 So we have 37 minutes left. I want to make sure that we have some time for people sitting in the room to be able to raise questions. So what I'd like to do now, if it's possible, is read to ask each of you a question, which I'd like, if it's possible, to answer it very quickly in two minutes, if you could. And the first question I have is for you, Madame Thuray, which is, you heard this vision of multiple frameworks and coexisting. In some ways, you have some of that already. From your point of view, would that be a good outcome, or would that be a bad outcome? Well, definitely. I spent now some years in the multilateral organization. I was a former UN personnel 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 gonna 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 strengthen 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 position. And that's our rights, 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. I mean, 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 Nation was supposed to be as a promise and share the common interests as 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 wanna 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. And in that context, I assume that you and many leaders in Africa would welcome the decision about making the African Union part of a permanent member of the G20. 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 relation 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 play very important role. The good news is in past several months we can see the tension between US and China literally reduced, may not be improvement, the tension being reduced. I think that's good for US, for China, for rest of the world. But at the same time we should be sure, we should understand that the policy US government adopt to China call small yard hall fence 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's some continuing improvement in the US-China relationship, but still tension and 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-Law negotiation 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 is 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 you say 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 honor the already established commitment and agree to strengthening the rule-based order. Thank you very much. That's also very clear. So the middle power's 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. We all have. And everybody will add to it. If we go around the room, we'll add another 20 other things to this. And yet, the first 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 you 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 mobilizing 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 century is a moral equivalent of war. Where is today's moral equivalent of war? Sustainable development goals? Climate change? Not even. The net zero economics? Not mobilizing enough. So where is this project that can be mobilizing enough to create a shared vision? And I don't know and that's 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 but that's enough. 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 maybe 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 realize 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 wars they 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 raw resource production producing countries they became very high-flying in 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 the 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. And the last point which the colleagues said were interesting was the problem of taxation and the problem of offshore safe havens. So in this case I would say that this tax system which exists in the whole world these days actually has its roots from the early 20th century. And 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 the taxing the incomes to taxing the consumption and this may change immediately and generally the whole economic construction, the whole economic framework for the world because the first country that changes this 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 can 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 and if you take the example of the carbon tax that's going to have an impact on a single man 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 work 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 and you see a lot of arguments from here and there no consensus and I think that's again a lack of fine-tuning or 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. Thank you very much. Of course every politician that tries to price externalities finds that they run into immediate political difficulties I guess the question for us is also going to be to what extent are the political systems in our countries in particularly the rich countries capable now of taking the decisions both nationally and internationally that everyone here is saying are essential and I think to what extent is the roots of the international economic disorder actually in national economic dysfunctionality and national political dysfunctionality in so many countries. Okay I think we have time for, we have 13 minutes I want to take two questions and in the strictures from Madame Tourier I want to go to the people who are under-represented on this panel which is young people and women and also not men and please be precise and concise if you can. I will try. Hello my name is Basil Cotts I work at the European Commission thank you so much for all of your insights you've mentioned that the global economic order is forever changing and is impacted by many factors my argument is that and you mentioned it as well it is impacted by the evolution of technology and innovations my questions to you would be in your opinion do you think that's the strategic use of innovation's new technology in our era of global interconnectedness will lead to a more stable economic order or in the other hand can lead to disorder of the global economic system thank you very good question so is the technological progress going to lead to more stability or more instability and you might also ask within countries not just international anybody else have a question I see no other questions okay in that case who would like to answer that question do you think that technology the pace of technological change and particularly artificial intelligence now is this going to make international economic relationships work better or more unstable you won't have a view on that I've tried to ask a chat GPT but I couldn't we could ask chat GPT for the answer I think it's a tough question and it can go either way really as I said in principle having more data more functioning of models can help educate all of us and hopefully come up with mutual decisions and that go in the right direction and that creates sort of win-win situations at the end but you know technology can also create some new gaps between countries on balance, on balance that was a very chat GPT answer though right because you're saying it can be this can be that are you feeling positive about this or you think I'm more worried than I am feeling good about it I am an optimist who worries a lot but I'm too right yes definitely I think we do have the example of the Arab Spring how much internet and technology play come into play so the end of the process is another story but if you come back to Africa definitely it has raised the level of consciousness more participation of young people and women and that's a good thing because I'm a pro-disorder type of activist I mean a disorder that would lead to a better order so for that sense in that sense I think it's a good thing that people get more aware of the issues of the scandal that's one thing so it forces government even to be more accountable on the issue they deal with and I think it's very good because to get to a new order you need some disorder and maybe you know technology is going to play a role of course there is a downsize of it we do know that a message of hatred and things like that that we know but globally I think it's a good thing it's a tool that gets citizens to participate more especially in an environment where they don't have much access politically or economically so it gives more eco to the voices of those who are left overs on the side of the road Thank you very much A bit of disorder Yes I would like to address the question raised from the floor with regard to technology development I think it's good or not it can be good or bad but I think they change the priorities my experience in negotiating Korea-US FTA 2007-2006 at the time with regard to telecommunication most important issue was how to liberalize facility-based telecommunication services but after that with the OTT service in place facility-based telecommunication services is not so important value-added services are more important no one talk about facility-based telecommunication services or OTT at the time we did not know what is the OTT and at the time the OTT doesn't enter into force so we resisted the US request to liberalize facility-based telecommunication services but we fully liberalized value-added telecommunication services and OTT like Netflix is come over to the world through facility-based telecommunication services so the development of technology can change the priorities in internet and trade agenda but it can be both good or bad thank you Pierre I agree with what has been said I personally as an engineer see the potential it is in technology I think there are a lot of promises in technological progress it is the responsibility of human beings to give a moral dimension to technology use and so technology is not a substitute to political will and to thinking about the moral dimension the ethical dimension of technological change what makes me more optimistic than I was earlier is that there are international discussions about that dimension especially as far in so far as artificial intelligence for example is concerned so I think that technology can bring people together to discuss substantial matters and that's a good news even in the current context thank you very much I guess the progress of science generally is good but it's implication it's uncertainty the movie really release Robert Hem disclosed these fundamental contradiction I guess that's a very simple question simple answer thank you very much any thoughts on this? I just think that first of all technology brings chaos because it undermines some old technologies some established relations and some established visions so therefore every kind of technological breakthrough is connected with increasing chaos but the the mission of innovators is to do what they are doing to increase the chaos and the mission of politicians and the mission of intellectual lead is just to combat this and to put in some framework to put some limits to this so this is a kind of associated change as it is organized so I definitely oppose the idea that we should regulate and limit the creative knowledge and the creative expression in any way thank you very much I think we've come to the end of our time and I don't think that's a conversation that is feasible to summarize so what I will say though is that I think what's very clear from this is that I don't think that this hankering for preserving the order in which we used to live is actually a meaningful approach because every time we start talking about it we discuss mostly the so many problems that the order that we have has created and I don't think we yet have agreement on what is the kind of order where we're going to where we would like to end up let alone where we are going to end up and I'd say there's some quite open questions about how long and how disorderly the transition process will be and whether during that transition process we can make progress on some of the common challenges where we can't afford to wait for the lack of clarity to be resolved because it will just end up creating disorder of a whole different magnitude so I want to thank all our panelists for their insights I want to thank you all for your presence and I'd like you to join me in giving them a round of thanks please