 I'm Oliver Callan, I work at the World Economic Forum and this is on the new great game, the great game of the 19th Century. A political power struggle, and a military power struggle between the great powers of the day British and Russia, mainly played out in Central Asia. We are not trying to intimate with something similar happening today but the purpose of the issue briefings is that some of you are the joiners run this room I this room is to look at areas that aren't covered on a platform yet. is to look at areas that aren't covered on a public programme, maybe areas and issues and topics that are just becoming into the public consciousness, things that we should be perhaps thinking about a little bit. It's only quite recent that the World Economic Forum has been covering defence and security in its annual meeting in quite such depth. There have been already some high profile sessions on the future of warfare and the sexy subjects such as autonomous weapons and 3D printed drones have already been taking headlines. So we're not going to go there, but what we're going to hopefully discuss is what are the new theatres of war potentially in the future? What are we least prepared for? What do we need to do to prevent our great global commons? I'm thinking here mainly the deep ocean, cyberspace, safe and secure in the near and hopefully long term future. Great panel, very very expert and well experienced on this subject. First Her Excellency was Janine Henness-Pleschart, of course the Minister of Defence of the Netherlands. I believe a member of our global future council as well, a great collaborator of ours. And again very happy to be joined by Admiral James Stavridas, Dean of Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in Boston. Of course prior to that a Navy commander and also a commander in NATO outside of the US armed forces. Minister Henness-Pleschart, I'm going to start with you by asking whether simply we are facing an environment where we are in the early stages of a new great game. The great powers of the world cooperating in other areas such as trade and perhaps climate change and other issues. Tensions fraying around the edges and competition in these uncharted and often invisible commons, tensions on the rise. Tensions are on the rise, I guess. We all feel it, we can see it, we can experience in Ukraine in the MENA region. But also in cyberspace for example, it's a new phenomenon and it's deeply disturbing. Now you refer to the great game which I like in a way because it's also history indeed between Britain and Russia. But some call it the return of geopolitics. A fact is that the kind of exceptional unipolar moment is over and that we enter a new era. A big difference though with the 19th century I would say is that nowadays there is this huge array of actors and powered individuals, mega cities, civil and military. So it's a completely different picture from what we witnessed in the 19th century and we will have to deal with it. But it makes the world more complex and more contested. And the obvious question to ask is how do you plan for such a wide and diverse array of potential actors? Well first of all we have to understand as we are dealing with such a huge array of actors that is not there for what we are witnessing right now, there is not just a military solution. So it's always a combination of civil and military and that we have to create the right interaction between all the relevant stakeholders. And we also have to take into account for example the pace of development. It's completely different from the 19th century and that obviously has to do with for example cyberspace. And we also have to take into account the dissemination of knowledge. It's not just states but it's also again empowered individuals and even individuals that do not have the best interest with us or for us. They have access to this knowledge and technological information. And a final question before we come to the admiral and then we'll open this up and just to say we try to keep these sessions as interactive as possible. We don't have long, we have a lot of information to cover but as a defence minister how much of your time is taken up on these new theatres, these new ways of dealing with tensions, the new actors compared to traditional conventional warfare if you will? Cyberspace, I mean many of us talk about the hybrid threat nowadays like it's a new phenomenon, it's not. But cyber is a new phenomenon and we're at the beginning of understanding how to deal with it. So it's not yet governed with clear rules and norms and standards and the international community is working on it. And it's going to be crucial not just for states but also for the private sector and all the other actors that we understand what kind of norms and standards we find acceptable for cyberspace. But again we're at the beginning and thereby we run the risk of cyberspace developing into a true battle space and I'm seriously concerned about that. And I want to come back to the point you made about international cooperation because one would be tempted to be slightly concerned by the fact that the same people who were creating the tension and ratcheting up the temperature as it were are the same people that need to cooperate to put in place the standards and the correct governance systems to make things safe. So maybe let's come back to that but Admiral, let's know what keeps you up at night. I was often asked that question when I was a Supreme Allied Commander at NATO and the candidates would have been Afghanistan, Libya, the Balkans, Syria, piracy, NATO reform. There were plenty of candidates but the thing that kept me awake at night was in fact cyber security and the reason is because of the mismatch between the level of threat and the level of preparation. In other words, in dealing with terrorism, pretty significant threat but we're actually quite ready to deal with it, counter piracy, a threat but we're ready to deal with it. Cyber, we have not done the basics yet. The minister is exactly right. We're at the very beginning with this. So cyber continues to be the focus of much of my research and I would say your point about international cooperation. We have got to wrench cyberspace out of the great game and make it not a zone of conflict which is where we are trending but make it a zone of cooperation. I would add another place into this list and that is the Arctic. As we see global warming, melting the polar ice caps, shipping lanes opening, hydrocarbons in dispute, Russia on one side, five NATO nations on the other side. That's another area we need to avoid turning into a zone of conflict. Let's make it a zone of cooperation. You're researching cyber as well so the question begs to me that it isn't new and we've been talking about it for quite a while and especially here at the forum in our global risks report. It isn't new. America suffered a massive outage last year. We were talking last week in fact when we launched our global risks for 2017 that the number one business threat in the USA last year, the one region of the world was cyber and now it's every single region of the world. That's just business. We're not even talking about security. I'm curious why no more progress has been made already and where you think progress is being made right now, where the focus is on. At the moment the focus in cyber has been on defense and trying to create a perimeter defense offense because it can generate more power at the point of impact has been able to overcome that. That's why we see Home Depot in the United States 60 million accounts, then Chase Manhattan Bank 87 million accounts, Yahoo 500 million accounts. That's because offense is overcoming defense. What we need to do is come up with a new defensive approach that doesn't only focus on the perimeter but goes inside the cyber system to split the data, only reassemble it at point of use and thus create, if you will, internal antibodies as well as maintaining that perimeter defense A and B nation on nation. We need to evolve a regime of deterrents much as we have with nuclear weapons. These are powerful tools. We need to ensure nations think of them in that light and gradually create deterrent regimes. How many countries are doing this, engaged in cyber warfare right now? I'd say there are 20 nations in the top tier of cyber development with some focus on military application. So this is not out of 200 nations. This is not a huge phenomenon. On the other hand, only about a dozen countries have nuclear weapons. We need to be thinking about this in that context going forward. It's that serious. Let's just get an idea if he wants to ask questions on the floor. Do you raise your hand? Gentlemen there, let's get the microphone please and if you could remind us where you're from and your name please. Doug Macaulay, I'm a professor of marine science at the University of California Santa Barbara. You mentioned the Arctic and some of the conflict or the challenges that we're facing up there. Could either of you map out a pathway to success in the Arctic either or perhaps both, economic success and collaboration and environmental success and collaboration? Doug, I'm sure you're familiar with the other end of the earth which is Antarctica. I think a good starting point would be to look at how Antarctica has been developed in international law, how different countries are operating there. We have medical diplomacy, science diplomacy, we have very cooperative aspects of all that in Antarctica. We ought to look at that as a model, think about how that can be applied in the high north. We should also convene a summit, I think, of the leaders of the Arctic nations. There's never been such a summit. Now would be a good time to do that, new administration coming in. And then thirdly, I think there is a role here for the United Nations to think about this as a zone of cooperation, develop a program. It's also something I think the World Economic Forum could take on. So there are some models, there are some pathways. If we do nothing, it will drift toward a military solution. I fully agree. The previous sector of Chuck Hale actually made a very interesting point out of it during a Halifax conference in Canada. And he was absolutely right at the time. Now time is running so we have to speed up. And I think all of us here agree that international law and jurisdiction is the best way for peaceful settlement of possible disputes or whatsoever. So I fully agree with the Admiral and we have to deal with it, not just with the Arctic nations but many more because there are so many interests at stake. So we should feel as an international community, we should feel ownership and definitely also address it within the UN. Just to add a point to that, China, for example, which is certainly not an Arctic country, operates a significant fleet of icebreakers. They have more than the United States has. So there's I think a real global interest in the Arctic and moving it toward a zone of cooperation. Which is interesting because the Arctic nations are often called out for their success in managing to maintain good relationships despite the strategic rivalries that they could succumb to. Right. What's changed, I think, is the level of tension between Russia and the NATO countries. We need to do everything we can to avoid a bleed over of the NATO-Russian tension that exists in Eastern Europe, for example, into the high north. That's so important that we continue the dialogue with Russia, but that's a different panel, I guess, but it's very tempting not to speak with each other, but we have to continue a open dialogue. I mean, be clear about what you like or don't like, but you have to continue speaking with each other. Well, nobody at the World Economic Forum is going to say dialogue is not a good thing, so we're known for that. Let's get back on to international cooperation then, because it's something you've touched on. And what are the structures that are working well at the moment, and why do we need to just start again, start from scratch? What do you mean? In terms of governance structures, are things working right at the start of putting in place structures for various threats, but is anything working well? Are there any areas where we just need to rethink the way we cooperate together? I mean, the world is changing, so you also have to rethink your structures at the very same time. And we touched upon it several times during these days here in Davos, is that we live in a multi-layered world order, and we need our multinational institutions. So I cannot imagine a world without an UN or a NATO or a European Union, but we have to empower them. And we also have to realize that those institutions are as strong as their member states. So we have many member states right now. UN, NATO or European Union, they're facing a kind of a crisis or running a narrow-minded national agenda, and that clearly has an impact on the effectiveness of our multinational institutions. But as the world is changing, we obviously have to adapt our multinational institutions or to empower them in a different way, but we should not give up on them. They guide us and they will help us. I agree with all that. I'll add a practical example of a regime that I think has done very well. And it's the International United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. If you think back to the late 1970s, there was no agreement on the size of territorial seas. There were major disputes because some nations were claiming 200-mile territorial seas. Others had a traditional 3-mile, some took 12. It was extremely chaotic. Over the course of a decade, the international community negotiated this, I think, quite brilliant treaty that has been ratified by almost every country. I'm sorry to say the United States has not, although we follow the conventions of it. It's a good example of taking action as an international community in the global commons and creating at least some sense of order. We need to be thinking along those lines in cyberspace. Definitely. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is a perfect example and should be applied in different domains, also maybe later on in outer space. Let's move away from cyberspace and talk about space. The minister is probably not one of your areas of specialist. Admiral, I know you've written on the subject of space warfare. What are the main threats that we see and how well do you think they're being mitigated currently in space? In space? I'll give you an outer space. I think there are probably three significant things that are at risk in outer space. One is the growing number of debris fields that are there, which create real dangers. Secondly, the increasing highly classified programs that are designed against satellites which would deeply impact the international system. Thirdly, and this is a kind of two-edged sword, but it's the increase of private sector activity into outer space. Who's regulating that? How is that being managed? Space is a global commons. It's infinite. We're not going to ever manage it the way we manage the oceans, but we need better norms and a better regime because of the increasing anarchy in that space. Any questions? Let's talk about technology because we are still at the beginning of the Fourth Minister's Revolution if you agree with the World Economic Forum's worldview. What technological advances have the potential to have the greatest impact on the way we cooperate or don't in these areas? I would argue that 21st century in the end will not be about cyber or info or the maritime world. The 21st century, I think, will go down in human history as the age of biology. And the ability to sequence the human genome, the price of which is falling very, very rapidly, will allow us to do vastly advanced immunotherapies, ultimately alter our DNA, potentially expand human life in a temporal sense, living longer, correct diseases, change features. They may even be able to give me hair, which would be a powerful thing. So I think there's going to be dramatic changes ahead as a result of biology. That's kind of the good news. The bad news is we ought to be much more worried about pandemics than we are. If you go back 100 years ago, Spanish influenza infects 40% of the world's population with a mortality rate of 20%. Every 100 years in human history there's been a significant pandemic, we are due. So I think biology will be a shock to us over the next decade or so in some good ways and in some less good ways. To the extent where defence people, such as yourselves, need to be worrying about it rather than scientists, health experts, ministers. Yeah, that's why health ministers and defence ministers are more and more getting together and working together on how to counter or how to deal with an issue such as described by the Admiral. Do you agree, Minister, that biology is the biggest technological? The biggest, I don't know, but it's going to be enormous. Also, for example, I guess that the relation between us and a machine is going to be a challenge for the years to come. So I agree with the Admiral to name it right now as the biggest. Let me pick up a thought here, which is it really is the merger of these two things of bio and information. This is Ray Kurzweil's book, the singularity is near. What he's talking about is this merger of biology, technology, information, artificial intelligence. I think the Minister is right to add a little shading around the bio piece of it. But I think the bio piece is going to surprise us more than anything else. Okay, well, in the absence of any more questions, one final one from me, which I always like to ask is what is your top of your mind for the coming year? What's your one big priority when it comes to this particular area of discussion? What would you like to see achieved or what are you going to put most of your energy into? The coming year? Yes, in the coming year. So 12 months time? 12 months. We can talk longer out if you think it's more. Okay, I'm a politician, right? So we have elections coming up. Okay, let's talk six months out. No, I'm teasing you. I'm not or I'm joking. But no, cyber, I think that there are many things that's very difficult to prioritize right now. But the coming 12 months within NATO, as well as within the EU, cyber is going to take a lot of my time. I think cyber will be crucially important. I think a second thing that I hope the US government and our European partners will be working on is great power relationships. In other words, how do we find more zones of cooperation with the Russian Federation? How do we avoid, we the United States avoid a trade war with China? How do we peacefully settle our arguments and disputes about the South China Sea? What will India's role be in all of this? So I guess we can conclude where we started on the great game. I think that great power relationships are going to be the strategic motif. And I think over the next 12 months, because of the new US administration, it'll be a very significant 12 months. And I agree with the minister in terms of cyber will play in the background on all of this because they will all, all of those nations are in the cyber game. No, but he's absolutely, I'm sorry, I have to say this because you're absolutely right. The coming 12 months clearly, I mean, I was more or less as a defence minister. I will deal with cyber space as a priority. But as I just said, we, I mean, we left the exceptional moment of a unipoder world. So the governance worldwide of a multipoder world, we're slowly moving towards it. That it's going to be crucial. So let's just dwell on that very, very briefly. The greatest dynamic of course is going to be the US and Russia, I think. But what are the other dynamics that we need to be aware of in terms of the relationships between major powers? I think US and China, yeah, South China Sea. US China has got this sort of tactical irritant of the South China Sea. It has a strategic over piece of it now that the US has walked away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Big mistake. And it has a kind of a nation on nation economic component in the kind of sword rattling of high tariffs on China by President-elect Trump. There's plenty to work out between the United States and China. And clearly the fight against ISIL will continue. And what about the EU in all this? What's the EU's place as other power relationships get formed around the world? Well, one of the key questions in the months to come is whether the European nations will be able to uphold their own in a very competing world. Now, I think that the EU managed to make some progress the last few years. But clearly we also suffered some setback with the prospect of the UK leaving the EU. Obviously the Brexit dust will have to settle down. Theresa May made her ideas about a clear Brexit known to us earlier today but also earlier this week. It's going to be a very tough negotiation. So Europe will have to get its act together because no single country and definitely not European countries can isolate themselves from a world in turmoil. So we have to join forces and we have to act in unity because geopolitical tension and conflicts will continue to be there and intensify. Because we will have to stand the tide of refugees as they will continue to keep knock on European doors. We will have to decisively defeat terrorists as they will not hesitate to attack us or European cities again. So there is so much work to do in the interest and the freedom and security of the European citizens that Europe cannot afford to not be present in this very competing but also contested and complex world. At the same time you are distracted by the aftermath of the UK vote and the internal tensions within you. To what degree is that hampering your ability to actually move forward in this security area as we see other dynamics taking shape? You know as a defence minister I consistently foist the need for Europe to position itself as a convincing, reliable and credible security provider. Not just in its immediate region but also beyond. Again time is running, crisis are out there. We are several wars so we have no time to lose and to get our act together but you are absolutely right. As we speak we are very distracted, it's disturbing me but we have to move on. I always think about Bunkie Moon who once said cool hats will prevail but cool hats at a certain point cool hats will have to join forces in order to make the difference. Fascinating discussion. We do have to leave. I know you two have both have engagements that you need to get to. I would like to thank you both for joining us. Thank you for joining us here and making the trip over from the congress centre and thank you of course for those of you watching online and via Facebook. This session is now over.