 Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Gilbert Plos, the Managing Director of the World Economic Forum, responsible here for the Open Forum opening it today. I would like to welcome you all to this Open Forum. What does Open Forum stand for? I'd like to give you three points of the raison d'etre of the Open Forum. It is, firstly, in favor of the same ideas and principles of the World Economic Forum itself. The challenges of our globalized, interconnected world cannot be dealt with by individual governments, by individual organizations, or businesses, or non-governmental organizations alone. They alone cannot master the challenges that we face, only together, by making coordinated efforts between all stakeholders. Can we reach the responsible, meaningful answers that we are looking for? This means that various stakeholders need to be invited to dialogue, and that this can contribute to considering issues of great complexity. This means issues such as responsible leadership in times of crisis or music this evening, a very different subject, where we will be looking at the difference between old instruments and new instruments and what those mean. Tomorrow we'll be talking about the risks of a world without satellites, what that would mean, whether it's possible. We would talk about religious tensions. The remodeling of capitalism is something that we're going to address. Also, issues relating to the provisions of water, one of the greatest risks that we are facing. Or multiculturalism, that's going to be the final discussion, whether multiculturalism has succeeded or failed. On all of these issues, you will be finding businessmen, businesswomen, politicians, NGO members, religious representatives, or representatives from social organizations. That's what the panels are going to be made up of. That's the first point. The second point of what the Open Forum stands for is that it is a platform. It is a platform that is open to a broad, diverse public. It is ready for a genuine dialogue with various representatives of diverse interests and experts. It is here to consider and engage with different innovative ideas. I'm very happy to see so many young people in the room today. I'm not just talking about my generation. I've seen a whole school classes who are coming from across Switzerland to take part in our discussions today. These, then, are the reasons that we are here. And the purpose is dialogue with leaders from business and politics, academia, religions. We are here for a constructive approach to these innovative approaches in the spirit of a respectful dialogue. The Open Forum was established in 2003. It was born of an idea brought about by the World Economic Forum and the Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches, particularly its president at the time. They worked together with other organizations from civil society, fair trade organizations, such as Max Havela or the Red Croix, which was there at the very outset. Over recent years, it has really focused on the FSBHC and the World Economic Forum. We've given it a new foundation with an advisory panel, which really tries to involve stakeholders in the establishing of the program and the issues to be discussed and the guests invited. So I would like to thank everybody who's participated in providing advice and input. I'd like to thank Christine Bailey from the ICRC, Hans-Peter Fricka from the WWF, Gottfried Locher from the FSBHCP, who's here. Christa Markwalder, who's a National Counselor, and Patrick Odier, who's a representative from the Swiss Association of Bankers, and Mark Pete, who's an academic, who's a member of the OECD Working Group on corruption in trade. The third objective, which I would like to mention, is open, respectful dialogue. What we want is a dialogue not only between experts in the panel, but a dialogue with the public, which fully involves the public, a dialogue for a constructive, future-oriented solution for solutions. And that also includes the possibility that viewpoints which might appear irreconcilable are all heard. I'd like, in that respect, to repeat what Alex Krauer said a long time ago. It was President of Siebe Geige in an address. It is as true today as it was when he said it. He said, dialogue means engaging seriously with other arguments, grappling with the content of these arguments in order to measure one's own standpoint. Understanding dialogue in this way doesn't guarantee that there will always be a consensus. It doesn't even guarantee that standpoints will be reconciled or come closer. If one only seeks harmony, understanding at any price and agreement through harmony, through dialogue rather, then that would be a gross misunderstanding. It is not the search for the lowest common denominator. It is rather the search for a space of engagement which in itself facilitates change, movement, and development, and in doing so, avoids the danger of standstill. So let dialogue live. And to pursue our program, I give Lee Bollinger, President of Columbia University, to lead and guide our dialogue today. Thank you, Lee. Thank you all for coming. So thank you very much. This is clearly a very important subject at a very important time. Thinking about leadership in times of crisis, important. It's also highly elusive. That is very, very difficult to say, very concrete things about this. We'll try to do our best with this fantastic panel. I'll give a very brief introduction of each of these. We don't want to spend time introducing well-known, very famous people. So we'll get right to that. Let me just say the following. I think we all understand that the world has a kind of disenchantment with leadership in many countries and regions across the world, whether it's in the corporate sphere, or the political sphere, or beyond. We understand that it's very, very difficult to be a very successful leader in this environment at the same time. The public discourse makes it difficult to get through the noise and to actually speak to people. Institutions that may have worked extremely well decades ago do not work so well now. And perhaps we don't have the structures that permit who would be great leaders to be great leaders. So there are many, many things to think about on this subject. Here are our panelists. Erhud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel from 1999 to 2001, currently serves as Israel's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Jean-Claude Beaver is the Chairman of the Board and former CEO of Swiss Luxury Maker Hublot, a company he joined in 2004, following his successful leadership of the Blanche Pan and Omega watch brands. Gordon Brown was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom leader of the Labor Party from June 2007 to May 2010. He also served as Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1997 to 2007. Martin Bird is the founder and CEO of Fondation Paraguay, a 25-year-old NGO devoted to the promotion of entrepreneurship and self-help to eliminate poverty around the world. He is also the co-founder of Teach a Man to Fish. Brian Cote is the Head of Marketing and Customer Solutions and a member of the Group Executive Committee of ABB, a leading power and automation technology group based here in Switzerland. And Jean-Claude Trichet was President of the European Central Bank from 2003 to 2011. Now, I think there are, again, just to try to focus this conversation and to begin, I think we should, with Jean-Claude Trichet, what really is the essence of leadership in your experience? Every person on this stage has been a leader, is a leader, has thought clearly about what great leadership is, especially in times of crisis. One sort of question to be addressed, and I think the second is how do we create leaders in this new world? How do we educate them for the future? Either of those two questions are both of them, but let's begin with Jean-Claude Trichet. Thank you, thank you very much indeed for your presentation. I would say that we should not forget that we are experiencing the worst crisis in the advanced economy since World War II. I really trust that it could have been the worst crisis since World War I, to the extent that the fragility of the system was so great in 2007 and 2008, and without the resolve of the leaders in question, and a number of them around this table, including the prime ministers, that way, in charge. Then we would have been again in an absolutely dramatic situation. So I'll say just one word on the crisis itself, then on how to be responsible in the crisis, and then a remark on prevention in general. The crisis was very much, very much unfolding in an unpredictable fashion. And what is the mark of such crisis is that the succession of unfolding of events is extremely rapid, cause for very, very rapid analysis, diagnosis as lucid as possible, and for immediate action. And that is something which is particularly difficult because for such crisis, it's action that is not at all in the textbooks. You have really to make up your mind in a situation which again has not been foreseen. I have to say that for the central bankers, I can tell you there was no textbook that was recommending the kind of nonstandard measures that we all had to take in the advanced economy on both sides of the Atlantic and in Japan. And clearly, clearly this rapidity of the unfolding of events was exactly the same drama for the political leaders. And they themselves had to embark on decisions that again were in no textbook at all, which were not in the mind of the people and were extremely bold. If this very bold decision had not been taken again, I think that the house of cards of the financial institutions after the Lehman Brothers collapse would have totally collapsed. And again, we would have been in a situation which would have been worse since World War I. A second remark would be that even in such circumstances, a responsible leadership must keep a sense of direction. And that's the real difficulty. Have a sense of direction for us, for instance, maintain the credibility of price stability in the medium and long run at a time where markets are not functioning correctly and where you have to take non-standard decisions of first magnitude. So I would say it is the combination of the standard decisions, namely the interest rate decision, for instance, in our case, and the non-standard, namely supply liquidity on an unlimited basis, set fixed rate, namely purchase of securities, which we did ourselves in a limited measure which was done on the other side of the Atlantic for a very large measure. By the way, because on the other side of the Atlantic, the financing of the economy is made mainly through markets in all side of the Atlantic. It is made mainly through commercial banks. But this combination is something which is absolutely of the essence because if you lose a sense of direction, then you are aggravating the crisis instead of helping to solve it or to cope with it. And my last remark would be that, and then I turn to the functioning of our democracies and I would be very, very interested in having, in particular, of course, the sentiment of political men, it is the problematics of prevention when you are in an extremely grave crisis that is unfolding, not there still, so that the people doesn't see the extension of the drama. But you have yourself a lucid analysis and you want to avoid the drama. And how do you do that when our democracies do not permit normally to governments to take decisions that are too bold for the people? A very good example is on the other side of the Atlantic. I'm speaking under your control, Chairman. When the first tarp was refused by the Congress, clearly the sentiment of the people in the US was that after all, it was not that grave when the executive branch had a clear sense that the house of cards was falling down. And it needed a little bit of pedagogy, a little bit of education, a lot of communication and the evidence that the Dow Jones was falling like a stone for the Congress to accept the tarp measure. But it seems to me that it is extremely important to try to understand exactly how in modern democracies you can really prevent drama to unfold. You know, you mentioned Lehman Brothers and is it the case that we just didn't understand the full consequences, the massive consequences of the failure of that particular organization that would unfold? In other words, I'm interested in the theme that you begin with, the problem of not having experience on which to, you have to invent things as it's unfolding. And is that consistent with your understanding of what happened here? We got into something, it broke, it was massive. And we were inventing as we went along. I think, I really think that it was, of course, clear that we were in presence of a very fragile financial system. I really trust that there was not an under assessment of the gravity of what was unfolding. But in any case, it seems to me that at a time you had, you needed that experience. In order to gain the force to try to arrest the tsunami. And had Lehman Brothers would be saved, then the next online was AIG. Had AIG been saved, then the next online would have been the limit. So, no, the real issue is even when a tsunami is coming and it is absolutely clear in the eyes of the executive branch, it is nevertheless difficult to take the decision that are overdue, but are not perceived by the public opinion and by the political leadership necessarily. Gordon Brown, let's follow up with that because we're on the political institutions and the economy and the need for decisive action that political systems don't seem to allow. Would you expand on that? Is that consistent with how you see things? Well, let me say first of all what a pleasure it is to be with the civic audience in Switzerland and thank you for the welcome you've given to all the guests at the World Economic Forum. And I do appreciate the chance to talk about these big challenges that the world faces. And I hope we can have an interactive discussion. There have been some huge decisions that have had to be made in the last 50 years. Clearly the end of the Cold War, clearly the end of apartheid. But now that we're talking about the financial system, what I think is the most significant thing and why Jean-Claude Trichet, who did a brilliant job, talks about a new world, is that we saw created in the last 20 or 30 years a global financial system, totally new. We used to have local financial systems, national financial systems, now we have a global financial system. And we found out that there were problems associated with its development that required us to act. And if we hadn't acted, as Jean-Claude has said, we would have a crisis that would have been bigger than the Great Depression of the 1930s. And that calls for leadership. When you diagnose a problem and you see that something has changed that you've never had to deal with before, then it requires courage. And it requires courage to implement what are radical solutions to new problems that you've never really had to deal with before. And therefore I think, and this is probably where you're trying to get to, Leigh. I mean, what is the quality of leadership that matters most? I think it is courage. Wisdom matters a great deal. Humility, I think, is incredibly important and it's not one of the qualities that is associated most with politicians, as you probably know. They usually would write books like Modesty and How I Achieved It, you know? But courage, because you've got to be in a position to take a firm stand and you've got to be able to see it through. Of course, you can have the right convictions, but you may not have the right determination to see something through. And of course you could be determined to see something through, but you may not have the right conviction, so you need both. And I think what is needed in a crisis is people who are prepared to take sometimes unpopular decisions to see the long term and not just the short term. And I think the tension that we're in in this modern world, which I think most people when they look at it will be aware of, is that some of the biggest decisions are global decisions that require global coordination now. You can't have a financial system that works now without there being global coordination. But of course the judgment that's being made on decision makers is within a national framework. And so you're responsible to national electorates when you're trying to deal with what are global problems that require global solutions. And the second thing I think that is a real problem for all of us is that we're in a 24 hour news cycle. And so the short term always seems to matter more than the long term. Barack Obama once said he would rather be a good one-term president than a bad two-term president. And what he really meant there, you might not say that at the moment because he faces a lot of, but what he really meant there is you've got to take the long view but the pressures are always on you to take the short term view. And indeed the pressures grow and grow and grow when you have a media that's a 24 hour media but also you have pressure groups that are acting. They want immediate results but actually some of the problems can only be solved by explaining that they're long-term and taking long-term action. I think the final point I would make is just this and you'll probably cut me shortly but this final point that 100 years ago politicians who were making decisions were not under huge pressures in the way that they are now. Some of my predecessors in the United Kingdom, Israeli, could write poetry for half the day and still be the prime minister. Gladstone, one of my predecessors, ran what he called the Midnight Club for Fallen Women. He went out to the streets of London and tried to convert prostitutes. It was an amazing story. I don't know what the newspapers would have said if he'd done it today. Then Roseberry was a prime minister and whenever a cabinet meeting which is the major decision-making body clashed with a race meeting, he always chose to go to the horse racing meeting. That's how important he thought his job was and when President Kennedy came to the United Kingdom in 1961 to meet Harold MacMillan, our prime minister. Amazingly, Harold MacMillan, the prime minister, was asleep and hadn't woken up when President Kennedy arrived at the door of Downing Street and they had to waken up the prime minister and President Kennedy had to be given a newspaper to read and he had to wait for half an hour. Now, could that ever happen now without a major international crisis? So what I'm really saying is, we've moved from the amateur to the wholly professional to the 24-hour cycle, to the day-to-day, but we've moved perhaps far too much to a short-term assessment of what is good leadership and bad leadership and I think you've got to take long-term decisions. You've got to recognize we're in a global world where lots of decisions are now cannot be made without coordination between countries, can't just be made by one country and I think that's in a sense how the global financial crisis hit us. We had to quickly realize that without the cooperation Jean-Claude was involved in with the Americans and others, you could not begin to solve this crisis. So the world is certainly very different but I think the quality that is needed most is courage, to be able to take a stand, to take a difficult decision and to be able to see it through and therefore the people that I admire most in the history of the world are people who have shown an amazing degree of courage and it goes from Nelson Mandela to this day to Anson Zucchi in Burma. People have taken difficult stands, known they were going to be unpopular but they've had the courage, i.e. the determination and resolution to see it through so that's how I see leadership in the future. Thank you very much. And these are very important themes about the ways in which leadership has to exist within a political framework that is really too narrow for the kinds of problems that are created. Of course you wonder whether the opposite might be true on the last point that writing poetry and doing public good at midnight and also sleeping during the day is the essence of what good leadership should be. I'm afraid the poetry wasn't very good either. Yeah, I think you're right. So we also have two representatives from the business side and let's turn to them and each of them has had great success at bringing institutions, businesses that were not doing so well and making them extremely successful. So Jean-Claude Biver, would you speak first about how you have seen leadership, especially in times of crisis? I think what Gordon Brown said is the point. I couldn't more than agree with that. A leader needs vision, no vision, no future. And then once he has a vision, he needs to courage to believe that this vision might be wrong eventually because vision, how can the vision be true? Only God can give us a vision that is true. But as a human being, we have a vision but then we need courage, conviction. And then we must implement. And you know, these are the fundamental behavior of any leader, if he's in the business or if he's in the politics. In business, to be a leader is of course much easier because you are facing only a very small part of the people. You have a company, you have 10,000 people, so that's nothing. A leader in politics, he has a country and then he has the collateral. He has other countries too. So being a leader in the politics has a total, it's a total not a job than being in the leader in a company or in an industry. Nevertheless, the qualities that are required are absolutely the same. I and Gordon made a brilliant definition of what is a leader. Now, what we or what I have experienced, we, the Swiss, we have experienced the worst crisis that our industry ever had in the 80s when the Japanese were killing us, but killing us. And we were 120 people and suddenly we were 40,000 because we had not negotiated the quotes, the revolution, industrial revolution. And the Swiss were still making watches with their hands and making, trying to make watches accurate. When the Japanese came, boom, and they came with quotes that was more accurate and the watches were very cheap. And the Swiss did not react quickly because we didn't react, we lost 80,000 jobs. And one day we had a vision and what was this vision was to say if our salaries are so much more costly than the Japanese, then let's make watches with no hands but with machines. And we are brilliant people in Switzerland. We will invent machines that are making the watch from A to Z, 100%. And the Swiss invented the Swiss watch and the Swiss watch was called Swatch. And Swatch was a phenomenal answer reply to this crisis because we had the vision to make watches totally differently to invent machines that had never existed. Never there was a watch that was made 100% by a machine. And Swatch, when you were visiting the factory, they were 500 meters of machines and nobody in it. Just a guy on the computer checking. And every minute, bam, bam, 1,000 watches coming out in plastic, bam, bam, bam, bam. So that was the reply that was the answer of a vision. And this vision, and we're ahead, a leader. And this leader with the vision and the whole country followed. And that is how we said we put the Japanese back to Japan and today they are still in Japan. So vision is clearly Brian, Bryce, I'm sorry. Thank you. This is going down very well with the other one. Yes, of course. I mean, coming from another side, a lot of machines do, but not an easy answer on leadership. I mean, if I recall correctly, there have been something like 17,000 books written about leadership. So it will lead us something like 47 years to read them. Some of you might manage, I will not probably anymore. So it's not an easy answer just to state from the beginning. Now, the experience we made in leadership in our company in ABB was at a time where ABB was a very well-known company, very well recognized, and I believe in Switzerland especially. And then suddenly we were very near bankruptcy. So it was a kind of institution falling apart. The way we believe we solved it was because of a few things. A very important one was the transparency. Communicate, explain, tell the truth, say where we are. Instead of making stories, instead of hiding, instead of playing games, whatever, just be transparent. Say where you are, take the heat. It's cumbersome because it's a lot of question coming behind that, but be transparent is one of the key things I would add to what Gordon and what my predecessors have just said, which I would agree to. The second one is be yourself, don't play games, which fits a little bit together with be transparent. Be yourself because as soon as you start to play games, you will be recognized, people see you through. They will see that you play, that it's not me, it's not meant, it's not real, and therefore it will not work out. So the people will not trust you. And that leads me to one of the key characteristics of a leader, you need to be trusted. You need to trust in him. The guy, the person, the woman, the human being need to put a picture, need to put a vision coming back to what has been said before, which you cannot federate people to. You can adhere to, you can identify yourself with that. Now, that federation, that picture, that's bringing people together and transparency, bring me to one of the key challenge which we are managing now today more and more in the daily base. And I think governments, even more than companies, as Mr. Briver just said before, is social media. Social media is opening everything, is making everything transparent, and more importantly, immediate. So you absolutely, you don't have any time, any second, it is at the light speed. You get information spread all over the world. How do you manage that? Only if you are transparent, and only if you are very fast, very quick. Look at how many crises. Mr. Trichet just mentioned that before. We had to take very quick decision, and that is not just speeding up with the social media impact. We might come later back on that one, but that would be the two advices. Be transparent, be yourself. And third one, be fast, be damn fast. Thank you very much. And we also have a representative from the NGO world, Martin. Martin, you are in the process of helping people discover their talents and using entrepreneurship in particular as a form of human sort of recovery. So what do you find is the most successful examples of leadership in this instance? Well, thank you very much. I come from South America, and I want to tell the Swiss people that you have a very beautiful white country. And particularly impressed by the number of young people, the students who are here. And I would like to speak to the students, because students sometimes are intimidated by political leaders or business leaders. And you say, how am I, I am just a 17 year old young woman, how am I going to affect the world? And the good news is that it is possible because there is a third sector, a new sector. So there is government and there is business, but then also us. And today, if we have a passion, if we are sincerely worried or concerned about a problem, and we think that we can have an opinion, there is a possibility to do that. And you can live in Switzerland and have an opinion about housing in the slums of Brazil, because you are also part of Brazil. So you are no longer confined to Switzerland. And I was just telling my members of the panel here, I come from a very poor country and we just opened an office in Tanzania in Africa. What's the difference between Paraguay and Tanzania? Nothing. It is the same people with the same problem. So find your passion, find your element. And they say that this English educator, Sir Ken Robinson, says that you must find your element. And your element is where your passion crosses with what you're good at. And there is the only place where you will learn. And in addition to what has been mentioned here, we must speak truth to power. That is what leadership is. Find the truth. What is really happening with a crisis in Wall Street? What is the truth? We need to challenge the system. We need to permanently question what they're telling us, because if we let Wall Street continue with how they're acting, they will affect us. The young people are not gonna have any jobs. So this is a concern for young people in Switzerland, for young people in South America, and it is a wonderful opportunity to express yourself. Very good. So we wanna make sure that at some point we talk, we wanna make sure at some point in the discussion that remains, we wanna talk more about what young people can do, how they should be educated for this world. Minister Barak, let's end with you for this session, portion of the session. You've been a leader in a military context. You've been a leader in a political context. I'm sure you have thought deeply about this subject and about what are the qualities in different contexts of leaders. And then what's the core? So we would welcome hearing from you on this subject. Thank you. First of all, I'm very glad to be here among Swiss citizens and be able to exchange views and listen to your questions. I'm coming from a totally different neighborhood, extremely tough neighborhood, nothing to compare with Switzerland in the last 400 years or so. That's a place where there is no mercy for the weak, no second opportunity for those who cannot defend themselves. And we are on one hand the source of the great prophecy of a prophet desire that the time will come at the end of time when the lion and the lamb can lie together. But as long as the practice is that the lamb has to be replaced every several days, we prefer and chose to be a benign lion. We learned the hard way that leadership should stem out of not just an inner drive to lead, which is something that any individual here brought with him probably from birth, but a strong sense of direction, a strong intuition about what should be done, a strong inner compass. When Gordon talks about courage, it's profoundly the courage of conviction. You could see a great example, just a personal example in the eruption of energies of Mr. Beaver when he talks about the fight. You should bring with you this kind of combination of courage or conviction together with the capacity to inspire hope. But basically leadership exposes itself and expresses itself in times of crisis. And it is only where the deepest, primal anxieties of human people as well as the masses are pushed to the surface that real leadership is needed. And by those times, be it in the battlefield or in the economic crisis, it's time where it's not easy to answer what is a leader. A leader is the one who can convince in spite of all difficulties to convince people to act not just against circumstantial ads, but against their very instincts, be it the political instinct or very survivability instinct. And it only happens when whole paradigms collapse in front of our eyes. It happened to me several times when I saw during the height of battles in the field how everything that everyone believed that should happen or could happen is broken and the total destruction physical and human in terms of human life is exploding around you. And only few can keep under those huge pressures, the kind of emotional detachment on one hand with the extremely alert sensitivity to objective feedback from reality that can enable him to keep the psychological stability of the leader as a human being to be able to keep judging, to look out of the box and what's needed to be done and never lose the core of leadership which is not about contemplation, it's about action, it's about deeds not about words. In leadership ultimately what to really decide is character beyond certain relatively not extremely high level of intelligence which is needed to understand the world. It's basically about character more than about IQ. It's about the nature of the individual and in this regard you know the human capacities, the psychological pressures, the capacity to operate alone. Leaders, I am confident that Gordon remembers him for many moments, concrete moments and Tricia remembers him for concrete moments and the same applies to anyone here on the stage, probably many of you, that you end up being alone, alone. You understand it, you hear many feedback, some of them are distorted consciously, some of them are distorted subconsciously but you have a huge responsibility and you have to make decisions. It's about the nature of the financial system and how far it was drifted by greed and other elements and by the loopholes that were in the system by extremely competent players to the other questions that I face, how to deal, how to actually deal with the challenges around Israel from the Hamas in Gaza that accumulated thousands of rockets to the Hezbollah in Lebanon or a proxy of Iran, a militia that had 50,000 rockets and missiles to cover on Israel and running their own independent policy and not to mention Iranian hovering in the background as a major challenge and the daily terror threats all around the world. We are focused in it, we know that we will have to make many decisions practically alone even if formally you have some form to go to and I think that in this moment what I have learned from experience is that many people, very good people, sometimes under the overwhelming pressures of reality of the collapsing world and paradigms lose sight of what they are trying to do to accomplish at what should be done and because they don't know what to do, they do what they know which sometimes increase the damage rather than minimize or put the risk or hedging the risks at bay. Thank you very much. I think we now have a good amount of time to take questions from the audience. What I would suggest is that I will identify people, state your question, let's take three at a time because then I think we'll get in more comments from the audience and that's the most important thing here and then we'll have some but not all the panelists respond to questions because otherwise it will just take too much time. Yes, in the center. So there's a microphone coming. Thank you very much to all of the speakers. Most of you spoke about the importance of conviction. I totally share this element of leadership but unless conviction is based on a certain important value system, I think it can be very dangerous and I would like you to comment on that please. I think that's a very interesting question about really there's content, the leadership. It's not just being a leader because you can be a leader of bad organizations as well and we obviously in this room care about good leaders and good leadership. So let's have some comments about that. Another question down here in the front. I would ask you about visions about the New World Order which Gordon Brown states at the G20 and in which influence does it on the sovereign person in each sovereign state? Gordon did you get that? Or should we ask for a little more? I think the question is really are you prepared to accept and how can you persuade public opinion that some decisions have got to be made internationally which may contest traditional ideas of sovereignty? Is that right? Am I summarizing you correctly? Good, good. So let's come back to that with Gordon. One more question, the woman in the red. Okay, so who wants to take up the issue of distinctions between a leader of a good leader and a good leader of a bad organization, Jean-Claude Trichet? No, perhaps I could comment a little bit on conviction. Yeah, because I think we have reflected a lot in the CBE and myself because we had to explain the non-standard measures. Precisely these measures that were not in the textbook and were not necessarily understood immediately by the people. After all, an independent central bank is responsible to the people. And I found the best presentation, the best understanding possible was the distinction by Max Weber between the ethics of responsibility and the ethics of conviction. In a way, you have to stick to your ethics of conviction. In our case, it's quite simple. I mean, it's stability of prices and through stability of prices, necessary condition for medium, long-term growth, job creation, and stability, including financial stability. On the other hand, you have to take into account the reality as it is. And that goes for the ethics of responsibility. And the non-standard measure in this reading were measures that were absolutely cold because we were in a totally different environment. And we had to be sure that the ethics of conviction could operate even in an environment which was dramatically upside down because of the crisis. And I would say that we need both and Max Weber himself said, of course they look as being totally different and self-contradictory. It's not the case. We need both. And we need both particularly, I have to say, in period that I strongly demanding. I think it's a good way of reading what the central banks have done might be useful for other reading. Ehud Barat wanted to say something about this. I think, first of all, there are no shortage, unfortunately, in the history of even the last century of extremely bad characters that got the secrets of hidden secrets of leadership, effective leadership and led the whole world and at least their nations into disasters. So that's of course a room there for this. And we have to be, as citizens of the world, extremely active in seeing the first signs of budding of such regimes in order to block them. And I don't think that the appearance of the major world kind of examples as Tallinn or Hitler had certain relationship to the crisis that Trichet described as the crisis of the beginning of the previous century, including the deep, the great depression. So basically, the room is there, the choice of human people and we should be proactive in order to make that it not happen. But there are many other cases which are nuanced. For example, we are watching from very close distance the Arab Spring that threatens to turn into Islamist winter. We basically see a combination. In the long term, I find the Arab Spring one of the most promising, inspiring movements. All people standing on their feet, destroying the dictatorships, replaced them by the will of the people. But we should be realistic. In a short, medium term, nothing will change necessarily for the better. No, the Arab societies are not ripe as collectives for the kind of regime that already takes place in Europe or in the UK or in North America. No Vatslav haven will emerge there, the moral or kind of intellectual beacon. It will fall into the hands of Islamists. I remember still very vividly the discussion with Mubarak, which did a lot for the Egyptian people that ended up being lost there into the justice cage without even the support of the United States. But when the Americans tried to arrange free elections in Iraq, Mubarak told me, are they crazy? We are still a tribal society. We do not use this right to vote. Every individual acts the head of the clan or the tribe, what to do and he uses vote this way. So it's extremely naive, he said, to announce really free election in Iraq means to give it on a silver plate to Iran. And in a way, that's what probably or at least we are in a dungeon of happening right now. So it cannot be easily done, but we should be active on it. That's our role as leaders of the good side, the mess of the world and as individual citizens. We need to establish a new norm. There will be no global government for many reasons. We need to establish a norm of a community of nations which adapt the same values, namely solidarity, responsibility both demanding every individual deserves the opportunity to pursue happiness of whatever potentials the Lord gave him. But every individual, every group is demanded to take responsible steps. That's basically the reason culture matters a lot. Gordon on the issue of the G20 global decision making national sovereignty. Yeah, just to finish the last point, it seems to me that we're recognizing and having to recognize a new in 2012 that a political system and economic system has got to be based on values and the debate is about what are these right values and for too long economics did not get to the heart of what I think is central to the running of an economy. That is, it's got to be run in a fair way and it's got to be run in a responsible way as well as being run to succeed through dynamism, enterprise, competition and everything else. So fairness and responsibility, I think, have been restored as central principles of political economy and I think that's the most important development in economics over the last few years. I think we're also having to recognize what our obligations to each other as citizens of the world are and I think that's what's changed in the last 20 or 30 years that we know we are part of an interdependent world. There's a great poem that says it's the hands of others who grow the food we eat, who sow the clothes we wear, who build the houses we inhabit. It's the hands of others who lift us up when we fall, who tend us when we're sick. It's the hands of others who bring us into the world and who lure us into the grave and this is a poem about the interdependence not just within countries but across nations and the big debate is if you're going to solve the problems that we have in the world, environmental, financial, security and there's no braver person than Ehud Barak who's fought for the security of his country. If we're going to solve these problems then we need a degree of cooperation across nations that has never existed before while recognizing that people's first loyalties and their first identities are as national citizens and we've got to find a way forward. Now we have made promises to lots of people throughout the world. Global institutions exist, the United Nations International Monetary Fund, the World Bank but you know think of one case, Rwanda 1994 and if you go to the Rwanda Children's Museum that was built as a result of the genocide in Rwanda, you will see a portrait of a number of different children who died in this Holocaust and there's one I just want to draw your attention to. It's a guy called David and it says all the barest details about his life. David, age 10, favorite sport, football, favorite hobby, making people laugh, ambition to be a doctor, then it says death by mutilation, last words, the United Nations are coming to help us and that young boy believed in his innocence that when we made promises as an international community that we would help countries faced by either genocide or by famine or by malnutrition that we would act on these promises and I think the big challenge for this world community now is how we can build the institutions that are capable of dealing with the problems we now know can only be solved at a global level and I mean pollution and environmental degradation and I mean financial stability and I mean poverty and tackling hunger and famine and malnutrition and I mean the security issues that Ehud has reminded us of. Now that is the challenge of this generation and that's where leadership is needed and I do say that there is a tension between the national pressures upon you and the global imperatives and between the short term and the long term and that's the only way to resolve that is by debate in forums like this about where your priorities lie where you would focus your most attention and where leaders can draw strength from people understanding that these problems require a more interdependent world and the institutions that reflect that interdependence so there is a tension between national sovereignty and global cooperation there's no doubt about it but we've got to find a way of resolving it otherwise there will be other children like David whom we're quite happy to make promises to that we'll have a millennium development goal we'll have a united nations that will give you peace we'll have freedom from famine and then we don't deliver now that is the root of further tension in the future so we've got to face up I think more than ever to our responsibilities not just as citizens of our local community and national citizens of a country but that we do somehow feel the pain of others no matter how distant they are from us and we've got some obligation to build the institutions that can help them in order to make sure that we get a number of questions in Bryce, very quickly you would I assume agree that transparency is important in a leader not in terms of crisis as well as in crisis even more important in crisis that's basically right I mean the only thing I would add to that is that in a crisis you tend to just forget about it because you have to decide to speed up you don't have the time but it goes to a limit and I would appeal to Mr. Barak in a battle you don't have time to transparency either because you need to decide it to go you cannot start to be transparent and communicate but in a crisis normally you tend to hide you tend to forget to communicate because of time issues in a corporate it would be important to communicate as much as possible in a government too in a work phase I think their communication is no time you just need to go of course it was not the case in the big heroic leaderships of the past it's a new phenomenon a very important one woman in the back right there yes thank you good afternoon everyone my name is Nala I am a global shaper from the Philippines I'm also a 24 year old mayor my question is to the panel because I'm so young and I am in a position of power and I deal with a very traditional political system where it's mostly dominant dominated by male individuals who are over 30 to 40 to 50 years of age sounds like a panel something like that could you spread some light a young version of the panel I know it's funny could you give some advice to somebody who's young as myself who would want to be able to align our vision and mission when it comes to local governance because I think we did talk about how important it is to have communication and collaboration but when you're talking about an untraditional politician and the very traditional methods what are your suggestions or advice since all of you have already worked in that industry and field down here in the front this question is to all the speakers and it's about dirty hands dilemmas you spoke about conviction and then having conviction of being necessary but not sufficient there needs to be courage to be able to go through the decisions but what do you do when you cannot even make up your own mind about what's the right thing to do when you have values but a decision you have to make something you have to choose different ways that all conflict each other with several values that you have what do you do in these situations where you might have courage but you cannot make up your mind about your convictions okay I like that question just follow over here I have a question considering a problem Mr. Trichet mentioned he said that the system democracy cannot respond quickly to crisis what would you suggest to do about that that's a fair question so I'd like to go to Jean-Claude Biver about the issue the second question about indecision I mean when you're faced with the problem of leadership and it is a crisis in all honesty one's beset by a lot of different ideas and feelings and it's very natural to feel overwhelmed by that as you're making a choice what would you say to that I think Minister Barak answered when you don't know what to do usually people do what they know and then they aggravate the crisis so and if you don't know what to do for too long then I think you are not a leader the leader is also somebody who can federate people around himself a leader gets a lot of input a leader is somebody who shares sharing is a very important process and so if slowly slowly you can get to know what to do so I believe and probably the solution is not always instant the Swiss watch industry we needed a few one year two years to react and it's not important it's one day the solution will come but I wouldn't be I wouldn't say a leader has to know always the answer no the answer comes also from other people a leader who doesn't listen is a very dangerous leader because nobody knows everything you have to listen from other people you have always to look to listen like learning many students are here we have a lot of students I always say to the students you will start to learn once your studies are finished during university is nothing what you learn because it's the teacher who tells you what to learn and the teacher gives you the fork in your mouth and you eat but once you are finished to study then you have to start to learn how to learn you have to learn how to learn you have to learn to listen and then and that is making your knowledge your personality because you listen because you look and you are humble and you want constantly to learn quick comment from I want to add two short points one a leader in any area should have a strong intuitions about what he is doing that stems out usually from deep understanding of details in certain areas that are relevant to it none of us can conduct a philharmonic orchestra even if many of us love to listen and none of us can enter into an operation surgical room and lead a complicated bypass surgery we don't have any intuitions we don't have any understanding of details at the same time I believe that many highly intelligent intellectuals are not capable of becoming an effective leader because they fall in what I call the intellectual trap namely they see the world is a Gestalt you can never describe it in a simple way and if you are falling to the trap of seeing not just two sides of the court but a dozen of them all different all argue for its priority you lose you are paralyzed by the complexity of issues you are probably very good for university and academy you are not good for leading a real world situation especially crisis can I just add something you know Peter Drucker said management knows how to do things but leader knows how to do the right thing he means on the left side the right thing is sometimes on the left side Martin to the first question I would like to congratulate the mayor I was also mayor and I know what it is to be a young mayor her responsibility is very important for all the young people who are in line after her because the old establishment will try to use you to convince young people not to run to challenge them and so if you succeed you will have hundreds and hundreds of young people running for office because you will be a good role model so you have a very important leadership role there and with regards to indecision in that moment of loneliness when only you can make a decision who do you work for ultimately what is true because or else you can make a decision on what is good for my group what is good for the short term but what is the right thing to do and going back to Switzerland being a small country in Europe Switzerland has produced great leaders everywhere in the world in my country we have two Swiss heroes one is Mr. Freberg and the other one is Don Bertoni these two Swiss scientists that came to my country were instrumental in protecting the environment in doing great things for the Paraguay society that's why we like Switzerland so much because you have sent us great heroes so keep on doing that you have a role in the world and we need more brains Gordon did you want to say something I think the indecision point there was someone said about the response of leaders in the 1930s to the great recession and it was churchly said they were resolved to be a resolute they were adamant for drift and they were all powerful for impotence and that is not how to lead but I want to answer the question that the mayor from the Philippines put because I think it's incredibly important about I think women's leadership will be one of the huge big forces of change over the next 10-15 years and in a way I'm sorry I think we've got to be honest that this platform is not fully representative of the leadership qualities that exist in our community and I think in Africa in particular and there may be some people here who experience what's happening in Africa it's women leaders that are breaking the old system of patriarchy that has held Africa back for too long and I think there are two films out at the moment in Britain and some of you may have heard of them one is called the Iron Lady which is about Mrs Thatcher who was our prime minister and the other one is called the Iron Lady which is about Ansoonsuki the Burmese leader and these are two very popular films at the moment and one presents a style of leadership and this is the answer to my friend from the Philippines that is in a sense command and control almost instructing people, dictating to people and that kind of leadership but the other film Ansoonsuki presents another kind of leadership which is about how you inspire people to do the right things how you lead people to do the things that will change things how you tap the potential of people and by almost coaching them you move them forward and Ansoonsuki of course was never in a position where she actually ran a country even though she was elected as the leader but she inspired millions of people to still be resistant to a regime that was brutal and dictatorial and corrupt by the way she brought people along inspired them to coach them if you like to be leaders of the future so there are two styles of leadership and I think the second style which is coaching people, motivating people helping people make the best of themselves is perhaps a style of leadership that has been undervalued in the past and it's a style of leadership that I think will make a bigger difference if it is practiced in the future so you ask what are the styles of leadership for the future, I think coaching people, helping people doing things that you don't do yourself but people are encouraged to do as individuals and as communities and that style of leadership I think you'll find if you watch the film The Lady although I'm not paid here to advertise any film today I'm determined to get in three more questions before we end we have this last one from this round for Jean-Claude Trichet which is immensely difficult but it's the point you raised about how democracies are not suited for quick action and yet a crisis may demand a huge crisis may demand that kind of quick action or everything could fall apart what is the answer to that I think what you said, Gordon was reminding me certainly a British joke the man who says I used to be undecisive but now I'm not so sure I think what counts enormously is to make the distinction obviously between the crisis management and the medium long-term direction because these are two different things and what is particularly different to share with your people long-term direction medium long-term direction is your job I mean nobody dispute that what is extremely difficult in my opinion is to take the right decision in terms of a crisis which is unfolding in real time and then of course the kind of first lucidity of the leaders second the courage including intellectual courage because the character plays a very important role but you have to accept to think out of the box and it's not that easy it's perhaps the most important courage and then of course you have to get the possibility of taking the right decision from your own people namely in very difficult case from your parliament and the parliament itself because there is the interaction in our democracy real-time interaction, social networks and so forth so the lucidity of the people is decisive as far as I see it then the quality of the leader in terms of communication as Gordon said and Eudbach said is decisive I mean so people understand what you are saying and understand the gravity of the situation without panic without panicking the right threshold between being lucid and communicating the gravity of the situation without triggering a panic I guess it's also the same in a firm in a way but do you think that they're structuring of democracies it is important to take certain kinds of decisions and to take them out of the democratic system not completely but the economic the central banking certain constitutional rights there are certain things that we build into democratic systems that free us up to be able to take decisive actions without going through normal democratic procedures is that do you agree with that I would I will not make a plea for enlightened dictatorship or any kind of authoritarianism but I think that I could observe myself 17 democracies or 27 democracies functioning all are exemplary democracies in some cases there is an historical very strongly rooted tradition that the prime minister says is the captain of the crew and can take this kind of decision is granted to take that in other cases you have a much more representative democracies and decisions have to be shared with the parliament I think I'm going to have to go to the question so let's go in the back again hey my name is Geronimo I'm a global shaper too from Geneva and you were talking about unpopular decisions in the beginning and I tweeted so unpopular to who and I tweeted this morning from another session quoting a leader that was saying there's this cliche out there of the too big to fail what about too big or too important to challenge and I wanted to ask you there are lots of young people here how can we support you to take these unpopular decisions and how are you going to show leadership and take the unpopular decisions we need to take to make peace happen in the Middle East to turn your businesses into social businesses that respect environment and human rights throughout the value chain and how are you going to fix the financial system but all of the causes we are observing today ok thank you for the question second yes thank you very much my question goes how should a leader act more also using moral and being illegal in some situations or being legal and un-moral I want to ask Mr. Eubarak the defense minister of Israel a question and I want to ask you are talking now about how responsible leadership has to work and I want to ask how can it work when you are talking about terrorism in all the world and how we can act against it while even you yourself as you were in the Mossad you were doing terrorist activities all around the world responsible for assassinating people even were not guilty I just want to ask how can it be that the state of right or responsible leader does this against the law in foreign countries terrorist activities with the secret services with covered intelligence operations and the people are just killed when they are when they are suspicious and there is no trial there is no court there is no adjustment how is this responsible leadership let's begin with the issue of how do we in today's world respond to the youth and the feelings of youth and make sure that we don't create this sense of impotence among young people about things that really matter to them and I think we all probably would agree that the world has failed in very very significant ways and one of the ways we don't want to follow with that is a sense that for young people that the world is incapable of writing itself and correcting itself so who would like to comment on that I think it's very worrying when our friend says you will start learning after you finish your school we have a problem with our schools if the learning is going to happen after and many people in the Arab spring were very concerned about democracy in their countries but they are also concerned about work and the educational systems do not teach people how to work and so we need to re-engineer the educational systems particularly in the poor countries where people where mothers are telling their daughters go out of the school because the school is not good for you so the drop out rates are not because poor people are poor is because the schools are poor and nobody is challenging the educational system so we need to rethink how the educational system will equip young people to live in this world where there are no more factory jobs other comments for me the issue is to answer at least two of the three questions to me the issue is writing the wrongs that do exist and being focused on what we can change for the better and I think we know about education it is immoral that 70 million children are not going to school today because there are no schools for them to go to actually because there are no schools or there are no teachers or there's no books and around the world 70 million children are getting up this morning and not going to school and we can do something about it we can help build the schools we can help train the teachers we can help get the technology into the schools in South Sudan a country 10 million people there are only 400 girls in senior secondary school education of a population of 10 million only 400 if it was the same population in any other country there would be 150,000 girls at school only 400 now these are things we can actually do something about and it's quite unacceptable that in the year 2012 we not only have children dying needlessly through avoidable diseases mothers dying in childbirth through the lack of just proper health care that is very cheap and children not being able to go to school we promised that in the millennium development goals we would help solve these problems the world all came together every international institution, every country every pressure group that I know came together to say that we're going to do something about it but we have not succeeded and I just say to us we could as people who are concerned about these global issues come together and take these issues one by one and say what can we do businesses what can we do NGOs what can we do governments what can we do international organizations to actually direct our attention to solving some of these basic problems that if not dealt with will leave a world that is disunited a world that is divided a world that is unequal a world that is bitter about what should happen I personally have involved myself in this global campaign for education to try and get 70 million to school I want businesses to sign up to that campaign I want churches and faith groups to sign up to that campaign I want the international organizations to form and I want ordinary people who are wanting to shape a better world to be involved in this but if we cannot by 2015 achieve at least one of the millennium development goals that we set in 2000 we will have failed and the one we can definitely achieve is to get 70 million children at school a big invention a technological breakthrough you don't need some active genius you need people who are prepared to spend money and prepared to spend their energies helping get children to school in some of the poorest countries and I would urge people today to think of the achievable objectives over these next few years where we can prove that by working together we can actually make a difference and if we set our attention on achievable goals I think there is nothing there is nothing that we cannot do by working together before going there I would add to that you raise a question what can we do together to make it better I think we have a very powerful tool today which exists and I mentioned that briefly before with the social media especially this younger generation we know that every nine person on earth is somehow on the social media of facebook we know that twitter we talk about millions of tweets per day I think 19 so we have an unbelievable powerful tool here to share information to increase transparency and as soon as you get transparency somewhere the obvious decision the improvement will appear obvious will be very easy to take because it's transparent but one thing is clear this powerful tool needs to be used rightly and not misused not with power come also responsibility so the younger generation will have the responsibility for me to use this tool intellectually correct and it was mentioned before courage is not only courage from a soul it's also from an intellectual point of view meaning use that tool that transparency to really gather the facts and not only one side I've seen that too many times I've spent a lot of time in China seeing both side of the equation and China is another subject and you see that we on all side are actually not honest and that is what the younger generation should be remain honest remain interested curious use this powerful tool which is social media to get this transparency and these easy decision then to be taken the subject of the discussion here is leadership in times of crisis not about particular individuals but Eric Baraka I want to make sure opportunity to say what you would like very brief because we're towards the very end of our program Terror is a tough challenge for democracy and democracy has to be capable of protecting itself that's the primary contract between a government and its citizens to protect themselves against being indiscriminately killed by by a terrorist so I reject strongly the moral equivalence that you are trying to create between the origins of terror the terrorists and those who are deployed and active in order to avoiding the terrorists from reaching their objectives or precipitate more terror I said now yeah it's true that I was involved personally I disguised as a mechanic in white overall I personally weighed on a hijacked airplane with many hostages in it and within 90 seconds we released the hostages by killing two of the terrorists and unfortunately one of the passengers I personally disguised as a woman who led a raid over arch terrorists at the heart of Beirut after the assassination or massacre of our athletes in the Munich Olympics these guys were preparing the next round in terror and we had responsibility to block them but 30 years later as a prime minister of Israel I sat down with Arafat the man who basically sent them and I sent down with President Clinton to propose to them the most far-reaching proposal how to put an end basically put an offer that will solve most of the wanted as a basis for negotiation we even did not try to dictate to them Arafat rejected it but when the issue of releasing prisoners came and we said that we will not release prisoners with blood on their hands before a full agreement is achieved he said but what's the case Barack also has a blood on his hands I told him I will never apologize for this the real difference is that you sent terrorists in order to kill ordinary citizens in buses in the center of the cities in pizzerias in the discotheques in even in Passover ceremonies while we were always sent by a responsible democratic government to hit individuals who were preparing the next round of terror we will not apologize for it even if it in few very few cases some other people were killed during such an operation we never went to never intended to cause any loss of life of a single individual which was not responsible for terror and preparing for the next round of terrorist attack so now I need to bring the session to a close I think it's all very important that we hear from these individuals about the very subject of leadership and if there's anything I think is the most impressive part of this is the theme of how complicated so much more complicated the world has become so much more global and the crises that have erupted have demanded great creativity and great inventiveness on the spot as well as the courage the vision the kind of qualities of character that we associate with great leaders thank you to the panelists thank you for coming to the audience