 Dear participants, colleagues, excellencies, my dear friend, Thierry, first of all, I want to congratulate Thierry and Ifri once more organizing such an important event on a very timely organization and I want to express my thanks to Ifri, to the French government as well as to the Moroccan government and his majesty as well. Global governance is a big issue, a big title. But before going into some details, I want to make a comparison between last year's meeting in Doha and this year's meeting in Marrakesh. Last year in my speech, in a very short statement, I made a reference to unpredictability in international relations. Unfortunately, in the last one year, this unpredictability has increased. Last year, the meeting was immediately after the election of President Trump. Everybody was worrying what will happen in the United States. I am sure that worry is still continuing, even growing. Because yesterday, President Trump mentioned that Secretary Tillerson may not continue. So nobody knows what may happen. But one thing is clear, which I will make a special reference on national issue, that the relation between establishments and leaders. When we look at EU, last year we were talking more on Brexit. But this year, not only Brexit, we have the issue of Catalonia. And we don't know what will be the next. And also the four elections in last year in Europe, in Netherlands, Austria, Germany and France, the rising trend of exclusivist right-wing parties is not only a worry for these nation-states, but also for the basic values of European continent, of our continent. When we look at the Middle East, we had a Catari crisis. In fact, not Catari, a crisis in Gulf. An organization which has been very influential in the past and becoming a deepening organization in the last 20 years. GCC first time became a problematic institution in itself. And one country of GCC was isolated by three other countries. And this is a problem of inefficiency in regional organizations. And last year we were talking about Aleppo, the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo. Aleppo has fallen, but we had still chemical use in Syria against civilians. The cases in U.N. and U.N. has agreed on, has testified this fact. But also we had problem of Kurdish regional referendum in Iraq, about the future of Iraq, and it was coincident. At the same time, Catalonia and Kurdish region referendum brings new issues to nation-states. And today, Prime Minister Hariri has designed in Lebanon. So every day we are getting news from the Middle East, which makes the situation more and more worrying. And this year also we have North Korea crisis rising. So when we look at the one-year agenda, there is almost no good news in the positive way of global governance, even keeping the status quo as it is. But there is a rising psychological pessimism, which we, when I say we, not only Europeans, Asians, Turks, French, Moroccans, but we, all the representatives of humanity, statesmen, intellectuals, we have to think more and more about what will be happening next year or the other years. Nobody can make a rational analysis anymore, because we don't have a rational analysis of the question what went wrong. I want to make a short summary in last 27 years after Cold War what has happened through making an analogy of earthquake. We Turks, we know earthquake very well, and it is a good analogy to understand the systemic earthquake of international relations which I call systemic earthquake, because there are certain signals. If you take caution, you may overcome. There are certain tragedies during the process and aftershocks. When we look at these, in the last 400 years, there were war after conferences or new orders after big global wars, like Westphalian, 30 years war, Westphalian orders. Napoleonic Wars, Congress of Vienna, First World War, League of Nations, Second World War, United Nations. But what happened after Cold War, which was a global war? Nothing, no such an arrangement has been done in international field. No new convention, no new re-institutionalization of any international organization, not responding together to a set of principles to certain questions like terrorism, like nuclear weapon threat, etc. What happened in 27 years after the fall of Berlin Wall? The first earthquake was what I call geopolitical earthquake, 1991 when the Soviet Union has collapsed. A geopolitical earthquake created many questions from Bosnia, Kosovo, Transnistria, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, all the geopolitical zone has been shifted. And there was a huge hope of end of history, a new order. When we look today that aftershocks of geopolitical earthquake is still continuing, not any of these questions has been resolved yet. And plus, for example, Crimean issue is in the agenda, in the same geopolitical zone, where territorial integrities, territorial control and international recognized territories are, there is a gift, there is a gap between these. That creates a problem of nation-state territorial integrity. Second earthquake was security earthquake after 9-11 in 2001. Now after 9-11, now 16 years past, there was intervention in Afghanistan, the situation in Afghanistan is getting more and more risky every day. And the second one was intervention to Iraq and recently what we have been observing is what is going on in Iraq regarding central government and regional Kurdish region. And also there was only Al-Qaeda, but now we have Daesh, we have Boko Haram, we have Shabab, we have all types of terrorist organizations. So it means the aftershocks of that earthquake is still continuing. The third earthquake was economic earthquake in 2008. Big economic, global economic crisis, unemployment, political instabilities, because of this crisis, there was a hope of a new financial architecture will be emerged. Nothing has been done in international economic organization except a few reforms in World Bank and IMF regarding representation of the countries. And the gap between G20, which I have attended almost all meetings in G20 in the last 10 years, the expectations of the decisions of G20 has been not fulfilled. And also the gap between G20 and LDC countries is increasing. And when that gap is increasing, the refugee flow is increasing. Such an economic injustice cannot bring social or political stability. When there is such a gap, of course poor countries, population will try to reach, to reach countries' economic area in order to get job, to survive. And fourth earthquake, which I call structural earthquake after Arab Spring in the Middle East especially, the nation states have collapsed, fragile states did emerge. And still the consequences are on the agenda. Since we have not been able to resolve these fourth earthquakes, now all the aftershocks of these four earthquakes came together and created a systemic earthquake, now what we are facing. Now there is a systemic problem. And we have to approach to this problem not by conjecture or just one country based or one region based. What we are facing today is the most dangerous, risky situation in modern time. Because the means of destruction is much more threatening, not like all Middle Century's war is there. Even one country in North Korea and one crazy person can threaten everybody. Now what we need? I want to mention three levels and some principles on global governance, what we can do. First, national level. Today we have a problem of identity and legitimacy and also national functioning of institutional national level. Theory made a reference to my policy of zero problems with neighbors. Yes, when we came to power in 2002 in Turkey, meanwhile I want to just make one sentence regarding Turkey. Turkey has been right at the center of all these earthquakes, like Bosnia crisis, Kosovo crisis, Georgia crisis, first earthquake, next door to Turkey. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan-Turkey was part of Afghanistan war, military, and was affected by Iraq, intervention in Iraq. Economic crisis, European market is the first target of Turkish economy. Again, Turkey has been affected. Of course, Middle Eastern issue, structural earthquake has affected Turkey. So we are right at the center of all these earthquakes and we are trying to survive on one hand and try to control crisis on the other hand. In our first years of our government, we were not only able to stabilize the country, but also we were very effective in regional issues. On the way I was turning to theory because of Lebanese crisis in 2008-May, 17th of May, I was chief advisor not yet minister. We declared two diplomatic achievements at the same time, same day. One was Israeli-Syrian indirect talks, which I was the mediator between two sides as chief advisor. Secondly, resolving the presidential crisis in Lebanon, Michel Süleyman became president together with Qatar. So why do we have now problem? Not because Turkey has changed policy, but today we don't have counterparts to make peace or mediate. In Syria, around Turkey, seven countries do not have full control over their territories. Syria, Iraq, central government, they do not have full control. Libya, Yemen, Lebanon, Georgia is stable country, but there is an international dispute. It is not able to control the internationally recognized territories. Ukraine, detention is continuing. With the countries where there is stability, still we have good relations trying to keep that. So the problem is there is no real counterpart on the others. If you don't have counterpart, you cannot have diplomacy proper manner. You can have micro-diplomacy with every group in Syria or in Iraq. This is a basic challenge. So national level, there are fragile states like Syria, Libya, Yemen. There are states which do not have full control over territories. There are states which have serious identity problems like Iraq, like even now in Spain what is the situation is continuing, being Catalan, being Spanish, being European. Different levels of identities. There is rising exclusivist Islamophobic, xenophobic tendencies in Europe. And also there is a problem between leaders and establishments like what we are observing sometimes in the United States, which is a global power and affects everything in the world, which stability and what direction of American foreign policy is very important for international stability. But President Obama and President Trump, two different approaches to the international issues, which will bring national interest as an issue of global, a problem of global choices. Regional dimension. What we have to do for national level, I will come to certain principles. Regional dimension. Today, seemingly we don't have a global system of international arrangement. International means international, international state. But since there are problems in national states, international system is not functioning properly. And for global governance, the main barrier is today we have much more balance of power system. But not one balance of power system like 19th century. What we have today is several balances of powers are at the same time. Regional balances of power and global balances of power. When they match, you can find a solution. In Middle East today there is a regional balance of power, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia. Inside GCC, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, etc. But also there is a general balance of power between Russia, EU, US. And there is no international adjustment people could come together. And success stories like EU and GCC are facing serious crisis. So regionally there are instabilities. And regional international organizations like Arab League, like OIC, like GCC, like EU is not as effective as before. Global level, lastly. What we are facing is, as I said, what we need to do today is a new global set of conventions where everybody agrees upon. And there will be no exclusivity of these. I want to give one striking example which really hurts very much. In my heart I feel the pain during the hard times of Syrian crisis when chemical weapon was used against civilians in 2013. In one meeting I addressed to my colleagues and I said we may disagree on the future of Syria or on certain issues. But at least on two issues we have to agree together. One is humanitarian access. The other one is acting together against war crimes. These are not national interest issues. These are international conventional issues. Whoever prevents humanitarian access must be punished. Regime, opposition, whatever it is. Or whoever commits a war crime using chemical weapons must be punished. This is UN principles. But unfortunately what happened? Neither war crimes being punished nor humanitarian access being achieved. So millions of refugees escaped Syria and Turkey has suffered as a neighboring country. Today those who are criticizing Turkey must know that we are hosting almost 4 million Syrian refugees. You can imagine the cost on our economy. You can imagine the humanity. There are certain Turkish cities now like Kilis. The Syrians are more than Turks. But you don't have any racist approach in Turkey. This is a big issue in conventions. The institutional today UN, nobody expects any solution from UN. Not because of the inefficiency of UN Secretary General. I know Antonio Guterres. He is the right person to be Secretary General. When he was UNHCR chairman, he did extraordinary work. And I know him personally. He has all the abilities to do everything. Right person, right place. But UN Security Council is today reflecting a balance of power rather than internationally agreed conventions together. And therefore UN, just a striking reflection of this is today, the only mechanism regarding Syria question is the mechanism of Astana where Turkey, Russia and Iran are running a diplomacy to have no conflict zones in Syria and there is no hope from UN mediation. It means ad hoc systems are coming, ad hoc solutions. This is basically the problem of global institutions. What we need today is more effective institutional mechanisms in UN and also in international economic organizations since there is a time limit. I want to give five principles for a future global governance and I will stop there. One is inclusivity. Five eyes I say in one of my articles. Inclusivity. We need to have an inclusive national, regional and global order. Not populist, exclusivist. Secondly, integrity. We have to have, we should not be having double standards. All the principles should be followed by integrity. These are ideals. And two, the other two principles are more real politic. Interest optimization. Today what is absent is rational negotiation. There is no rational negotiation anymore. More emotional reflections are in international arena. And fourth, after interest optimization, implementation of decisions. Not just taking decisions but implementation. And the last is a new institutionalization in international system. So what we need is integrity, inclusivity, institutionalization, interest optimization and implementation of the decisions. Otherwise we will be having many more meetings on this as a good exercise of intellectual exercise but not result oriented meetings. I hope all these discussions will open away for global governance. Thank you very much.