 Welcome to this debate this morning, a debate in which I hope you're going to participate actively. The proposition we're going to be debating today is this one. A decline in US leadership will lead to weaker or stronger global governance. So before I get properly started, let me just say you can go onto that website on your handheld and vote. If you like others are voting outside this room, why don't you join them? If you can multitask, which is by the way a very bad idea, psychologists tell you you do both tasks badly if you try and text and listen at the same time. But if you'd like to go on that website and vote, we'll be able to take the temperature in the room and look at some results in a second. If that doesn't work, we'll just do a show of hands. Great, so I'm Nairie Woods and I'm Dean of the Blavatnik School of Government at Oxford University. And to debate this motion today we have four fantastic scholars and practitioners to walk us through. What's interesting about these four speakers today is every single one of them has been in that negotiating room, has been involved in global governance and can give us a sense of how things feel and whether there is a tangible change going on and what that change looks like. But they disagree, so let's get to that. Can I just say to all of you that you're part of this debate, put up your hand at any time. Don't wait for me to say, would you all like some questions one minute before the end? Put your hands up as we go, particularly if you want something clarified. Great, well I'm going to start this debate. Well, do we have any results yet on the vote? Not quite yet, so just a quick show of hands. Who thinks that a decline in US leadership will lead to weaker global governance? Quick show of hands, great. And who thinks it will lead to stronger global governance? Okay, a tiny minority. Okay, so that's really interesting. Thank you. And actually, so you're being bolder on your iPads. So 50% agree that it will lead to weaker global governance and 55% disagree. So there's people outside this room disagreeing more strongly than people in this room. I'm going to start by moving straight to Professor Joseph Nye because 20 years ago the world debated, is American hegemony declining? Or I should say American scholars debated this vigorously. Great moment of national angst. And Professor Joseph Nye, in a book which was elegant and reassuring to America, published Bound to Lead. So Joe, are you still bound to lead? Or is US hegemony declining? As it so happens there's going to be a son or daughter of bound to lead, which is coming out next month, which is entitled, Is the American Century Over? 1941 Henry Luce proclaimed the American Century. So I'm asking by 2041, what will the world look like? Most people think that China is going to replace the US. And this leads to the question of what's called hegemonic transition. So in, for example, the 1930s when the US had replaced Britain, but didn't live up to its responsibilities, the argument that some made, because that led to poor global governance and the Great Depression. Some people say something like this may be happening now as China replaces the US. I think it's wrong for two reasons. First of all, I don't think China will be more powerful than the US in 2041. We can go into that later in detail. But even more important, there's a great myth about the past in American hegemony. At best, when the Americans had the most power of all right after 1945, they couldn't control things. They couldn't prevent the Soviet Union getting an A-bomb. They couldn't prevent the communists taking over in China. In 1956, again when the Americans had enormous power, they couldn't prevent our allies, Britain and France and Israel invading Egypt. They couldn't prevent the Soviet Union from invading Hungary. So there's a myth of the past which is that somehow the Americans had control. This led to good global governance and now the Americans are losing control and so global governance will go down. I think it's wrong on two counts. One is it has a myth about the past, a golden glow of the past. And second, I don't think the Americans are going to decline that much by 2041. So those are two reasons for why I think the question is wrong. Great. Can I come to the Canadian Foreign Minister, John Baird, who's sitting right here, who's, you know, you're sitting in rooms in multilateral negotiations, whether on Libya or many different foreign policy issues. Does what Professor Nye says resonate with you or do you think does that room feel different? Is it still a kind of cozy American Canadian, you know, British and German consensus in that room or do you tangibly feel that something's changed? Well, John Howard, the former Australian Prime Minister, said that for those who want to see an American in decline, be careful what you wish for because you won't like it. You know, we want to see a strong America projecting its values and providing leadership in the world. If there is no American leadership, often there is no leadership. I just think in 2015 the world has become so much more complicated than it was even 25 years ago. You know, the power of the G7 isn't nearly as significant now that you have the BRICS. BRICS, now that you see the rise in countries which are going to take more provocative actions, you'll even look at Russia. This is being led by one man. There's no Politburo making sound decisions. It's one man trying to redraw the borders of Europe on his own from the Kremlin, so just to monster more complex. One of the negative parts about the wars in Iraq in Afghanistan is there is an increasing amount of isolation in the United States. I think we welcome President Obama's leadership on Daesh in Iraq and Syria. That's tremendously important. But for a while there, the American public and their representatives in Congress were becoming increasingly isolationists not wanting to get involved in a third major conflict in 10 years. The U.S. power is declining. Professor Nye's work tells us that the secret of U.S. power has a lot to do with soft power, not just hard power. Both hard and soft power declining in your view. When you sit in that room, do you see a U.S. which is both less willing and less able to lead? I think the United States just isn't in a position to be able to provide that leadership because after the Cold War we lost some very clear lines and with the rise of non-state actors it's just becoming more and more complex. Thank you. What about in the European Union? Minister Borske, you're the chief negotiator for the European Union and Minister for European Affairs in Turkey. So you're sitting in those rooms in Brussels a lot, one assumes. What does that room feel like? Does it still feel like the old Europe with the United Kingdom, Germany, France calling the shots and the new entry countries supplicating or are things changing? I think the 21st century has a new concept which is non-polarisation. So instead of having one country, a few countries dominating the scene, there are many more actors, dozens of actors and dozens of subjects which actually concur the day's life. Of course after the collapse of the Soviet Union when the superpower balance was broken, European Union was the potential candidate to replace Soviet Union to balance the power of the United States. But of course even though US has not lost any power, unfortunately the replacement has not occurred. To become a superpower with the wonderful ideas of Monet or Schumann, you can't become a superpower. So you're still a soft power if I may say so, while trying to act like a superpower. But you will need of course many more things to go like new economic markets, young population, military power and of course supply of energy, secure energy sources. Military doesn't have, it has individual military capacities but EU army which should have been 60,000 soldiers has not yet been formed. So from that perspective I think there should be some balances. EU still is economically one of the biggest powers but the new decision making process is too slow and it needs 28 countries to decide in some crisis situation when the decision comes the situation has changed so they have to make new decisions. But on the other hand there are many complexities in the world. Can I ask you, when Turkey is looking for some international leadership, are there any issues on which you look to the European Union rather than the United States? Normally I think we have to make an assessment when you want to draw a circle for the problems of the world, perhaps previously you put the compass to Paris or somewhere in Europe so that it covered the world problematic areas but now it has shifted more to the east. Perhaps you should put it to Turkey the compass so that when you draw the circle you can cover all the problematic areas. When this reality makes Turkey look with a different aspect not looking at the United States only, not looking at Europe only but I think the fire is in our region and I think the world must perhaps look at Turkey more than looking at other places because solving all the problems are mainly in our area and with an isolationist policy of the United States unfortunately many problems are going to be with us for many years and their leadership becomes important because the preference of leaders in the United States or in Russia or in Europe makes life more difficult or more easy or the solving of problems are still dependent on the vision of the leaders or the preference of the leaders so I think the present Obama's policies to bring back the soldiers to the United States and not allow any soldiers to go back to problematic areas is in a way losing some of the strength we had in the card game we are playing and people know that the US will not be there with the military capacity except for bombing or etc then it really widens the situation So you are definitely on the decline in the US side of this I didn't say declining power but the preference of the leadership has pulled out the United States from the problematic areas Are there any good sides to that? Well, the good sides is it might give some self-confidence to other countries in the world but I don't think there is still yet enough capacities there it starts with the UN inability to solve problems first of all the structures of the UN is for the winners of the Second World War which doesn't reflect the realities of today and unfortunately in Europe as well there is a similar system where the founders of the European Union has also made a decision-making process which is built on the largeness of the country and the population it's called Qualified Vote and countries like Germany, France, Spain, Italy has 29 votes and they can vote any decision with 91 votes so actually if you don't change these structures which are irrelevant with today's realities then we don't have the UN as a success story NATO is much dependent on the US EU is still a soft power and who's going to help the crisis situations is the question it's not the capacity of the countries but this system which has been established for other scenarios is not helping us with the new situations in the world Thank you So a weakening willingness to lead is leaving a somewhat of a vacuum there and we need more participatory institutions so that countries step up to govern better Kishomabubani, Dean of the Lee Kwon New School and for many years Singapore's ambassador to the United Nations you've sat in that Security Council room you've watched that politics play out but in recent years you've written very eloquently about the rise of Asia so what does, you know, is Asia rising and what does that mean for global governance does it mean we can look forward to a different but stronger global governance or simply an erosion of global governance Yeah, as you say, Ngai, this is a debate so let me give a very different point of view of what's been expressed so far I mean that's a deep flaw in the assumption of your question which is that stronger US leadership means stronger global governance but as you know is often the opposite in some areas the United States has strengthened global governance in many areas it's dramatically weakened it hasn't ratified the law of the sea treaty it cuts the budgets of UN organizations and so on and so forth but I think the critical question we need to understand first is what is the state of our global governance today so we know where we go from there and here the fundamental question is does the world need stronger global governance and on and as you know I maintain very strongly the world today needs stronger global governance more than ever because the world has shrunk the 7 billion people in the world no longer live in 193 separate boats or 193 separate countries they live in 193 separate cabins on the same boat we should be strengthening the overall management of the boats strengthening the overall institutions of global governance unfortunately and this is the deep flaw in the discussions so far it has sadly been western policy often led by the United States to weaken many institutions of global governance because they were seen as constraints on western power globally now in answer to your question what will the Asians do the fundamental decision that the Asian countries have to make is whether or not take China for example when China becomes number one and I think it's going to become number one sooner than many people think China is going to decide do I play the game like you do and I think China is going to decide do I play the game like the United States and keep these institutions weak so when it comes to picking the secretary general of the United Nations I don't pick the strongest possible candidate I pick the weakest possible candidate because a strong candidate is the constraint on American power will China do that or will China possibly take a wiser cause of action and say hey maybe we live in a small integrated world in which China is now the number one world trading power China has got the most to lose if international rules break down China has got the most to lose if the WTO system breaks down China has got the most to lose if international maritime routes are not kept safe by international convention so if they arrive at that wise decision maybe we'll do things differently from United States and we will work to strengthen institutions of global governance then clearly we'll have a much better world Keisha, you've been watching China closely for the last decade which way is it heading? I can tell you that there's a massive debate going on in China I go back to China every three to four months I meet people in the think tanks I meet some of the former leaders and they are going through a rather deep process of reflection of where China goes from year last year I went back to Beijing twice just to discuss one question and the one question I went back to discuss is what are the mistakes that China has made in its foreign policy in the last two, three years and why is the world more critical of China the fact that they are prepared to listen to those criticisms so that they are forming their views on where they are going but I can tell you at the end of the day I actually maintained that the best answer to where China should go was given by Bill Clinton in a speech in 2003 in Yale where he said if America assumes it's going to be number one forever then we should keep doing what we are doing the unilateral, it doesn't matter but then Bill Clinton added if we can conceive of a world where America is no longer number one then it is an America's national interest to strengthen institutions of global governance that he didn't finish the sentence which will then constrain the next great power which is China so it would be wiser for the West today to change its policy to move away from weakening institutions of global governance to strengthening them because they'll provide constraints on the emerging Asian powers But you're assuming US power is then not declining because how can a declining US power start changing rules? I think it's a very complex question and I know in the GNP terms the Chinese GNP will become larger than the United States in fact in PPP terms they became larger last year already but if you talk of comprehensive national power here I agree with Joe if you look at it comprehensively in terms of ideas in terms of soft power the kind of reach that United States has is far greater than China today Jonah I'm going to come back to you because your starting proposition that the US is not declining in hegemony is countered by these panellists who say the US, it's not actually a question of power it's a willingness the US is becoming more isolationist what do you think, is it? I think isolation is the wrong term there are cycles in American policy of assertiveness and retrenchment I would say we are going through a period of retrenchment in the aftermath of Iraq but it's a mistake to see that as a withdrawal into isolation for example when the headings carried out by the Islamic State or Daish occurred it's interesting to see the change in the public opinion polls in the United States for people who say don't get involved, to get involved it flipped so don't take polls too seriously they vary and as for this question of whether we are withdrawing American troops there are 50,000 American troops 28,000 in Korea 68,000 in Europe where the withdrawal is occurring is in Iraq and Afghanistan frankly I think that's good I think the idea that you can go into societies which are going through their own revolutions their own social mobilisation and try to control them is a 19th century imperial idea I think it was a huge American mistake to try to get involved in Iraq and to govern Iraq I think if you go back to Eisenhower which was a period of retrenchment Eisenhower was no isolationist he'd been supreme commander in Europe but when the French said would you come into Vietnam and help us at Yen Bion Fou he said no those jungles will swallow up our troops by the divisions I think what you're seeing is not a withdrawal but a more effective selection of when it makes sense to use troops troops can be used for containment for balancing power for particular purposes the idea that in the 21st century an external power will reorganise another country nation building or whatever you call it I think is passe I don't like the term soft power I like the term smart power Hillary Clinton would speak to that often and you do see the United States still be able to to when it makes a decision to tackle a difficult problem you look at the World Health Organization struggled with Ebola it was only when President Obama and the Americans stepped up to the plate and got strong leadership brought leadership to the table and brought France the United Kingdom, Canada, the European Union and others to combat that problem we were sitting around a table at the General Assembly among the seven foreign ministers worried about would you see 100,000 people with Ebola and even more than that in 2015 but because of that leadership things happen very very quickly we've also had to though with the UN struggles with these as my Turkish counterpart says just resembled what the world looked like in 1945 the United States has been able to when it comes to putting sanctions on Russia build a real partnership with EU European Union is a powerful force for good when it comes to tackling sanctions on Syria been able to work with the Arab League which has stepped up to the plate you look in Asia as the end is becoming a counterbalance to China and the Americans are obviously very active at the era but this is still a world view where you know that says the world needs a sheriff the sheriff is American and America is stepping out for a tea break at the moment right what about the question of as the US steps out are other countries stepping up because the risk for US power is that if when the US retrench others step up and that gap in governance gets filled is that's what happening Minister Bosker I think we have to we have to agree on several points one is US is the only superpower for the time being and the military might perhaps is superior to any other country in the world but US has preferred to isolate itself I don't agree with Professor Nye we don't need US in Europe we don't need soldiers in Europe or in Korea or Japan it is I think waste of the military power but we need US in Iraq perhaps or in Syria or in where we have to fight against terrorism terrorism is something which hits from time to time and if it is not treated in the beginning stage with a aspirin treatment you need antibiotics and then you need chemotherapy so unfortunately the American people it's very difficult to convince the American people that losing lives soldier lives elsewhere than the United States is difficult because the satans Saddam Hussein the Libya leader Osama bin Laden is away and the American people will not give permission to the leadership to send troops above but then we will face a situation where something like the 9-11 will happen again and then US will come out before having that kind of a situation we need the United States with us in order to handle the problems soft power is for good days let me put the question more sharply to you is that Turkey is the center of this geopolitical crisis that we've got and that it's Turkey that needs to lead will Turkey lead can Turkey lead if the sheriff's out for tea can Turkey be one of a group of volunteer sheriffs that steps up to the plate I said Turkey's experience and points should be listened because we are in that world and it is the only politically and economically stable country in 12 years while in Ukraine there's a problem there's a problem Iraq, Iran, Syria, the Arab Spring and problem is around so we accumulated a lot of experience so it is very difficult to handle these problems by looking from Washington or from somewhere in Europe but we have to be the part of the problem and a country to be listened to that is what I said but of course the capacity of Turkey is not enough to handle all these but we need a superpower with us here it's not just bombing several points smart power makes that possible but smart power cannot replace the military presence the troops on the land without troops on the land we can go nowhere I want to come to the other participants in this debate and put to you the question the one thing that our panellists do seem to agree on is that you need stronger global governance what they disagree on is how you might get to stronger global governance does it mean bringing the US back from tea break does it mean more participation from emerging economies does it mean watching China step into this space and lead what do you think a stronger global governance needs and do tell us your name I'm the director of the European Academy of Diplomacy in Warsaw, Poland I think we all bring our bias perspective and I'll try to bring a more central European perspective in here and I think one that China is not ready to take on leadership and has no experience in doing so it has traditionally thought about playing a barbarian against the barbarian and I think that we will need a lot of time to see that happening but coming back to the main question I think we need more of the United States than less to have a strong global governance what's happening today in Ukraine is because direct consequence of the fact that there is less of the United States in Europe than there is more in situations when you see a sharp decline of power of a superpower the powers that want to become future powers of course testing how far they can go and Ukraine is that test and I think the United States has a lot to offer because Central Europe is a success story we look for success stories we'll look what is happening in Central Europe and this is the projection of EU let me put your point, that's a great point let me put it to Jean-Marie Guahen who's willing to make a comment but more you sit right at the heart of the UN do you need more US leadership for stronger governance or not or is there an alternative I think the word leadership is a dangerous word you certainly need a lot of US engagement and the world will be a less safe place if the US withdraws but engagement is different from leadership today no country can set the agenda for the whole world it's a diffusion of power and global governance will be much more effective in my view if it's diffused but let's remember Professor Nye said the United States never could set the agenda for the whole world let's not overstate what it could do in the past or do you disagree with that there were a few friendly unipolar moment the greatest one was 1945 and actually that was an enlightened unipolar moment it's quite extraordinary that the US at a time when it was without any contest the only superpower monopoly on nuclear nuclear weapons creditor of the whole world half of the world GDP decided to support the creation of the United Nations that's a great moment of US enlightenment what I would like to add to the debate is the role of regional organizations and it would be interesting to hear from the panelists what they think about it because sometimes when I was at the UN I had a feeling sometimes that you download problems on regional organization that are not really ready to pick up the pieces and where the regional rivalry sometimes play in a less visible way maybe that at the UN but very strongly and in the case of Asia which is particularly important where they are traditional state to state rivalries there is no overarching regional Asian organization there is Asia of course there is ASEAN it would be interesting to see for instance on the one of the big strategic issues of Asia the contest over maritime spaces the South China Sea would the participants see a greater role now being played by by the ASEAN would China be willing to go that way or not is it dead end should it be done at a more global level this balance between the regional and the global is something that is going to play out and need to be looked at so there is a sort of alternative here in the offing and nowhere perhaps is it clearer than in Asia China has created five different development organizations it has worked with the other BRICS countries to create a new BRICS bank and a new contingent reserve arrangement ASEAN 2020 is a big project this is your turf and are you optimistic that this new regional governance which we are seeing in other regions we are seeing the African regional organizations work much more strongly right across the world each regional development bank now lends far more than the world bank so we are seeing this strengthening in regions is that an alternative global governance yes indeed let me quickly agree with Jean-Marie on the point what the world needs now is not more US leadership but more US engagement engagement is very different from leadership engagement means you listen to what others want and you work with the others and that would be great to receive in the United States now on East Asia as you know there is an enormous amount of misunderstanding about what is happening in East Asia I was in Davos in January 2014 I took several bets of people here who were predicting war within China and Japan I said there will be no war I gave them 10 to 1 odds and I won all my bets in January 2015 the question is why was there no war and the answer is that to put it simply is that a certain kind of regional ecosystem is developing in East Asia and that's the good news and the center of this ecosystem fortunately is ASEAN because ASEAN is trusted by all the great powers in the region ASEAN is trusted because it is weak and not a threat and ASEAN is the only organization that brings together the United States Russia, China Japan, India, EU everyone to talk together so that may be a kind of way of ensuring that even though you may not be able to fix the global governance at the top level try and improve it at the regional level but your point about the development banks it's very important to emphasize that China's move towards something like the ASEAN investment infrastructure bank AIIB is a second choice China actually wanted to work with the IMF and as you know the problem is that China's voting share in the IMF is less than Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium combined now the G20 have agreed to increase China's share in the IMF and the United States Congress has held it up for several years now if you block the door for China to participate in these larger global organizations then it has no choice but to create alternatives that takes our argument a step further it says not only are we seeing regional organizations but actually those regional organizations might help strengthen the international organizations because when China, Brazil, Russia, India go to organizations like the IMF and World Bank and say please give us more votes that's not a good negotiating position you need plan B and when plan B is if you don't we're going to create our own organizations they have found they get more of a response what do you think Joe is this regional world which is a bit more competitive there's a little bit more tension but is it going to result in better international institutions? I actually think it's a good thing to have more regional organizations including regional development banks there's enough need for capital there's plenty of room for the banks both at the regional and at the Bretton Woods level I think that's a mistake I don't have to defend everything the US does but let me between the US Congress and the administration and the administration has supported it but let me go back to something Keyshore said we agree on a lot of things but on something I disagree with him he's rather a romanticized view of China and ASEAN if you take key shores view and you ask is that the view in Hanoi where there was a dispute over an oil rig in waters that are claimed by Vietnam or if you ask in Manila when Chinese patrol boats blocked off Philippine fishing boats from Scarborough reef which is within what the Philippines think is their exclusive economic zone and when Yang Jishu a Chinese Foreign Minister at the time spoke to the ASEAN group in Hanoi and said we are a big country and you are small countries and that's just a fact this idealized view that Keyshore gives you with China the leader it's not the way it's seen you go to India where I was a week ago you go to Hanoi you go to Manila you go to Tokyo the view of China is quite different they see China as a potential threat they want to have good relations with both US and China they don't want to be prisoners of Chinese power and that's why American troops in Korea and in Japan are very welcome they're so welcome that the Japanese actually pay for having American troops in Japan but Joe they don't want to be prisoners to Chinese power but for a lot of countries the rise of China has liberated them from being prisoners to US power not in the sense that they've turned their back on the United States but they're now in a much stronger position if you want to give our country development assistance or help fine but we've got China as well we can make a choice I think that's good and people who worry about China locking up resources of Africa this is nonsense Africans have their own views their own independence and if you have a rise in commodity prices which China's growth has produced it's good for everybody can I quickly agree with Joe oh he's sure uncharacteristically unprovocative no no no you're right China made a mistake with the oil rig in Vietnam China made a mistake with the naval patrols of Philippines China made a mistake with the young judge's statement and the question is did they learn from the mistakes let's hope I think we have to separate two things one is potentials and non-military threats we are facing and the threats the world is facing so one basket when we're talking about potentials or some non-military threats like the nuclear proliferation or global warming increasing the welfare of people I think absolutely it is necessary that we have regional development regional cooperation there and they are doing fine I say on Latin American cooperation African cooperation whatever it is Islamic cooperation these are really functioning well helping to develop the the welfare of people and bringing countries and regions together that's okay but when we talk about threats there we need deterrancy and the deterrancy is established by military power and there are threats there I mean when you are dealing with threats as UN is is an unsuccessful story because of its structures perhaps we have to repair the UN but there is an important factor which is Russia Russia has to be correctly read Russia is a country which plays politics and diplomacy like a chess game and they play the chess game in order to make you play the Russian roulette so what has to be very good not to mix a metaphor so I think we have fought with Russia for 300 years and we are now having our best relations ever what we have done is with opportunities we took out Russia from the corner while the western world is now trying to push Russia into the corner and they are trying to prove that they are still a country a big country and they are still trying to recuperate the lost empire they have so I think sanctions work nowhere sanctions have not proved any results not in Libya, not in Iraq, not in Iran not in Syria for Russia sanctions will not work if it was possible to lower down the oil prices in the sanctions list why are we imposing sanctions to Russia so part of your argument is in a crisis you need someone to lead the response and that's where we need a hegemon can I come back to minister Baird for a moment because Joe and I said to us that we are seeing a period of US retrenchment so if we look at the crisis in the Middle East the problem the US has retrenched somewhat but has not lost power but in your view is that right or has the United States lost one important part of its smart power which is support for some of its values because some in the region would say that since Iraq what the United States has lost in the region is the support of all those who sort of trusted the US as an ally I think that's the last comment is a fair point certainly in 2013 was a period of retrenchment particularly in the region but if you look at the coalition that's been established with more than 60 countries to tackle Daesh in Iraq and Syria that's significant the challenge is is that what can be done with US power to prevent some of these problems we don't have the same trip wires for example that we did we might have had in the past in the cold war I mean Russia's invasion of an annexation of Crimea there's material and active support for the rebels in eastern Ukraine they're acting with impunity US, Canada have tried to work with the European Union to to send clear and strong message that this type of behavior is unacceptable but nonetheless Putin continues unthreatened so back to the initial question has the US lost some of its ability to marshal willing coalitions to get allies to do certain things for example in the Middle East I think the reality is the United States just doesn't have the power that it did maybe at the end of the second world war the world is much bigger, much more complex the rise of China the rise of the BRICS countries the fact that the G7, G8 isn't the preeminent organization that it might have been even 25 years ago the fact that you know the rise of the EU is another powerful force for good I think Asien has been a stabilizing force in Asia now I was interested in your opening remark you said actually yes US power is declining and this is not good because we need leadership but canadian foreign policy has for a long time argued not without a modicum of self-interest for the role of middle powers for an alternative view of global governance in which middle powers play this important role and canadas also tried to broker and support some of these alternative regional arrangements those were probably comments by the previous Canadian government we want to see strong American leadership we want to see the values that the United States represents being projected in the world is that so canada can retrench even more not at all no fully engaged beside the United States standing with the United States standing with our European friends and allies what's going on in Iraq right now we're standing with our Arab allies to tackle this barbaric form of international terrorism just the world is so much more complex and the United States well big and powerful there's been a rise of a lot more a lot more state actors and non-state actors can I agree with that just quickly which is I think the world has gotten more complex and that means we're going to have to develop networks and institutions the wide variety of areas to get global governance my point is that not the the US is the only country to do this it can't be it has to actually work with others but if the largest country doesn't participate those networks don't get done so there's a big difference between for example saying that we're going to be smart and not trying to reorganize Iraq from inside and organizing the coalition to deal with Daesh isn't that a bit problematic we say networks etc but coalitions of the willing getting like minded groups of states to clump together doesn't that polarize the world even more doesn't that make it even more difficult both to recognize some of the positive constructive moves Russia is making in foreign policy outside of Ukraine and to have a discussion about what to do next well not necessarily it depends on the issue if you take somebody mentioned I think Mr Baird mentioned Ebola the role of the CDC the American Health Organization was absolutely crucial WHO is important WHO tends to be sometimes a bit paralyzed I would argue the real hero on the response to Ebola was a non-governmental organization that is on some frontier but quickly behind that the US did the most to provide resources and organized coalition so we're going to see mixed coalitions non-profits private organizations governments but if the largest government doesn't participate it's a lot harder for the other governments but how can we stop this instinct not just on the part of the United States but also Europe and others to form these coalitions of the willing they get to a problem in trade negotiations they say well let's just a group of us that see the world in the same way why don't we just move ahead doesn't that make it more difficult to do what global governance should do which is bring together countries that really disagree with multilateralism yes if it's open so that when others want to join you allow it then it may be a way to actually move forward let me make a very important factual point about Ebola there's a wonderful book written on the world health organization by a scholar based in Canada her name is Kelly Lee and she documents that with great detail how the west has actually emasculated the world health organization by squeezing its budgets 30 years ago three quarters of the world health organization budget came from regular SS contributions 25% came from voluntary contributions 30 years later it's the exact opposite 25% comes from regular SS contribution 75% comes from voluntary contribution you cannot build a long term organization to take care of global health on the basis of voluntary contribution which came changing year after year that's an example of a mistake made by the west in undermining a world health organization on this coalitions of the willing if I might because you're someone that has argued at times for coalitions of the willing but now you've got this vision of a boat and we're all on that boat and you can't have coalitions on that boat at war with one another or the boat's going to sink so what's changed your view well I actually think you know the story of my life is that I spent 33 years as a diplomat and as an academic I realized that in the real world fixing things is much harder and so my answer to this is that frankly messy multilateral solutions are better than unilateral solutions and it's good to get the largest number of actors possible in a messy multilateral solution because each person who comes into the multilateral negotiations and I haven't been an ambassador to UN for 12 years I saw that when countries are at the table they make a difference and actually the thing that's surprising about multilateralism is that the power of an argument actually carries weight in multilateral discussions Thank you I'd like to come to members of the audience who are from the Middle East Jamil you're in my sights others because very sadly today we were supposed to be joined by Prince Turkey in Saudi Arabia as you are all aware His Majesty King Abdullah passed away yesterday so Prince Turkey could not be with us and did ask us to think about the extraordinary steps that King Abdullah took to try to bring negotiation and peace in his region and beyond he's not here but I'd really like a perspective from that region about where you think global governance is or should be heading I was fingering Jamil unfairly because I know he has links to the region but do you have a comment to make for us? Sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a bad way and the way I used to see things is that we have to go back and look at the problem what is the real problem but once you do this you get lost so maybe it's better to have a short-term solution and try to fix things the way but you have to have two groups of people thinking people are thinking where did the problem come from and the other groups would say how do we fix the problem because it's complicated and it's getting worse But is there an instinct in the region that we need to get US out of retrenchments off tea break? No, so tell us about what the alternative is seen as No, you need the US because there are obviously the strongest group and they have a wide vision about the issue but the problem with the US is that there is a lot of controversies and a lot of people don't like the US for the wrong reasons so it's mixed, I mean the Canadians are very helpful the British are very helpful the French, I mean Europe you have to look at this whole thing as a general issue but you have to have different group of people thinking I always go back to this film on Apollo when Apollo was coming back and it got hit by a meteorite and the people on Apollo couldn't fix it so they got some group on the ground to examine the situation and there were the ones who fixed the problems not the people who were on the Apollo and here it's a bit the same thing and there's enough of us to help each other we can get this done It takes a long time So there's a strong message coming out of those last two comments about strengthening global institutions strengthening the conversation across countries you've got a comment, yep but do reduce yourself Thank you, Antoni Péci from the Institute for Security Studies we focus on African issues A fascinating discussion, I like the comment about Macy multilateralism, I think that's true you will see increasing regional engagement you will see coalitions of the willing you will see multistakeholders and I think that's natural but at the level of global norms that have developed over the past 60 years very important ones around human rights around sustainable development I think what you'll see there is that the multi polarity and the complexity of geopolitics is going to affect that in potentially very damaging ways and that's where we're going to need global leadership at the multilateral level I'll ask our panellists in a minute I'm giving them a little warning to be fair just for the one thing that they think is the highest priority for strengthening global governance it's going to be a sort of five words or less kind of impossible task they're brilliant so they're up to it but the one thing of the many obviously there are lots of things that have to happen but what's the one that each of you would give priority to because it seems to me there is a consensus that we need more global governance at least on certain things and that we are in a period of flux and change rising powers, different kinds of problems more complexity US retrenchment so what's the one thing that they would put and before just to give them 30 seconds to think of how they can put a huge thought into five words let me take a couple more comments from the audience so yes microphone hi my name's Gronville Byford I'm a writer we Democrats believe that governance depends upon the consent and the participation of the governed hegemony does not and I'd like to suggest that we won't develop global governance for as long as the United States my country behaves as a hegemon and I'd like to make one further comment which I suspect Joe will agree with is hegemony is a behaviour having power merely permits you to behave as a hegemon it doesn't oblige you to do so thank you very much I'm going to let our panellists just not for the world but from your brain give us a little reflection of now where you got to John what's the one thing that you think is most important I think the one challenge in global governance is that people bring forward each actor brings forward such different values and has such different motivations that's the big challenge so what's the way to get to the better leadership that you asked for at the beginning if I had that answer I would be trying to look at the Nobel Peace Prize I think you are under a stronger US engagement isn't it? American engagement is tremendously important but when we look at trying to tackle the situation in Ukraine that was discussed earlier I mean what is the motivation that each actor brings to the table to try to resolve that we bring that it's unacceptable for one country through brute military force to invade and annex another obviously other countries take a very different view because their values and their motives what is Russia's motive with respect to they're blocking any meaningful action of security council Assad is a key ally they have intelligence listening posts they have their naval base they're only strong ally in the region so it's hard when the world is so conflicted by people different things at the table Your answer isn't really stronger US leadership is it? My answer which I tried to put across in my book the great convergence is that 12% of the world's population lives in the west 88% of the world's population lives outside the west if you want to have strong institutions of global governance you got to ensure that the 88% voice of the 88% is heard loudly and clearly because in security council where 12% of the population has 60% of the vetoes in UN security council not in the IMF where 12% of the world's population has 51% of the vote in IMF this western domination of global institutions has to give way to a greater sharing of power and that will lead to stronger global institutions Joe is your view that for that to happen you need the US to be setting the rules I think the US has to be part of it that I've always believed that US hegemony is a myth is what I argue in my new book and therefore the problem is how do you get an ability to see that we need a wide portfolio of organizations we need the UN the rules of the charter of 1945 are essential and that is why we have sanctions against Russia because breaking those rules that you shouldn't steal your neighbors territory by force must be seen to be expensive but the UN isn't going to solve other things I agree with Keashore we should have put more resources into the WHO but if you look at the WHO even in the best of times heavily bureaucratic many UN organizations are what we need is a mix we need the UN extremely important for legitimacy we need regional organizations we need a new we need informal agenda setting organizations such as the group of 20 and we need a lot more new organizations which are mixtures in which we bring the new transnational non-state actors into effective networks in the internet area or cyber area now we're talking about multi-stakeholderism and we're going to have to think about ways to do this so to my mind the right way to go about better global is get away from the image of one top-down US, Chinese or any other led organization and to see a portfolio of organizations but within that the largest states have to help organize and take the lead in getting the organization but your inherent reasonableness allows us all into a sense that's a comfortable world shifting to this but there's a lot of tensions in that it's not going to persuade the people who are lapping the heads off hostages in Syria right now Minister Boske I think we have four challenges for the global governance today one is of course leadership and I fully agree with Professor's answer to that we don't have to be dependent on only one source but having US as the principle source but having some important elements around the United States and increase the capacities of organizations like the UN but also efficiency is important because to mobilize resources and bring it to the benefit of people is important coherence is important there are many organizations who are competent in different issues but we have to bring together the success stories but can I point last point is legitimacy we have to really make sure that the same terminology used for all the issues and all the regions if we have different views of democracy implemented in one part of the world like this and on the other part of the world differently then we go nowhere if there is democracy, human rights respect to rule of law it should be implemented for every country if there is a coup d'etat in a country we have to object that if there is a something wrong in this country we have to object that also but there should be non-polarization between religions ethnic groups and regions so if we can manage that then most of the problem will disappear Great I was going to ask you but we don't have time so you're in the middle of a crisis in the end do you think for Turkey and the region the crisis that it sits in the middle of do you want the US back or not for fighting against terrorism we need the US back 30 seconds transparency, education people thinking along the lines can we come right back to the proposition we started with and I want you to re-vote just to see if anyone changed their mind as a result of hearing from these four fabulous experts so they've actually agreed on certain things and not agreed on certain things they've given you arguments for and against the idea that US leadership is in decline and they've given you arguments for and against the idea that that decline could lead to stronger global governance where are your heads now would you like to vote let's do it by hands you can do it on the technologically as well but show of hands who thinks at the end of this debate that a decline in US leadership will lead to weaker global governance actually I'm going to break that into two sorry to the weff first who thinks there is a decline in US leadership hands up so it's only about half the room okay second vote will a decline in US leadership lead to weaker global governance those of you who don't think it's declining have to imagine that it is at this point right so who thinks global governance is becoming weaker because of a decline in the US yeah so it's it's sort of half the room I think it's fair to say that that means that our debaters have done fantastically well because we confuse everybody their arguments including ourselves their arguments have been eloquently 50-50 and your votes are elegantly 50-50 can I ask you to join me in thanking Minister Baird from Canada Dean Kishore Mabubani from Singapore Joseph Nye from Harvard University and Minister Boske from Turkey can we thank them good well I enjoyed your comments nice