 37 minuti ar gyd. Rwyf yn rwy'n gweithio ymlaen o'n gweithio ar gyhoedd gweithio'r cyfnod i gael bod hi'n gweithio'n gyfrif. Felly, y cwestiynau, mae'n ffosibl i'r cwestiynau eich cwestiynau, rwyf wedi'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio, yn dwy'n gweithio'n gweithio. Yn y cwestiynau, mae'n gweithio'n gweithio yma, yna? Mae'r vision deunydd a ymweld maen nhw'n ddaeth ffraenwyr a angenio'r credu'r amser. Yn y fydden nhw'n ddefnyddiad yw hwy'n deall hwn train. Dyma'r cyflwyllaeth a nhw'n ddiddorol o'r oedd oedd oedd hwy'n ddiddorol o ddiddorol o'r oed? Yn ddefnyddio... ...rhyw roedd Ion i'r yrhyw yma yn ymddano'r organio'r ysgrifennu, Ion personal for many years, went back to, I mean went to government and I came out of this process thinking that you need frameworks for sure, you need many frameworks and I always speak from the point of view of Africa now, I mean after having been global now, focusing on Africa, the richest continent by the way by any means and the poorest. So whatever framework that will deal with that issue, we're going to be part of it first. Second, I'm more interested in, I think that's the feeling in the continent that we have to take business into our own hands. How to threaten African Union, how to make sure that we are self-interest driven because that's how the world works and we are going to be more forward coming in terms of defending our interests, being very strong on whatever issues and making our own points. I appreciate it when you talk about sort of forcing some countries to take part. That was the case for the Russia-Ukraine war and most of African countries look at it as a white man's war somehow and just didn't take it, you know, position and that's how right, like everybody does. But I think the questions that needs to be reflect upon is how are we going to make sure that we move forward peacefully, peacefully to a more equal order, an order that respects the environment, that put women also on an equal footage. Nobody brought the issue of inequalities and making sure that young people are part of it and that we need for the corporations. I think that's very important to bring that upon. To look beyond profit because we are a profit driven world as we speak so it's not enough anymore. So do we want to go through changes by revolution or do we want to be smarter and put in place equal frameworks where true discussion comes out of what we want to build for the future? Every time I come in this country, in the Emirate, I remember that Dubai 100 years ago was a small Bedouin village. So how did change occur? It means that it's possible. It means that you can accelerate change and then you can have a more sane discussion because we are having an insane discussion because you do have a pool of very wealthy group of countries in front of very poor countries but within those countries you do also have that huge gap. I was visiting south of Senegal in the mining areas just before I came. It was terrible. You do have very big mining companies taking gold out of the country and they were not even capable of building a decent road because they don't care about it. They just have an airport, they can fly a private jet, it looks like the world we are in. So how are we going to take a pause and then come back to what the United Nations was supposed to be as a promise and share the common interest as a human being? Other than that, people are what I'm seeing now very much even within the intellectual elite is let's focus on our own interests as the rest of the world is doing. Human rights, okay, we can talk about it very globally but it's not a reality so that's how we look at it. So what are the solutions that we want to come up with that are human rights centered, that are equal and preserve the environment beyond just the idea of pursuing profit. Thank you very much. So very clear message that you want to be clear about your own interests and engage in multiple conversations, multiple frameworks but be clear about what is to the benefit of the continent and organize yourselves in a way to better represent those interests. In that context, I assume that you and many leaders in Africa would welcome the decision about making the African Union part a permanent member of the G20 because I think that in some ways is one forum where that could happen. I want to turn to you and ask you a question. You sort of said you've heard this vision about your four different scenarios. To what extent is where you end up across those scenarios a function of the relationship between the US and China? How much is that going to drive where you end up and what's your quick response to that? I guess the relationship between the US and China probably is one of the most important relationship which will drive many things including geopolitical tension. Although European countries say to China, don't look us through US. When they visit US, they say to US government, don't look us through China, but actually the US-China relationship now is kind of a very important role. The good news is in the past several months, we can see the tension between US and China is literally reduced. It may not be a big improvement, the tension being reduced. I think that's good for US, for China, for the rest of the world. But at the same time, we should be sure, we should understand that the policy US governments adopt to China's call small-yard hall fans wouldn't be changed. So competition wouldn't be changed, but the tension has been reduced. That's my conclusion. Thank you. Thanks for being so clear about it. And of course, you have to see what is the mechanism by which the small yard stays small, because the internal pressures in all countries will be to make the yard bigger without worrying about the height of the fence. Now, I want to turn to you and ask you a question, which is, let's assume there is some continuing improvement in the US-China relationship, but still tension. Particularly when it comes to setting up global rules, to what extent can middle powers create a set of rules that govern relationships among them? Even if the largest economies in the world are not so actively participating. And I'm thinking of dispute resolution in the WTO, where the formal process is frozen, but there is a parallel process that has been created by middle powers, which works to basically govern disputes as if it was within the WTO, more or less. To what extent do you think that's a model that can be used in lots of different ways to provide frameworks for the world? Thank you for your questions. In fact, what you mentioned is ideal, but in reality it cannot be applied. In fact, the US-European Union and China, the only powers who make the regulations without them is not possible. You see, I participated in the Uruguay-Lown negotiations in the 80s, 90s. It was the fact of bilateral negotiations between European community at the time and United States despite more than 100 countries participated. Now, the landscape has totally changed, especially with the joining of China to the WTO in 2001. So I think it's very important to persuade the middle powers, including Korea, Japan, if the USA, the European Union is a middle power. Okay, the UK, Canada and other countries to persuade both China and United States to participate in strengthening rule-based international order because the strengthening rule-based order is the only solution to their dispute. Without clear rules, they cannot make any settlement. So I think the middle powers must enhance their efforts to persuade China and US respectively to honour the already established commitment and agree to strengthening the rule-based order. Thank you very much. That's also very clear. So the middle powers role is not to create a framework that works for them because from what you're saying, it doesn't work without getting the big United States into it. But they can play a major role in helping to persuade. And I think that's quite relevant for a conversation we'll have later about climate change. We're going to be having COP here in a few weeks. And is that the approach one has to follow also in COP? And here I want to come to you with a question which is, you had a very long list of things that need to be fixed in the world order. And everybody will add to it. If you go around the room, we'll add another 20 other things to this. And yet, a trans point about mutual interest. So which of these lists on your list, what would you say on which we cannot make progress without international cooperation? And it is in our mutual interest to create a framework for operating them. And then there are other things where it would be nice to have cooperation, but the world will struggle along without cooperation. So what's your sort of priority list of things? Well, there are many ways to address that question. First, I'd be tempted to say that whatever I think doesn't matter because what we need to do is reach a consensus. So for that to happen, we need to discuss with others. And I think the priority today is not to pick an issue and a solution. It is to meet and discuss and see where national interests are and how they can be combined to define a common good. But of course, as an analyst, I would be tempted to answer differently and say there are major issues today that cannot be addressed without collective action. And certainly climate change is one. So it's going to be a mix of these two approaches. I think that we come to the negotiating tables with ideas, with convictions. But these convictions can reach nothing unless they are shared by others. So it's part of the negotiating process and to negotiate to need to understand and try to know more about the other parties. And that's why I think that more research, more knowledge is needed to understand our potential partners and allies better than we do. Because we are working with stereotypes and that is not going to make the negotiation easier. Now, there is a third way to address your question is to say that we cannot progress without a common vision. And I believe that's true. And I believe that part of the negotiation is to reach a common vision. The difficulty is that when you look at history, common mobilising visions, shared visions tend to come out during wars. So a big question today is whether it's what William James would have called in the early 20th centuries, a moral equivalent of war? Where is today's moral equivalent of war? Sustainable development goals? No. Climate change? Not even. The net zero economics? Not mobilising enough. So where is this project that can be mobilising enough to create a shared vision? And I don't know that what I think makes me afraid because if we need a major crisis of major proportions, much bigger than when we have experience or a big war to reach a common vision, then I think that it is certainly not the preferred scenario. So I'll stop there because it's not very optimistic, but I believe that the pessimism of analysis can lead to the optimism of action. And I think that we need more multilateral discussions. And even when summits don't reach a conclusion, it doesn't mean that they are not useful or successful. Thank you very much, Pierre. So this is getting a little somber towards the end. So do you agree that we need common vision and understanding each other before we can actually reach agreements on things that matter to us? And it may be quite hard to get to a common vision without more of a crisis. Do you think that it's possible to isolate one or two areas where we really need, in our mutual interest, without a common vision about the world and where it's going, still make progress? How do you see this big vision, big bargain, versus let's pick a few things? It's a good question. But I would say that listening to the discussion, I reflected on the current situation in general. And I would say that to my mind, we now are in a situation when a lot of old and fundamental processes are still evolving and we don't see the end of this trend close enough to realise whether we can orchestrate a new order or not. So first of all, we have seen since the beginning of the 21st century the intensification of military conflicts in many parts of the world. And in any case, I would say no political goals were really met with armed interventions. The economic effect was very devastating for many countries and this new circle of war like the war between Russia and Ukraine will also contribute to the understanding that the military interventions and the military confrontation is ruinous for the contemporary world and it just destroys the economic wealth and doesn't have any positive consequences because in the 17th, 18th, 19th century was the deliver economic benefits for the victors. Now it is not the case. And before this would be really understood, I think there is no little chance for new order to exist. The second point is that every time it was spoken about economic order and the new economic reality, it was when the new economic trend emerged. For example, in 1960, 1970s, the resource production producing countries became very high-flier in the economic sense and the very concept of new international economic order was put forward in 1971, but 15 years later all these countries were ruined by huge debts and they were built out by the United States and many other developed countries. The same situation was, as I already mentioned with the Soviet Union and Japan in the 70s and 80s, there were also high-fliers and then a huge systemic crisis emerged. So now we have this competition between China and the rest of the world and I think we should wait for another, I would say 10 years to understand what the perspective for China is. If China comes to the same result as Japan in 1989 by the end of this decade, it would be an absolutely different perspective for new economic order to emerge. The last point, which the colleagues said were interesting, was the problem of taxation and the problem of offshore safe havens. In this case, I would say that this tax system, which exists in the whole world these days, actually has its roots from the 20th century. All the tax system was designed for either mercantilistic economy, economy of trade or for industrial economy, where everything was reproducible and was server and the stock market, the capital gains were not so much anticipated. Now the creative economy of the post-industrial world of informational technologies creates a lot of wealth and this wealth creation is actually a major engine for economic growth and prosperity. If we tax personal incomes or capital gains as we do for last decades, it would stop economic growth in the most promising countries. So my point would be, so for challenging this offshore economy, some countries, wealthy countries, should switch from taxing the incomes to taxing the consumption and this may change immediately and generally the whole economic framework for the world because the first country that changes the system, it will get enormous competitive advantages upon all others. So I would say there are too many trends which are coming from quite distant past, which are still dominating the global economic order and many of them can evaporate and can be changed in coming decade or two. And so afterwards I think the perspective for recreating this economic order would be much more realistic than they are now. Now we are in kind of a tunnel vision and we cannot jump out of it. Thank you. So we should wait for a decade or so until things become clear and I guess my question to you is, can we afford to wait? No, I don't think we can afford to wait but I want to clarify something about the idea of setting priorities. That's all good but unfortunately we cannot lose track of the bigger picture and we need a holistic view so that the impact of our decision is clearly assessed so that there are no unattended consequences. Now if you take the example of the carbon tax, that's going to have an impact on a single mum struggling to raise a child who needs her car to visit patients because she's a nurse. The sad truth is that today governments don't have the ability to target specific, very specific categories of population. You can do it in broad terms but if you look at how much money we wasted during COVID or during the inflation period at the start of the Ukraine war, it tells you a story that is a bit sad so we really need to raise our game in terms of pricing externalities. I think that's essential and one area in particular if you look at the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there's a lot of debate on whether new projects in all fossil energy should be allowed. You see a lot of arguments from here and there, no consensus and I think that's again a lack of functioning of findings and I think it's very important that NGOs in particular become more involved, companies as well to build stronger data to help governments make better decisions.