying that. That he's not been attending their meetings very well. Apart from that, you also have the APC, there was a picture of him with the APC chairman. I mean, that picture is viral. So we don't understand. But it's also possible that the chairman of the APC was trying to find out from him, did you really get this farm? Or did you not get this farm? Who got this farm on your behalf? And all of that, it's quite dicey. It's a very sensitive conversation. But if you follow the course of Nigerians in different parts and in different spaces, the conversation, the voice is still very one. Everyone is saying, we think that good luck Jonathan should take a rest, you know, just go home and relax. You did fantastic. And maybe he needs to listen to the voice of the people because usually there's a statement that says the voice of the people is the voice of God.  If you say the elections were rigged at that time, how come you actually gave in to it? Why didn't you follow through? I mean, why didn't we have, you know, appealing to the courts and what have you, litigations, but that didn't happen. And now you have the same party. So let's even say this is anything to come by. I mean, if it's true to right now and if there's any element of truth with it, do you think he should, you know? Because there's a whole lot to look at it because a lot of people like over time you have left them of your, you lost them to, or you conceded to the incumbent presidents. You conceded. Yeah, conceded to. That's the word. You conceded to presidents Mohammed Buhari. And over time, you've had to enjoy a whole lot of recognition because of what you've done. You've represented them, you know, the continent and cross various forward and that you have been recognized internationally. You know, but it should look insulting. I don't know how it would look if you would now try to be friends with the same people who you actually seemingly lost to and the same people that had accused your government of corruption and a whole lot of ineptitude.  How does that really look? No, because he has, I mean, looking at the statement that was put out by his aid and what a view media aid is like, if the EV wanted to become president or he has intention of becoming president in 2023, he would categorically state that he wants to become president. So we don't understand, but let's just even believe because that's what it is. You have some elements in the system who are taking advantage of his personality for whatever reason.  So what's going on is politics and that's what we're being told. But fingers across and I just was saying, it had better be the politic, you know, it had better been politicking and this is politics because we don't hope to wake up some day and hear that, you know, good luck, Jonathan, because we didn't say a lot of this. We didn't say a lot of this last time. This has been session 99, but this particular... We're evolving. We're evolving dramatically. It's been so, so much of a drama one day or the other. You know, how many people, over 20 people, contributed 100 million for the APC? I'm just saying, but we'll leave that at that and we'll take a quick break and we'll come back. We'll go straight to off the press in a moment to join us again.


Paul tells us that he was up living well. He has been a base and through all of that, he's learned how to be content in whatever state he's in. That is the key to growing your faith. If you want to experience a move of God, God is not interested in blessing you just for the sake of blessing you. He is interested in growing your faith. How does he do that? Well, through trials. How does that work? Well, when you have learned to depend on him, when you've put your focus on him instead of what you don't have instead of what you need because he'll know you'll know that it's not the things that you look forward to. It's him that you look forward to spending time with and growing in him. And so the point and purpose of these trials is not to develop your tolerance of the pain, it's to develop the closeness with him in spite of the pain.


I'm in process of changing my website over to an all-in-one course platform that would have website builder, course learning management system, affiliate system, mailing list, or CRM, and I have four that I'm testing. And you can look at the links below this video for the playlists of my videos where I test out the different features as a newbie to each platform. The four platforms, well, you could see what they are below. I'm not going to say just because I might add more. So check out the links below and hopefully my experiences will help inform your own decisions as well.


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.