 exceptions about how to balance the economy to make it work better for a wider degree of people I don't know what how to summarize that in one word but one word one of the others the one word answer I would say technology and all the discrepancies that is creating technology force for good or or or ill for good good for good we all grays good I would say you have to look at both sides of the coin yeah right agreed because technology is propelling globalization and we're talking about some of the negative aspects of the global vision too but think of the health aspect I mean technology can can alter health if you're thinking technology in countries where you're not having a medical how do you say this you know you're not not enough doctors available right you can use technology a lot and enable people we've seen that the village doctors and all these things so I think pre diagnostic of illnesses so I think technology in its good and it's not I don't think it's the economic side only I think it's the ability of technology if it's deployed for the good side that can do a lot of change I was struck by what Tim Cook said recently the CEO of Apple of course that he thinks Apple's future is in health so those watches that sort of measure your heartbeat so don't be shy please and introduce yourself I'm advocating for farmers from India and the poor's the developing world you're talking about globalization we're talking about WTO where does agriculture fit in because normally when you have trade disputes like between China and America you're talking about a trade deficits and things like that but when you look at agriculture you're talking about livelihoods and I would want to see that how how where where do we see in the next 10 20 years or how agriculture is going to be impacted with this globalization because millions and millions of people are impacted because of how WTO was signed and how it's got very grave implications in fact many farmers in the developing world actually chaired the US president when he said he's walking out of WTO who wants to address this Ricky you want to give it a try that's why I use the word rebalancing before is I think we're going to have a kind of a rebalancing of priorities in domestic policy but it'll affect trade as well and one of them is in this area you know for 10 years 10 15 years people try to get a very liberal approach to our cultural trade done in negotiations and that never succeeded and I do think that things have shifted and people recognize that we need to rebalance a bit and understand the livelihoods question that you're talking about and that we need to have a bit more of a flexible and hybrid approach to allow countries to maintain rural livelihoods while not you know unduly discriminating and shutting off their markets so we need to find a better balance in that regard you know in in the US I think something like 5% of the population of produce all the food for the people in China it used to be 20 30 years ago it used to be 95% producing for 100% today I think it's it's only about 15% and all of that is because of technology and all of that because of globalization so I think with globalization if it is allowed to flourish without without the pollution of politics and geopolitics and so on a lot of good things can happen in the agricultural sector as an example you know there are so many direct flights from Thailand to Israel and it is not without any reason it's all this agricultural technology and that's why Thailand has become you know it is a great this agricultural this country on the other hand I come from Indonesia they would not allow to have even one flight to Israel they would not even allow Indonesians to go to Israel so you you miss out I saw this I'm using extremes so I think the right kind of globalized globalization should allow benefits to flow through the agricultural sector yeah and the point is you know there are never ever any agreements which last forever in Bay are right forever so to us for a level playing field is not wrong the US as we want to have a level playing field in certain areas that's true but other countries should ask the same it's not you know the agreements are fitting to a certain purpose of course you know then we started the emerging countries in a should gain more China is not any longer emerging country should not be treated as an emerging country you know that that is changing and therefore we need a discussion about that how we rebalance certain things and that's a completely legitimate a question to raise you know I'm not saying you know all the agreements we did 20 years ago 15 years ago what is right forever the question right here in in front on the on the couch hi Alexander Stubb I'm the former Prime Minister of Finland currently with the European Investment Bank given that Matt did multiple choice question if you'd allow me go for two true or false hypothesis the first one is do you think that the notion of multilateral trade agreements alla WTO are dead and given that there is a clear power vacuum emerging with the withdrawal of the US from the trading nations the lead is going to be taken by the European Union through bilateral trade agreements so do you think the EU will be the trend setter and the regulator through bilateral trade agreements question number one question number two by necessity do you think that the next level of cooperation between the United States and the European Union is actually going to be in the realm of the digital revolution because of the way in which these two continents think about artificial intelligence and about privacy which is really the opposite way in which things I looked upon in China so my question is do you think that the EU and the US will forge a merger on digitalization against China and then the other one was and final point Matt you mentioned health Apple is a little bit out of it I'm wearing a Finnish ring called aura which actually measures all of my vital signs in real time and has a map that goes through my pulse right now it's quite low 46 so we're doing okay I'm not an Apple shareholders I just said this okay I like quizzes who wants to start eat you know why I have a clear preference that be a real reinvent WTO multilateral but if that doesn't work then it's better to do bilaterals instead of doing nothing so that would be my answer on the first subject of the second point was again yeah I think you know we have so much in common and the US and Europe and I think we should strive to have one alignment how we deal with data and how we protect privacy of individuals and you know just because we are on the short in some conflicts doesn't mean that we should not strive for getting a line on the long run let me say I think things started bilateral and it is expanded to multilateral but I think it's going to be combination while it seems that from the US and China there seems to be some breakdown but other discussions and negotiations continue not I think from a business perspective also we see that things before used to be so simple just bilateral it has become multilateral but it's a combination of all that so I would say that it will be a much more dynamic system on the second issue this on the technology digital side it's all coming to you know the the competitions on the 5G there's gonna there's gonna impact life it's gonna be impact the infrastructure for everything that happens over the next you know 2030 40 50 years and it the reality is it is starting to polarize with developing countries going maybe more you you and the US and then the developing countries into Huawei so I think it the reality is like slightly different way of asking you is the future clash between China and Europe slash the US a military clash a trade clash or a technological rules clash you should I don't just duck out this question either so this too I think I think there are elements of all that we're gonna see and that this is gonna be the art of of statesmanship to manage this will because we're so interdependent that to manage this in a clumsy way will be in everyone's will do harm to everyone but on the WTO question I think the WTO survival it depends on the WTO being able to embrace a more variable geometry than it's traditional everybody's got a sign on the dotted line right now the rules in the WTO are not very hospitable or groups of countries even large groups of countries to negotiate something as a forward group that then the rest of the organization can exceed to later on that that needs to change and then the second part is even in a more variable geometry world there's still a really crucial role for the WTO the multilateral system there are currently 400 preferential trade agreements usually regional trade agreements there are 3,000 plus investment treaties in the world it's such a maze of different rules that companies operating globally let alone small businesses that are trying to export into different markets have to navigate nobody but the WTO could do a better job than beginning to stitch together better coherence among this patchwork quilt and that's a future way for the WTO to renew and refresh its utility in the world last thing very quickly on the digital in the data EU US actually I think tomorrow we're gonna hear from the Japanese Prime Minister on his agenda for the G20 this year and I believe you will hear a significant new emphasis in this area so I don't I think the EU and the US can provide leadership but I suspect it will not only come from those two and I would I would look for a larger coalition moving maybe let by the Japanese we'll see maybe if you allow I would like to follow up on James if James hypothesis arrived that we get to four 5g networks I don't I don't know how we should run a global company any longer you know because one one Campbell say you have to operate on that network and the other one and then how we exchange information you know I you know I can't imagine if that really happens you know I don't know how we should ship any of the high-tech products from China to the US and vice versa with you know how should we manage the data you know it's the data center then in China different or do we have to bring everything and I you know and that is a real problem we have that already with data yeah more and more countries are demanding that the data is only kept in the respective countries and that is already a massive problem to manage you know we still deal with that but if that really if a technology is separated between two parts of the world I have no imagination currently how we should run the global business actually you take on the true or false challenge I think it's it's difficult to add because I agree the the WTO I think that would be the frame that that we would all wish sort of stepping up push back and outstub and and put you in the spot for a minute why do you think because you that's a true or false question about the US and the EU coming together but on current evidence there on antitrust and taxation on data privacy if anything they're diverging you're not you're now seeing the backlash to technology in the US that happened in Europe a lot earlier but why do you and that what I read to be the presumption of a question that there are destined to come together why are you so sure of that because on current evidence that doesn't seem so obvious to me just get the yeah the mic back here again I think the starting point is linked to a belief in the individual and in privacy if you look at the way in which people in Europe and even the United States reacted to the revelations on Cambridge Analytica and Facebook using the data if you look at a lot of the legislation norms and discussions that are right now linked to privacy in general both sides of the Atlantic they're actually pretty close to each other yes you're seeing a lot of competition policy being quite aggressive or antitrust is calling the US against some of the tech giants in the US but a lot of the tech giants are actually right now adapting themselves to the for instance general data protection directive and they're doing it not for Florence 19 Gale type of stuff they're doing it because of competition and necessity on the other side you have China which has a completely different approach I would argue to the individual and the notion of community and privacy I'm not saying it's wrong or right but it's very different what we're seeing now with some of the technological applications determining your social status whether it's through Alipay or others you would never ever see that in the United States or in Europe so by necessity and by default I think we will iron out some of the differences between the US and the EU and to a certain extent I'm simplifying gang up against the Chinese so at the end of the day it's going to be some of the US based tech giants from Facebook to Twitter to Amazon going against Tencent Alibaba and others and this will be the big sort of technological battle and I'm sure you will then see the Western world simplified going a little bit against China and but that's why I really liked your point on not having two different 5G networks because this could be a defining moment as well I'm of course exaggerating but this would be my case and for the same reason I think if the US and the EU gang up together it will be a very hard fight because you've got different set of values in terms of privacy and data and so on in China versus in the Western world. Final point on this you know I've wrote a Financial Times column a while back slightly provocatively for China Europe is the new Africa and my argument was that if you looked at a lot of the acquisitions by Chinese companies either known or unknown linked to for instance intellectual property and otherwise Europeans just let it go we didn't have a SIFI is dealing with this and now you're starting to see a lot of the regulators whether they're French or otherwise starting to say that hey you know Eggstron could have gone through the fingers this would not have been a very good thing so we're gonna start seeing European regulators getting a little bit more aggressive I think on this interesting enough yeah interesting sort of political turn and maybe it's a funny way that I think Europeans would never admit it but that's sort of the Trump's sort of China bearish policy has seems to be rubbing off on Europe but putting you Frank on the spot you'd say in that if the future with 5G that's China would be a separate entity and would be opting out of globalization arguably or making it difficult but aren't we in digital terms already there I mean China has its own digital ecosystem it's got its own champions mostly American giants can't really do business there isn't it already there in a way but that that's different because that's so far more consumer business anyway and they you know that we have it in many and retail if you look into the classical retail you know there are many different companies around the world as well the point is if you really start connecting the dots what how you deal with data and how you deal with information exchange and I think we need a new agreement globally with an umbrella in every country has its own right to interpret what is an additional applicable in the respective country you know because we have not everywhere the same government rules and that's the decision of these citizens of a respective country so we need to find an agreement you know how we deal with that exchange in an environment that we have different governments it's reality and you know we have no right to say as Western everything has to be a democracy that's you know we can't do that we can strive for that we defend our democracy as Western countries and we should that's the reason why the US should be very well aligned with Europe but we can't rule the world somehow with that so we need an idea how we align with different systems that we can still work together should we bring digital into the conversation about trade more aggressively in a sense I mean and bringing kind of that we will need a set of or presumably you will need a set of common lowest common denominator perhaps but some common digital rules to make it and WTO might be a place I don't know how realistic that is you know how how how would that look even yeah so there's 72 countries now that have agreed to begin discussing e-commerce in the WTO we don't know where that's gonna head but it's an important step forward the trick with the e-commerce is that there are a lot of enabling environment issues that are not likely to be something you can have a harmonized global treaty about they're more about you know digital payment systems or digital documentation or logistics facilitating logistics or a range of things where it's where you really need a public-private dialogue and you need some best practice frameworks but probably the WTO will handle the principles part of it kind of a basic level of trade principles if you will that's one part of it the second part is what you just mentioned on the data side it seems to me I completely agree with your framework China has a big interest because it is not simply those large companies are not selling them but simply domestically they are global firms and they have keen equities and large equities and expanding internationally just as Western firms have a big interest in maintaining and expanding production in China so there's a built-in I think common interest in coming up with a kind of framework that you just talked about which is can we define certain classes of data which ought to be allowed universally to move because they're commercial they're non-personal or they're anonymized personal data that enables big data services that benefit society and then as you suggest presumably there will be areas of policy that will differ by country because of their different cultural norms or different policy preferences that you have to allow for that kind of flexibility but coming to at least that type of a two-tier or maybe more than two-tier arrangement of identifying a common set of different classes of data that can allow the world economy to be interoperable and operate increasingly as digital plays more of a role in data underlies much of the value chain that activity that's going that's essential and I think that's as you suggest it's got to be a high priority for for the way we think about globalization and trade policy going forward anyone want to weigh in on this digital point or or something related to it okay I want to in the time remaining and a few minutes we have left one thing I was struck that you my my little quiz question on which force is really going to change the world let me mention kind of climate change that you hear about all the time and and the curiousness here here's why why how should we be thinking about kind of climate and the future of the world certainly but even the future of sort of globalization it has impacts on migration flows it is shifting where we're gonna get our resources it's certainly shifting what kind of resources we will consume so this is more of a it's not a one word answer I wonder if it's someone would want to tackle this one you may or may I start so so I think the Paris agreement was a breakthrough everything for the world you know now the job is somehow to execute that and business have to do their own job we have committed ourselves two years ago to really be carbon-free not carbon neutral carbon-free by 2050 despite that we are flying a lot of airplanes we are generating now the demand we have our own electric vans developed which are already 9,000 on this on the street so I think that's not a fundamental problem I'm from education a chemist so carbon dioxide and water is the base for you know or any nature you know plans are doing that on a big scale every day on a mega scale so you can reverse that problem if you find the right technology and I'm very optimistic that we will find right technology to cope with that problem the problem is more the short end what happens to islands what happens to coast areas what happens to changes in climate short-term the fundamental I believe I have is that this is fixable because the plants are doing that on mega scale scale every day with carbon dioxide and water so that is not an unsolvable problem it needs commitment from the governments which we have not needs commitments from the business to generate demand and then you'll find the right technologies to sort it if there's no way I mean I think you put your finger on a really important new phase of global economic integration and policy the Paris agreement in order for it to succeed we have to think beyond it and build upon it as the Paris agreement basically says countries set your targets and let's measure in and talk about them and but what the action has to happen in the economy and you don't need a multilateral agreement to try to tackle emissions reductions where they are most important in the most important countries in the most important industrial sectors and the new way this is where trade comes in a new kind of trade alliance would identify clusters of key firms and key sectors that emit that agree to remove the competitive disadvantage argument by agreeing on certain common standards or approaches going forward and if that's done you begin to have sort of a sectoral build-out of a trade understandings in in the areas that matter and then secondly you know we have all sorts of trade agreements regionally why why why shouldn't we have a plural lateral in other words a subset of countries a link their procurement their financial system disclosure in respect of climate change their tariffs lower tariffs for green products their their standards for what they consider energy efficient equipment what they want to do on on subsidies this could form a new type of non-regionally specific kind of trade alliance trade it trade an economic cooperation alliance that would be a big way to advance progress on climate change but it's a new way of thinking about trading globalization going forward great well this is actually I think we've answered all the questions in even a little bit under one hour and we know what what to do now so thank you so much to to this panel and thank you to you all and have a good evening