 Thank you very much. Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, good evening and welcome to the 2022 Lowy Lecture by the Director General of the World Trade Organization, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iwala. I'm Michael Fulila, the Executive Director of the Lowy Institute. Let me begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which we gather tonight, the Gadigal of the Eora Nation. I pay my respects to their elders, past and present. Ladies and gentlemen, we're assembled at the Sydney Town Hall this evening on a beautiful Sydney evening at the close of a remarkable year. We're still emerging from a pandemic that has claimed more than 6 million souls. We are 9 months into the brutal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by its neighbour, Russia. The international economy is troubled. For several years, Australia has been at daggers drawn with our most important trading partner, China. And all the while, of course, the planet continues to heat up. But it's not all bad news. This year, Ukrainians have demonstrated enormous physical and moral courage in defending their country. Their bravery has prompted a quickening of connections between like-minded countries around the world. We have a table of Ukrainians with us this evening hosted by the Ukrainian ambassador. So welcome, Ambassador Vasil and your table. Ladies and gentlemen, back in June, I was blacklisted by the Russian state for criticising Moscow's behaviour. Unfortunately, I was only listed as number 33 on the list. I hoped that when we hosted President Zelensky, I might climb the ladder a little bit, but they haven't updated the leaderboard yet, so it's still number 33 for me. So that's one piece of good news. There are other green shoots. With Joe Biden in the White House, the most powerful country in the world is now being led by a decent human being, something that couldn't be said a few years ago. Thank you. The Australian and Chinese leaders have met due to some excellent statecraft on behalf of the Australian government, and this is an important step on the path to a stable relationship. And finally, last week, we heard the wonderful news that my friend, the remarkable Sean Turnel, had just been released from 650 days of unjust imprisonment in Myanmar. Ladies and gentlemen, Sean is a mensch. His only crime was trying to help the people of Myanmar. And so we are really delighted that tonight, Sean and his wonderful wife, Har Vu, are with us this evening. Come home, Sean, and congratulations Har. Ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank the sponsor of the 2022 Loewy Lecture, King and Wood Malisons, one of the world's leading law firms. KWM has been a magnificent supporter of the Institute in recent years, so thank you very much. Let me also thank our corporate and government members and other stakeholders, first among them, the Loewy family, for the invaluable support that they provide to the Institute. Let me tell you how the next little while will work. In a few minutes, Loewy Institute board member Stephen Loewy will welcome you all on behalf of the chairman and the board. But first, I'd like to show you a short video we've put together to give you a sense of what the Institute has been up to this year. Thank you. It is not otherwise characterized this as a war of the West versus Russia, or democracy versus autocracy. It is not. Our approach to the China relationship will be determined by our interests and our values. The relationship which really had to be catch up was the one between India and Australia. And I think today that catch up is what's happened. And as we record this special edition of Loewy Institute Conversations, Russian tanks are rolling into eastern Ukraine. I heard the words that Putin said and I knew immediately that this was a declaration of war. How could they possibly believe that they could subjugate a country the size of France? Therefore, the world must now show strength. The strength is required to finally put an end to this oppression. The danger of American politics is any idiot can get elected president and very often does. We've had a two and a half very difficult years in our relationship with China. Diplomacy is about communication. The misunderstanding of a lot of every social malignancies is that it has to look like concrete building has to be a bridge, has to be a roof. Priorities should be set by the Pacific. They should be free from coercion. Investment should be of high quality. Where do you personally and where does the nation get the strength, the courage and the determination to win again freedom for Ukraine? Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you for the question. You are part of our national security, foreign affairs landscape. That civil organisations like yours are very important. Mr President, thank you for speaking to the Institute this evening. Thank you for your attention. Thank you for the support to Australia and glory to Ukraine. Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It gives me great pleasure on behalf of my father, the chairman and the board, many of whom are with us this evening of the Lowy Institute, to welcome you here for the first time in person for three years together. It's fantastic to see everybody here in this most beautiful room. Thank you for all coming. As you've seen from the video, it's been an amazingly busy year for the Institute and particularly in the last few weeks and months. The Institute has hosted leaders from India, Singapore, New Zealand, the UK and of course in the last few weeks President Zelensky himself via video from the Ukraine. You've also seen very compelling research produced by our most accredited scholars of the Institute, the Lowy Pole, the Asia Power Index and of course the Pacific Aid map. The role of the Institute is threefold to inform, to contribute and to project, to inform the debate within Australia, to contribute to policy in Australia and very importantly to project Australia's voice overseas. Next year marks the 20th anniversary of the Institute, something we are incredibly proud of as a board and the staff of the Institute. Michael actually joined the Institute before the Institute was established and did the blueprint together with my father and Mark Ryan to establish the Institute and now for the last 10 years Michael has led the Institute with distinction and I think we should take a moment to congratulate Michael and all of the staff of the Institute for the unbelievable work that they do. The Lowy Lecture is the flagship event for the year. Many Australian Prime Ministers, Foreigners, Foreign Leaders, Boris Johnson, Angela Merkel, General David Petraeus, Fareed Zakaria and just last year via video Jake Sullivan, the sitting National Security Advisor of the United States. Tonight we are honored to have the President, to have the presence of the Director-General of the World Trade Organization Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iwala. It gives me great pleasure now to welcome you formally but I will ask Michael now to join the stage and introduce you. Ngozi I know you like to be called that and Michael will introduce you formally and everybody thank you very much and please enjoy the evening. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much Steve. It's my pleasure to formally introduce the 2022 Lowy Lecturer Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iwala. As Steve said the Lowy Lecture is our flagship event. Each year we invite a prominent individual to reflect on the world. As Stephen said for the last couple of years it's been online now we're back in person. Steve mentioned some of the former Lowy Lecturers Angela Merkel, Boris Johnson, Jake Sullivan, Sir Frank Lowy, a number of Australian Prime Ministers and we are really delighted to be able to add Ngozi Okonjo-Iwala to that impressive list. Dr. Okonjo-Iwala is the first woman and the first African to hold the Office of Director-General of the World Trade Organization. She's an economist and international development professional of more than 40 years standing. She has twice served as Nigeria's Finance Minister. Last year she was recognised by Time Magazine as one of the world's 100 most influential people. Since she was appointed to this job I have been badgering Ngozi's office and our ambassador to the World Trade Organization to invite her to speak to the Institute because of her enormous qualities. The DG's resumé is impressive but her warmth and humility are even more impressive. Madam Director-General you've been very busy at the COP meeting in Chamele Shake and at the G20 leaders meeting in Bali. This afternoon you had a very important meeting in Canberra with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. We're very grateful that you found time as part of this very busy official visit to fly straight up to Sydney to speak to the Lowy Institute. So Director-General it is my pleasure to invite you now to give the 2022 Lowy lecture. Well thank you very much Michael for that generous introduction. Excellence ladies and gentlemen it's really an immense pleasure and honour to join you this evening. Thank you to Stephen Lowy and the Lowy family to Michael and the Lowy Institute and also to the Australian government all those instrumental in bringing me to Australia this time. But thank you for inviting me to give this year's lecture. Of course I feel no pressure whatsoever knowing that this is the most important lecture in Australia. Everywhere I went people said oh you're going to give the Lowy lecture and that just ratcheted up the temperature. So let's see how we do. I want to talk today about the multilateral trading system in a changing world globalization or deglobalization. But before I do that I also want to acknowledge the presence of my team. I have a team of three advisors with me. Perhaps you can stand up so that people will see you. I also have my high commissioner here Ambassador Domado Buike. Thank you for joining us. I don't know where he's sitting but thank you. Earlier today I was in Canberra where as you heard I had a series of very productive meetings with Prime Minister Bernese and members of his cabinet including Trade Minister Don Ferrell, Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Treasurer Tim Chalmers. I also met Simon Birmingham whom I think is also here in the audience with us. I was grateful to hear them emphasize Australia's enduring commitment to a strong and effective world trade organization and to our ongoing reform efforts. The words very much echo what I heard in Fiji just a few days ago when I met with Pacific Island Trade Ministers and before that what I heard from leaders at the G20. At the same time that there is this showing of support to the WTO I hear concerns about the future of the global trading system in light of rising geopolitical tensions not least the tensions between Australia's two biggest trading partners China and the United States and of course tensions between Australia and China itself. A week ago Minister Ferrell set out many of these concerns and reiterated Australia's commitment to a strong rules-based multilateral trading system in an important speech ahead of the recent APEC summit in Bangkok. These risks to the trading system and the imperative to find a cooperative multilateral path forward will be at the centre of my remarks this evening. But first I want to also thank Ambassador George Mina Australia's permanent representative to the WTO along with his team in Geneva for everything they did to help me prepare for this visit. George is one of the hardest working ambassadors we have at the WTO and he made sure we kept our noses to the grindstone during this Australian visit. I've had meetings in three different cities in the past 24 hours. A week a few weeks ago Ambassador Mina sent me an ABC radio interview to help me get a better sense of the current trade debate here. Jeffrey Wilson Director of Research and Economics at the Australian Industry Group described the critical role trade had played in this country's prosperity and the remarkable run of growth that came after liberalising reforms in the 1970s and 80s. At least until recently he said Australian businesses could just assume they'd be able to sell their goods and services into other markets or source from overseas. The GATT WTO system had been so effective that governments and market actors took the open global economy for granted like water. One important lesson I learned as a child in my village in Nigeria during daily trips to the stream is that water is something we cannot and should not take for granted. The same is true for the multilateral trading system which for varying reasons is getting especially of knocks these days. But I hope to persuade you this evening that we're in danger of throwing the baby out in the bath water. Instead of addressing specific and often reasonable concerns about exclusion, unfairness, fragility, we run the risk of stepping away from a shared system of rules and norms that has served the world well for 75 years. Over the next 15-20 minutes, I'll look back at why that system was created in the first place, what it has achieved, and what it continues to deliver for people around the world. I will argue that history suggests fracturing economic ties is more likely to heighten geopolitical tensions than to soothe them. I'll make the case that fragmentation and decoupling of the multilateral trading system would not just be economically costly, it would leave all countries more vulnerable to the global commons problems that now represent some of the biggest threats to our lives and livelihoods. As the world navigates the poly crisis, climate change, pandemic, the war in Ukraine, economic slowdown, inflation, food insecurity, monetary titan, and debt distress, we heard the list from Michael. We need multilateral cooperation and solidarity more than ever. Finally, I'll offer another vision, an alternative vision for the future of trade, interdependence without over-dependence, deeper, more diversified, and de-concentrated international markets, or what we at the WTO are calling re-globalization. And I hope you leave this room with this word firmly in your head, re-globalization, not de-globalization. If governments are willing to use trade constructively to solve problems rather than amplify them, the WTO can help foster not just supply resilience amid ever more frequent exogenous shocks, but also geopolitical resilience. I want to start my case by putting a few facts on the table. For all the talk about the end of globalization, about reshoring and French shoring, trusted trade, the data shows that global merchandise trade volumes are at record highs and have been since early 2021. Invaluable terms for exports and imports, Australian merchandise trade was higher last year than ever before. Also at record highs in 2021, two-way trade between the United States and China were $693 billion, between China and the European Union at $818 billion, with both exports and imports at record levels. In the first half of this year, global services trade surpassed pre-pandemic levels with strong growth in transport and digitally delivered services, more than of setting continuing weakness in travel. These trade flows are the products of millions of choices by businesses and households. It is hard to overstate how disruptive it would be to try and undo these choices. Nevertheless, it's an inescapable reality that at the end of our post-Cold War holiday from history, apologies to Francis Wukuyama, trade has emerged as an arena for geopolitical rivalry. Over the past decade, governments have in several instances unfortunately weaponized trade and economic interdependence as a way of handling big and small power rivalries and disagreements. In Australia today, you are living this reality in your region. Weaponization of trade is problematic, not least because it creates some challenges for the rule-based multilateral trading system, but also because it could slide down the slippery slope beyond a few targeted products or sectors to wider economic disruptions. And of course, when viewed as economic coercion, it could become a tit-for-tat exercise with the possibility of slipping out of control, leading to broader and more painful repercussions, economic, political, and social. Ladies and gentlemen, we would be naive to rule out the possibility that our era could meet the same end an earlier episode of power shifts and global integration did in 1914, with fear and mistrust giving way to strategic miscalculation, misjudgment, aggression, and ultimately a world war, this time with nuclear weapons. Historians have likened their predecessors from a century ago to sleepwalkers who blundered into a catastrophe no one truly wanted. We must make better choices. The years from 1914 to 1945 provide the modern world's principle experience with de-globalization. The global trade-to-GDP ratio fell from 29% in 1913 to 10% in 1945. Far from ushering in domestic prosperity and international harmony, this period was bookended by the two world wars and marred by the Great Depression, a protectionist breakdown into isolated trade blocs and political extremism. It is instructive that during each of the two horrific conflicts, people turn to trade as part of their vision for lasting post-war peace and order. In 1918, equality of trade conditions was one of Woodrow Wilson's 14 points proposed as a basis for peace negotiations to end World War I. In 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill issued the Atlantic Charter calling for, and I quote, the enjoyment by all states, great or small, victor or vanquished of access on equal terms to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity. The political and economic disasters of the 1920s and 30s profoundly shaped the multilateral trading system created after the Second World War. The 23 governments that signed the general agreement on tariffs and trade in October 1947, Australia among them, were seeking to foster peace and prosperity through trade and interdependence. After delivering several rounds of trade liberalisation and new rules, the GATT transformed into the WTO in 1995. Membership steadily rose to the current 164 members with another 24 countries working towards accession. While the GATT WTO system has certainly not been perfect, and I'll come back to that, it can hardly be described as a failure. It steadily unwound protectionist barriers and gave rise to a more open and predictable world economy. Businesses had the confidence to invest in export-oriented production. Average applied tariffs fell from 50% in the 1930s to single digits today. Global trade boomed, bringing with it higher productivity, greater competition, lower prices and improved living standards. Most fundamentally, the past 75 years of increasing interdependence were marked by the absence of war among great powers, and it is this historically rare long peace that now looks increasingly fragile. The multilateral trading system has delivered major gains for people around the world. As large developing economies like China embraced market-oriented reforms and started tapping into world markets, growth accelerated lifting over a billion people out of poverty. Close to 40% of the world population lived in extreme poverty in 1980. By 2019, it was less than 10%. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine and increased climate impacts began to derail this progress. Businesses and households in advanced economies gained as well in choice and purchasing power. According to a joint report by the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF, trade has cut the price of the household consumption basket by two-thirds for low-income families in advanced economies, and by one quarter for high-income families, which tend to consume more non-traded goods and services. Open global markets allowed Australia to ride shifting economic tides. In 1963, the UK was Australia's biggest export market for merchandise, and by far its largest source of imports. By 1970, Japan, then in the midst of its economic miracle, had become Australia's top export destination. The US had become the leading source of imports. Both countries would occupy these spots for decades, until replaced in the 2000s by China. The composition of Australia's export basket shifted as it grew, with wool and other farm products now far surpassed by minerals and metals, and the share of manufactured exports and machinery significantly lower than in the 1970s. Global markets continue to deliver in other ways as well. Consider the experience with COVID-19. Most people remember the medical supply shortages and export bans early on. Frequently overlooked is that cross-border supply chains subsequently became an engine for manufacturing and distributing masks, personal protective equipment, and later vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines are made in supply chains cutting across as many as 19 countries. Trying to scale up production within purely national supply chains would have left all countries worse off. Production volumes would have been lower and costs higher. Trade is critical for access to food, particularly in countries within sufficient water and arable land. One in five calories consumed around the world is traded across borders, according to the FAO and the OECD, and this share has been rising. At this time of rising food and energy prices, trade plays an important role in accessibility and affordability. Put it this way, the opening of the Ukraine Black Sea grain corridor recently and the way it brought prices down shows us that situations can be more often than not worse without trade. Trade is also an essential part of a just and ambitious response to climate change, since it is vital for diffusing green technology, cutting the cost of getting to net zero, and helping countries mitigate and adapt. I encourage you to check out our new flagship World Trade Report, which is on trade and climate, which we launched at COP 27 in Sharm el Sheikh earlier this month. One finding is that 40% of the decline in the cost of solar panel systems over the past 30 years is attributable to scale economies made possible in part by international trade and value chains. In some, trade delivered. The GATT and the WTO delivered. The Dartmouth Economic Historian, Doug Irwin, recently said that if we allow the multilateral trading system to disintegrate or to erode, we might find that we miss it very much. Having said all this, we also need to look at the problems with how the trading system has been working. There are challenges of socioeconomic exclusion. Many poor countries and poor and lower middle class people in rich countries have not shared enough in the gains from trade. There are practical problems the pandemic and war in Ukraine pointed to genuine vulnerabilities in supply chains. Shortages and disruptions expose the risks of excessive concentration in the production of things like pharmaceuticals, semiconductors and some industrial inputs. There are gaps in the global trade rule book. For instance, several members of the WTO feel that existing WTO subsidy rules do not adequately constrain certain kinds of state support, allowing China in particular, in their view, to benefit unfairly. Many Western governments have also now introduced new industrial policy and subsidy schemes to encourage semiconductor or other critical types of products. Such subsidy schemes have to be approached with care, as we do not want to have destructive competitive subsidization. Poor countries cannot afford to play this game. Another example of a gap is that in the year 2022, we still don't have a set of global rules for digital trade at a time when such trade is growing in leaps and bounds, encouraged by the pandemic-driven shift online. An additional challenge, it's not a problem to say, but it's a challenge, is the geopolitical implications of the trade-enabled convergence between rich and emerging economies. Most consequentially, China has after a gap of about 200 years returned to global economic prominence. When China joined the WTO in 2001, it accounted for 3.9% of global GDP in current dollar terms, compared to 31.3% for the United States. By 2022, China's share had risen to 18% of global GDP, compared to 24.7% for the US. In 2001, China's per capita income in purchasing power parity terms was $3,200, about one-twelfth the $37,000 of the United States. By 2021, China's per capita income was over $19,000, well below the $69,000 figure in the US, but now only three and a half times lower. China's share of world merchandise exports rose from 4.3% in 2001 to 15.1% in 2021. Over that period, the US's share declined from 11.8% to 7.9%. Rapid shifts in the balance of economic and political power can be destabilizing. In fact, the Harvard political scientist Graham Allison documents that rivalry between a rising power and an established one has resulted in a violent clash more often than not. He wants that China and the US risk following this pattern through a strut, a reference to the ancient historian's observation that, quote, the growth of Athenian power and the fear that this cost in Sparta led to the war that devastated classical Greece's leading city states 2,500 years ago. Kevin Rod shares this concern. He fears a new Cold War could trigger a hot one and is calling instead for managed strategic competition. Going further, I would say that clear-headed recognition that we need global cooperation to solve certain problems of the global commons like the pandemic disease and climate change should lead us to a model of coexistence that accommodates strategic cooperation alongside strategic competition. In the face of these challenges, one response currently gaining currency is reshoring, French shoring, the idea that you can relocate supply chains at home or to friendly countries that share your values. On the surface, this makes sense in light of the supply chain vulnerabilities now evident, and some relocation of investment in highly sensitive sectors is likely inevitable. We must recognize that. The issue is one of balance. As we all know that subsidizing one industrial sector to relocate in a particular area on the basis of its priority or criticality is, as I mentioned earlier, a slippery slope. Trading and investing only with friends could lead to fragmentation, and wider fragmentation would be economically costly for all economies. Looking at one key sector, semiconductors, Boston Consulting Group estimates that achieving full-scale self-sufficiency by region would require $1 trillion in upfront investment and result in chips that cost 35 percent to 65 percent more. WTO economists estimate that if the global economy decouples into two self-contained blocks, long-term global GDP would decrease by at least 5 percent, worse than the damage from the financial crisis in 2008-2009. The IMF has furthered this work, and its modeling shows growth prospects for developing economies under that scenario would darken with some facing double-digit welfare losses. This would enhance socioeconomic exclusion and political anger, not so bad. Large-scale reshoring could end up defeating its own purpose by making supply security worse instead of better. Locally concentrated supply chains would be more exposed to localized shocks, which are becoming more frequent with extreme weather events. Politically speaking, policy-induced decoupling designed to build resilience and security could end up feeling like an own goal. Taking too far, it could be dangerous for coordination around basic security interests and unlikely to foster the kinds of international cooperation we need for effective collective action on global commons problems like climate change, pandemics, or sovereign debt distress. There is also the important reality that many countries don't want to have to choose between two blocks. Maybe for Australia as a strong middle power, it is different. But for the Pacific Island countries, I'm sure it's not. In a recent speech, Singapore's Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan said, Asian member states want to maintain good relations with the US and China, and called for them to have overlapping circles of friends. Quote, we tell both the Americans and the Chinese, do not make us choose, he said. We will refuse to choose. I know Minister Balakrishnan's view is widely shared among many poor and developing countries. Even for rich ones like Australia, I guess there must be times you wonder about this. So let me outline an alternative path for the future of trade, reglobalization. Deeper and more diversified markets would enhance supply resilience in a world of more frequent exogenous shocks. Reduced concentration in sourcing would make trade harder to weaponize. We should acknowledge their tradeoffs. We would lose some of the efficiency gains that come with scale and agglomeration, but we would gain in terms of resilience and adaptability. To some extent, this would simply extend trends we already seen. Firms are already moving to diversify risks by adding sourcing and investment locations. We see evidence that source market concentration is diminishing even for products like rare earths. By taking these dynamics further, by bringing countries with good macroeconomic environments in Latin America, in Asia and in Africa, from the margins of the global production networks to the mainstream, we can make trade more resilient whilst bolstering growth and poverty reduction. In other words, we can kill many birds with one stone. So what am I saying? I'm saying let businesses manage risks and diversify in a sensible manner. But if governments seek to intervene to encourage this through subsidies or other incentives, then push for a broader, wider diversification to many more geographies, wherever the investment environment is appropriate. This would contribute to the re-globalization we seek. Ladies and gentlemen, we can tackle the challenges facing the multilateral trading system head on. We can address level playing field issues at the WTO, encouraging transparency and mitigating negative spillovers. We can foster greater inclusion by agreeing on new rules for digital trade, enabling more women and micro-media and small enterprises to tap into international markets. We can leverage trade in service of building greener economies and creating better jobs. In short, we can tackle the shortcomings that seem to weaken the multilateral trading system. This might sound like a tall order, but WTO members prove that our 12th ministerial conferences past June that they can work across geopolitical differences and deliver results. All 164 members, Russia and Ukraine, China, the US, Japan, Brazil, Australia, everyone signed onto agreements we reached, some of them legally binding, and there was one particular one on curbing harmful fisheries subsidies and responding to the pandemic and food security crisis they all signed on. We need to keep building on these successes. As my friend and co-author, former Prime Minister Julia Gillard said in another context, reform is never easy, but reform is right. We need to ensure the WTO reforms and continues to provide a framework for peaceful, competitive economic engagement of all members. Strategic competition is a reality, but like I said earlier, we can, we must have strategic cooperation alongside it. Engagement at institutions like the WTO can help build confidence, even trust, managing the multiple tensions of today and the challenges of tomorrow. The world has changed a lot in these past 75 years, but we can still make trade a force for peace in the 21st century, as it was in the second half of the 20th. Now I'm sure you're getting hungry. So let me close with something Martin Luther King said that's just as relevant today as it was in 1964, and I quote him, we must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools. Brotherhood might be a lot to hope for today, but cooperating on trade, not retreating from it, can help us learn to live together. Thank you. Dr Akonjo Iwala, thank you for delivering an important, substantive and ultimately optimistic, lowly lecture this evening. I believe that's the only lecture by Director-General of the World Trade Organization to close with Dr King, more of them should. The Director-General, ladies and gentlemen, has given you some intellectual nourishment. Now we're going to give you some physical nourishment. We will now serve entrees and then mains. Please enjoy the meal, and then I will return to the stage with the DG for a conversation. Thank you. Well, Director-General, thanks again for giving really a fabulous, lowly lecture. A number of people already have said how important, inspiring, optimistic, comprehensible for non-economists it was. So thank you very much, and thank you for agreeing to take some questions. Let me start just by asking you a bit about the arc of your life. You mentioned in your speech, growing up in a village in Nigeria, you've had this remarkable career that has taken you to the heights of the international system. What has propelled you forward? Well, thank you very much. I think I was blessed to have a really great childhood. When I was young, my parents, both of them, went to Germany on his scholarships to study, and they couldn't take me. So they left me with my grandmother in the village. So I grew up with her until I was about almost nine when they came back. And I must say that there were really good examples of trying to inspire their children to really, they felt we could do anything. So that's the way my father, I think he demanded more of his two daughters actually. He felt we could do anything, and we should do any and everything. So that was, for me, inspirational, and he walked the talk. I think that really sort of gave me the feeling that one could do anything one wanted. But he also made it very clear about duty and responsibility, and education is a privilege, not a right. And when you have it, you have to do something with other people, not just for yourself. So those are the simple lessons I learned, and it's been a guide. But he also had high standards, didn't he? Because you told me at dinner that I think you went to him as a young woman and said you wanted to travel overseas and live an international life, but he imposed a condition. Yeah, you know, I wanted, so when my parents came back, both of them were academics in the university. So my life changed from the village. It's great to go and live with them in the university. And a lot of my friends would go abroad for holidays. But my father's a mathematical economist, so each time I asked if I could also go, he would tell me to calculate how much it would cost. Then he would ask me, and I was eight, nine, ten, he would say, okay, how many people secondary school education would that pay for? So I never got to go abroad on holidays because he thought that that money would be better spent. He paid for 19 other people in addition to his seven children. He paid for them through secondary school and university, 19. So I really wanted to explore other places. And when I was finishing secondary school, I went to him and he said the only way you can go abroad is if you get into the best university in any country you choose to go. If you do that, then I'll be ready. So that's how I applied. And I went to the US and I applied to two universities, Harvard in the US and Cambridge in the UK. And I got into both, but I went to Harvard. You had a career in national politics as well as in international politics. What's the tougher business of the two, national politics or international politics? National politics. I can tell you I was a finance minister for seven years in a large country of 220 million people with 374 different languages. A very complex country. And so trying to be a finance minister, I was a techno politician. That's the word I use. So I was asked by my president to come and serve. And it wasn't easy, especially when you are trying to get things done right. So I've written two books about it. I'm not trying to sell my book, but you can buy it. One is called fighting corruption is dangerous. And the other one is reforming the unreformable, both by MIT Press. Always be selling. Let me ask you, in your speech, you made a really powerful argument for re-globalization and an argument for all of us supporting the international system, for not hunkering down, for not retreating behind big walls. What's your advice to the ministers in countries who have to go out and make that argument to their public? Because it's one thing to make an argument at the Sydney Town Hall. It's another thing as an employment minister or an industrial relations minister or a treasurer to be making it to working class people. So how do you think they should make the argument that it's actually not in their interests? Protectionism is not in their interests. Well, I think I would bring it down first to explain what trade is all about and why we should trade with others. And in looking at it, explaining the WTO, the WTO, I took this job because the purpose of the WTO is to enhance living standards, to help create employment and to support sustainable development. What could be better than that? It's all about people, as I always say. So I explained to people what trade is about. And you bring it down to them and what they are doing. So they see it's an everyday thing. And then you let them know that hunkering down in these days, you know, through trade, you can solve certain problems of the global commons. It's very difficult to hunker down now when you have a pandemic. So politicians have to learn how it's very difficult. But telling your people that you can't solve the pandemic alone. Our country, even if we're all vaccinated, we are not safe, really, if there are other people not vaccinated. You can't solve climate change alone. So trying to explain to them that hunkering down and being protectionist does not save them from some of the big problems that the world is confronting. That's what I would be doing. And telling them the better way is to reach out, try to draw others in and trade with others. What about when national security imperatives trespass onto trade issues? Let me ask you, for example, about the recent ban by the United States on the sale of semiconductors. You would, wouldn't you? I would ask that. What's your view of that? Is that weaponizing trade? Hmm. I have to be very careful because I'm the head of the WTO. But let's put it this way. It's clear that the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, as I said in my speech, did expose certain vulnerabilities in supply chains in certain sectors. And it is problematic that 90 to 95 percent of such an important product is made in one country. So clearly there's a vulnerability there and you need to diversify that. But does it mean you should bring it all home to do and subsidize? I think a better approach might be to see if you can spread out. I think you can build more resilience by also spreading out the manufacture to many more countries. So I can understand the rationale in trying to say, look, we have to protect ourselves a bit. But I would think it could be better if we also included others in building that resilience. As you know, Australia has been subjected to some economic sanctions from our largest trading partner, China, in recent years. What's your view of that? And can the WTO, is the WTO the right forum for resolving those issues? Do you think? Right now, the Australia has brought two cases against China to the WTO to a dispute settlement system on this very issue. So I have to tell you, as I think I said on TV, I'm actually not allowed to comment on it because there are cases pending. That being said, I think that the best way to settle these is through dialogue. We much prefer that. And that is why the meeting between the Prime Minister and President Xi is very significant. Of course, it didn't solve everything at once. But it's opened the door. The fact that Australia and China agreed that they would use an arbitration system to trans-settle any issue after the panel findings is also significant. So I'm hopeful that this dialogue will lead to something and we actually won't have to. These cases actually, the problem will be sorted out before they go through the motions. Let me ask you about the war in Ukraine, if I can. You've lived through war. Nigeria has a history of conflict. So how does that change your view of the war in Ukraine? How does it affect the way you think about the war in Ukraine? Well, let me say that, I mean, Nigeria had a civil war. The Nigeria Biafra War from 1967 to 74. Those who are old enough to remember. And I lived through that from the time I was 12 to 15. So I've actually lived through a war, known what it is to eat one meal a day or not eat. To almost be killed by strapping from bullets for my parents to lose everything and start again. So it's very painful because when I see what's happening in Ukraine, it brings back very bad memories to me. And so it's personally painful. But at the same time, I'm running an organization in which Russia and Ukraine are both members. And I believe we have to have a space where there can be multilateral approaches to solving issues. So we worked really hard to make sure at the WTO that both Russia and Ukraine know are there and listen to. And we succeeded in having a ministerial conference with both of them around the table. And I'm very grateful for that. You're probably the only multilateral organization that managed to get agreements, including some legally binding signed by both Russia and Ukraine, the US, China, everybody. So providing a multilateral space can be helpful because we have to do things sometimes through dialogue, even though it's painful. Alright, speaking of dialogue, let me ask you about climate change. You attended the COP in Charmel Shake this month. You mentioned in your speech the importance of trade and value chains in making solutions to climate change more affordable. There was an in principle agreement at the COP about loss and damage financing for developing countries. But that won't arrest climate change. And the summit produced no further significant agreement on reducing emissions. So if you were to look at the COP, was it a success? And how confident are you that through dialogue, the world can prevent dangerous levels of global warming? The world on that one, climate change is an existential threat. So the world actually has to do more than dialogue. They have to act. And I think that it's a breaking trust for developed countries not to have been able to fulfill the promise they made that they would contribute $100 billion a year by 2020 to developing countries to help them with the transition. So that is not good. And then the loss, I think out of COP 27, yes, it could have been more successful. I think agreeing the loss and damage facility or fund is a good thing, even though we don't know how the resources were coming. But at least there's an acknowledgement that there's a need for countries that suffer this to get some help. So you look at it and countries that are very low emitters with very low carbon emissions, the whole of the African continent, for instance, emits only 3% of all the global emissions, but they are paying the price. Actually, that continent is being the most impacted with drought in the Sahel, which is leading to people migrating south and it's leading to conflict between herders and farmers. Most people are not aware of the things that are happening that are being caused by climate change. Then you have floods in my own country, Nigeria, you had floods, killed 600 people, displaced millions, but you don't hear about it. So I think we need to act. Dialogue is, in this case, I believe in dialogue, but I think we need to go beyond that. And the COP, we could have gotten more and we need to do more. I really believe that. Can I ask you about the role of the United States? Because in the world trading system at the heart of the rules-based order, because the US was so important in establishing those institutions of order after the Second World War, the last president was not a big believer in rules applying to him or to his country. He wasn't a big fan of trade. He wasn't a big fan of the WTO. We have a new president now, President Biden, who's governing the United States in a completely, in a very different way, and yet we haven't seen the US opposition to the dispute settlement system withdrawn. Is that disappointing to you? I didn't think that the issue with the dispute settlement system would be solved overnight, but I certainly expected it to be solved as soon as possible. I think the reason is that the US made some complaints about the way the appellate body, that's the second tier, the two-tier system, the panel level, and then you can appeal through the appellate body. And that's what's attractive to so many members. And it's the only one of its kind in the world. So because they've complained, some of the complaints I take too long, they're supposed to take 90 days. Now it takes three years or more sometimes. Of course, maybe because the cases are more complicated now than in the past, but they've made some genuine criticisms that I think means the system needs to be looked at. Developing countries also have criticisms that need to be taken into account. They feel the system is not accessible enough, it's not affordable. So I think taking all of those into account needs a little bit of time, but now the time has come. And I believe we need the US leadership to try and move on this. They are talking, the good news is at the technical level, they started having consultation with other members on this, but we want from next year for this to really become a systematized thing with timelines so that by 2024, as we agreed at our ministerial conference, we will have a reform dispute settlement system. This matters to business, and it's the single most important reform we now have to deliver. So yes, I was very understanding before the need to wait, but now I'm impatient for reform. All right, let me ask, I've asked you a question about the US. Let me ask you a question about China. You alluded, I think, in your speech to the argument that some people make that China gained the system in a way, that it has been able to become an economic powerhouse while retaining state control of its economy and without going through some of the reforms that other economies have had to do. Do you agree with that argument? Well, I put it this way, that there are members that have complaints about subsidizing state-owned enterprises in China and that this creates a non-level playing field. China itself has complaints about agricultural subsidies of other countries. So we do have a problem of subsidies, and what we are going to do about this, because there are some of them that are trade distorting, and I need facts. So on the agricultural subsidies, we actually have facts. There are $870 billion of subsidies which will get to a trillion by 2030 if we don't do something about it, and that is trade distorting and anti-competitive. So we have more facts there, because there's been a lot more study and a lot more transparency on that. On industrial subsidies, we don't have the facts on the ground. So before we can act, we need to establish those facts, and we are actually doing something about it at the WTO. So I've gotten together with the IMF, the World Bank, and the OECD to launch a study on these subsidies. We've done phase one. We are going to go into phase two, and if you look at President Xi's speech a few weeks ago, he said they are ready to work on this issue of industrial subsidies. So I'm going to see if we can make good on this and really try to put facts on the table. It may mean that WTO rules, we have an agreement, the SEM, subsidies and countervailing measures agreement that is supposed to deal with such unfair practices. It may mean that we may need to reform it, because it was made at a time when some of these things were not happening. But before we can even go there, we need to establish these facts. You said that when you became Finance Minister for the first time in 2003, you were under no illusions about the challenges that you would face as the first woman in that position. How much of things improved in the two decades since then? Improved in my country or in the world? Well, both. Let's start with Nigeria, but more generally. Well, I think we have a better financial management system in Nigeria now. I will speak cautiously, because right now the economy is in doing as well as it should. But we do have systems in place which were not there. We have an integrated financial management system, an integrated personnel and payroll system, all technology-based and computerized, which helps to fight corruption, helps to make our finances more transparent. So those are things that are in place. I think it's better in that sense. It's also better that since I was Finance Minister, women, having a woman as a Finance Minister has become normal. Since then, there have been three women after me. That was one of my objectives, that it should no longer be new. That is also better. But of course, there are many things hitting the country as elsewhere, the inflationary pressures, the high prices of basics and so on. Navigating all that is not easy. So, I know when you became Minister, you've written that a lot of women wrote to you and asked you to mentor them and give them advice. Who were the mentors and role models that mattered to you? You mentioned your dad and perhaps your grandmother. And my mother. Well, you know, I think growing up, I was privileged. Some of the names I'll mention wouldn't be surprises to you. And they may sound normal, but they are true. I was privileged to meet Nelson Mandela three times in my life. And really, I was in awe. How can you go through what he went through and still come out to such a forgiving heart and ready to dialogue and deal with people who had treated you so badly? So, that is such a shining example of behavior. I know it's known all over the world, but when you actually meet the man, it's amazing. So, that is someone to really look up to. There have been other leaders I've met that have been impressive. I did have one mentor in my career, my former boss at the World Bank, Mr. Moinkureshi, former Pakistan Prime Minister after he left the World Bank. And I learned so much from him. So, mentors can be men. And in my life and career, I've had a lot of help from men as well as women. So, yeah, I often say that to women or younger women, you should also look to men who might be able to mentor you. And I say to men, you should also try to get out of the way sometimes so women can have a chance. Ladies and gentlemen, we've had a rare treat tonight from you, Director-General. First of all, you gave us a fabulous, powerful speech. And then you've opened yourself up to taking my questions on many different topics. I hope I haven't got you into any trouble. I've certainly learned a lot. Ladies and gentlemen, I hope you feel you've had an insight into Dr. Conjo Whalers' worldview and her life. Please join me in thanking her. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce one of the Lowy Institute's long-serving board members, the Honourable Penny Wensley, AC, to give the vote of thanks. Many of you know Penny. She's the former Governor of Queensland and one of Australia's most storied diplomats, having served as High Commissioner and Ambassador in many posts around the world, including the UN in New York and in Geneva. Penny. Your Excellencies, members of the Diplomatic and Consular Corps, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator the Honourable Simon Birmingham, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, it is my privilege as a member of the board of the Lowy Institute to propose the vote of thanks this evening to Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iwala, Director-General of the World Trade Organization, to thank her for delivering the 2022 Lowy Lecture and for sharing with us, Madam Director-General, your views on the multilateral trading system and on the value of trade. And may I say on a more personal note what a special and particular pleasure it is to be able to use that word, Madam Director-General. You have been striking new ground throughout your career, occupying many leadership roles, but your appointment as the first woman and the first African to head the world's largest international economic organisation was a breakthrough of an exceptional kind, a compelling demonstration of what competent women can achieve with determination. And it's a perfect example of the real lives, real lessons that you addressed in the book that you referred to earlier and that you co-authored with Australia's Julia Gillard on women in leadership. Commenting on some of the things that you talked about. I was just making some random notes, listening, and so I've pulled out a few bits and pieces. I really liked the past, present and future framework that you developed that gave your speech that logical progression. I found in particular you're taking us into some new areas. I think that you probably made some people in the room think differently about trade and the trading system. People think WTO, trade, trade disputes, subsidies, and yes, of course, you talked about these issues, but you also took us into that bigger picture of saying that trade can deliver solutions. Trade can help us tackle the big challenges. Through trade you can solve problems, you said. Trade can be a force for peace. You talked about trade helping to deliver a just and ambitious response to climate change. So you expanded, I believe, our sense of why trade matters and how it links with tackling those big challenges that all of us are worried about and that we need to address. I like the way in which you gave us facts and figures and you reinforced that in your discussion with Michael when you said, I really like to put facts on the table and that was terrific. It just reinforced for me that since I had that you were steadily, carefully putting facts on the table, laying them out for us as part of your argumentation. I like the way in which you talked about the challenges in a very clear eyed way. You didn't shy away from telling us where the problems are, what the gaps are, but again and again you came back to saying we can tackle the challenges head on. And of course for me as a committed multilateralist, it was music to my ears to hear some of the things that you were saying that we need multilateral cooperation and solidarity more than ever. We need re-globalization, not de-globalization, we need strategic cooperation. So I thought it was a tour de force in terms of the messages that you were delivering for all of us and I hope and I'm looking forward to reading the commentary as probably you and your team are and the things that people will pick out from having listened to you. I think that we will go away and think further and the ideas and the thoughts that you've put to us are going to echo and resonate for a long time. I did something a little, I don't know, maybe a little even cheeky. I checked the date of Dr Okonjo Iwela's star sign of her birthday, which is the 13th of June and then I went a bit further and I looked up her star sign. She's a Gemini and although probably most of you like me like the stars when they say good things then say oh they're a lot of rubbish when they when they don't and you probably don't set too much store by the signs of the zodiac and the personality trays that people born under each sign are meant to exhibit in their lives but I am here to tell you that on the basis of what we have heard and seen tonight and have learned about this exceptional woman the list of qualities that I read that apply to a Gemini was absolutely spot on. Let me share some of them. Sense of purpose is strong a path of knowledge to follow clever quick wizard brings lively energy to the table lives a life filled with perspective purpose and meaning and whether you believe in the stars or not I think you might agree with me that all of those qualities were evident in tonight's lowy lecture deliverer. Our special guest tonight certainly brought lively energy to the table especially to the after dinner conversation with Michael. Her perspective on so many subjects not just the WTO was insightful and informative. Her deft moving a little sideways answering some of Michael's trickier questions showed that indeed she is clever and quick-witted and her sense of purpose we all saw was strong and clear giving us great encouragement that under her leadership the WTO will pursue the reform path that it and the world needs. Ladies and gentlemen in her historic analysis of the beginning of her address Dr. Okondro Iwela said we must make better choices. I'm sure you'll all agree with me that inviting the Director General of the World Trade Organization to deliver the 2022 lowy lecture the Institute made not just a better choice but the best possible choice at this particular time. It's been a privilege tonight to hear her thoughtful compelling presentation. May I ask you to join me in expressing warm appreciation to Dr. Okondro Iwela for her presentation. Thank you Penny for those fabulous warm remarks. I'm a Pisces by the way. Ladies and gentlemen that wraps things up for this evening. I want to thank you all very warmly for joining us. I want to thank once again the DG for giving for making a powerful argument for openness for dialogue and for action and then for telling us in the conversation a little bit about her life which as it happens is also about openness dialogue and action. Thank you very much and finally ladies and gentlemen let me thank my colleagues who've worked on this event over many months. The lowy lecture is a big lift for a small organization. So please I'd like to express my personal thanks to Andrea, Michaela, Sarah, Tara, Josh, Georgie, Claire, Shane, David and Liesel. They've done a fabulous job. Ladies and thank you. Ladies and gentlemen thank you for absorbing the Institute's work this year for coming to our events for reading our research papers and the articles on the interpreter. Thank you again for coming this evening and we look forward to seeing you back at 31 Bligh Street soon. Thank you and good evening.