 Good afternoon, and good morning in California, good evening in the Middle East. We have a great panel, and of course we discuss a very hot issue, Restoring Trust in Global Trade and Supply Chains. And I have an exceptional panel to address this issue. First, Dr. Ngozi on Cognon Iviala as the Director General of the World Trade Organization and a member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum. We also welcome, for the first time and a special greetings to you, Ambassador Katharine Tai. Madam Tai, you are the United States trade representative. Then we have representing business with Pat Gelsinger who is the Chief Executive Officer of Intel. By revenue I know it's the largest chip manufacturer in the world. We have Sultan Ahmed Bin Suleyem, a leader in global supply chain solutions and we have Martin Lundstedt, the President and the CEO of Volvo. So we have with semiconductors a very sensitive supply issue, we have transportation and we have, let's say, at the far end, the consumers and you, Martin, to tell us about your hopefully not too bad experiences. So the pandemic has triggered a shift from a mindset of just in time to just in case. And we will, during this hour, 45 minutes, we will see what domestic and international changes are needed to ensure the resilience of global supply chains and to rebuild support for trade as an engine of development and prosperity. Now let me first turn to you, Angosi. Do you have or do we have the international institutional frameworks which are really needed to strengthen global trade and at the same time to build supply chain resilience? Dr. Angosi, the floor is yours. Well, thank you very much, Klaus, and good day to everybody. To your question on resilience for supply chains, do we have international institutions? I would say the answer is yes. We do have international institutions to strengthen trade and strengthen supply chains. The issue is whether these institutions are fit for purpose. And what I would say, I can talk about my own institution, a wonderful one which underpins transparency and level playing field in multilateral trade, but there's a lot of work to be done in order to be strengthened the trading system and be fit for the future of trade. So the WTO, for instance, needs to modernize its rules and bring them up to date. I'll give you an example. The future of trade, I always say future of trade is digital. The future of trade is green, but we don't have rules that underpin digital trade and this is becoming the wave of the future. So if we want to strengthen the frameworks for trade, we need to look at strengthening the rule-based system, multilateral system that we have in place. And I'm very glad that at the WTO, we have 86 members who are presently negotiating an agreement, an e-commerce agreement. And I hope from there we'll be able to lay out the rules that can underpin digital trade. Of course, if you look at the other multilateral institutions, the IMF, the World Bank, they also have a lot to do with trade and their issues of the infrastructure for trade for many of the developing countries. And we want to be part of this multilateral trading system. It's very important. Access to trade finance is very important. And all of this means that we need to really look at these institutions and see how can they be strengthened and modernized so that they can follow the direction that the global economy is going with respect to the trading system. So in short, we have the frameworks, but the frameworks need to be made fit for purpose. And go see when I look out of my window, I can see your building. And I'm always thinking how much you have dynamized this organization, WTO, and how difficult it is to keep 126 countries in line to really achieve in a common agreement results. But I will come back to the general issue of trade later. Let me turn back to the issue of – or let me focus on the issue of the chip industry, because it's particularly hit. And Pat, we have seen quite serious bottlenecks, and those bottlenecks have had quite some implications or have even politically. What is your proposal to create a global system for semiconductors where we have the optimal combination of just-in-time and just-in-case? Well, obviously this has been a dramatic phase for the semiconductor industry. We saw supply chains disrupted in COVID, and we saw, due to the digitization of everything, as I like to say, the superpowers of compute everywhere, of everything being connected, of infrastructure at scale from the cloud to the edge, and of course the superglue of AI bringing them together, everything's becoming digital, and everything digital runs on semiconductors. And what we saw is that we just got focused on cost of supply chain and the optimization of that, and we lost sight of the resilience and what I would call a geographically balanced resilience supply chain. And thus, with the CHIPS Act in the U.S., we're enthusiastic to see that rebuilding. The industry went from 37% in the U.S. to 12%. In Europe, we saw it go from 44% to less than 10%. And in fact, today, President of the EU, Ursula, indicates that in February they'll be formally bringing forward their CHIPS Act to rebuild the U.S. and the European industries. And I've called it the moonshot that we would have the U.S. go from 12% to 30%. And President van der Leyen's comments today, the Europe going from 9% to 20% by the end of the decade. And we believe if we would accomplish that, we would now be building a resilient global supply chain for something that's more important to our future than where the oil reserves are, but where the CHIPS. That's becoming more important to humanity in every aspect of the digitization of everything. And we're getting enthusiastic support. And of course, we're leaning into that with our commitments. We're announced multiple new FABS this year or last year. I'm looking forward to announcing our next mega-sites in the U.S. very shortly and doing so in Europe very shortly as well. It's that important to the future of the industry, to economy, to national security, and to the world. Thank you, Pat. I will come back to the political implications later with you, Ambassador Tai. But just a short word, Ngozi. Are you worried about this new phenomenon of national tech? Let's say, tech nationalism, let's call it tech nationalism. Are you worried? Well, I can say that, yes, the implications for global trade, if we start getting to, governments start getting too much into industrial policy, could be quite significant. I understand the phenomenon, what Pat has just talked about, of trying to secure supply chains and diversify them. It's also a way of managing risk. So it's understandable to see people trying to nearshow or unshow some of their supply chains. But I would caution that we not take this too far because getting too entangled in managing what industry to support where may also have other implications with respect to competitiveness of the trading system, with respect to the way trade works. So, yes, I'm a little worried, not too much yet, but a little. I think it's so fast. It's quite the whole. It's about supply chains. Most CEOs seem to have confidence that if they diversify a little bit their risk, maybe to neighboring countries away from concentration in one country, they build factories maybe in different places in the same country that they can manage it. So hopefully we don't have a concentration of kind of industrial policy related actions. Ambassador Tai, I think it's the right moment for you to come in and to address from your point of view the question of are we heading into a new kind of type of trade impediments and trade barriers through national tech nationalism? Thank you so much, Klaus. And it's nice to see you, Dr. Ngozi and fellow members of this panel, some of whom I've had the opportunity and pleasure to meet and work with already. To your question, Klaus, let me get to the larger point about what we are talking about today, which is the sense of confidence that we are looking to recapture or to work towards in our global trade system and in our supply chains. I think that it is clear from the conversations we are having with each other around the world internally, whether in the private sector, in government, in civil society that the pandemic in particular has laid bare vulnerabilities in this version of globalization that we have and existing supply chains that we all feel strongly that we need to address. On the way to addressing these vulnerabilities, I want to be balanced in how we continue to talk to each other and maintain the space to bring new thinking and creative thinking to how we trade, how we devise our supply chains and how we design them for resilience as opposed to just efficiency in your terms for just in case, not just in time. Along the way, I'm sensitive to charges of nationalism, protectionism. I think it is more constructive for governments to engage with each other, to really engage on the interests that we share which I believe strongly is in resilient supply chains, confidence in globalization and international trade and resist some of the urge in terms of name calling. So I think if I were to sum up an answer to your question, it would be yes, I think that we need to be very, very alert to this present moment devolving from an opportunity to build a better version of globalization into one where we are fighting each other. And that is something that I am very, very committed to as the U.S. trade representative. Very reassuring response, Madam Ambassador. Let me turn to Sultan Suleyem. You are probably one of the best informed persons about what's going on in the global supply chains and disruptions. Do we have to deal with a phenomenon which is just caused by, let's say, the demand increase we have now coming out of the pandemic and some bottlenecks in meeting the demand? Or is it a long-term phenomenon? How do you see it, Sultan Ahmed? Well, of course the pandemic has part of the problem, but I don't believe the pandemic is the one that's causing the supply chain problem. I think the supply chain has been exposed and put to the test. Supply chain is fragile and it has many stakeholders who have not developed. And when the pandemic happened, we saw the weakness of it. And that's why I would agree that we have to go digital. We have to put trust back in the supply chain. We have to invest. And I'm pleased to say that many shipping lines are actually putting a lot of money, including us, into digitalizing, into improving supply chain. Supply chain needs to be put back to track to be resilient for this pandemic. You've seen the fragility of it, even with the ship that was stuck in the system. That effect was amazing. And today, I would say if today the pandemic is over, still we will need the whole of this year and next year to go back to normal. Which may have repercussions also on inflation. Anybody who wants to comment on it? I'm Arsenault and Angosi. I just want to make a quick comment. I think going through this pandemic and this disruption that we're experiencing right now, we have for the last almost two years now been yearning for return to normalcy. I think that it is time for us to acknowledge that our goal really shouldn't be to try to go back to the way the world was, let's say in 2019. But to take lessons, very hard-earned lessons, very painful lessons that we have experienced over the past two years. And take this opportunity to build towards something that is different and better. And I think that this focus on resilience is a really critical one. And one where I think I want to give you a lot of credit for convening this conversation. Because I think it is really just to reinforce the point about building towards something that is different as opposed to reverting to the way things were before. I will come back later to the question. I think everybody agrees we have to build a better system. Now, what are the three priorities you may think already about which we should aim at in rebuilding our system? And this would be also a question for Ngozi. Now, we lost at least a video of Martin. But I know Martin, I just was informed that you are back. Martin, you are at the receiving end. Do you really feel the impact of, let's say, supply chain disruptions? Do you have enough access to the chips of Pat? What is your experience as a major producer? What is your lesson from this, let's say, disruptive situation? Thank you for that question. And of course, we are partly at the receiving end. But since we are a major producer of trucks, buses, construction equipment, we are also a very important provider, of course, to some of the questions here and some of the capacity issues to be addressed in the long run. First and foremost, obviously, we are a global company. We are, I mean, having activities in 190 countries around the globe. And even if we are seen as a Swedish company, 2% of our sales is in Sweden. So we are really, really depending on the global system when it comes to trade and when it comes to exchange and global supply chains. And when you look at the truck, for example, I mean only from the semiconductor side, it's consisting between 1,700 ships up to 3,500, 4,000 for one single trucks. Of course, there is very, very complex supply chains. And I think there are a number of learnings out of this. First and foremost, that when we talk about just-in-time or just-in-case, that is maybe a too simple answer to a complex problem because the just-in-time was more impacting in the short run with short-term disruptions where you don't have the inventory and the stocks. But when the recovery is coming, it's more about building trust in the entire supply chain, not only your Tier 1 partners or Tier 2 partners, but really to understand and get to know your complete network of supply chain partners, including the Tier 3, Tier 4, Tier 5. First and foremost, of course, for the task force and really come back to a normal situation and we are gradually getting there. But secondly, also to utilize the experience of saying, are we really working as partners in the whole supply chain or is it still very much a transactional system? And why is that important? It's not only to come back to the... or going into a new normal because I like what Ambassador Tai said about that, but it's also very important for the future real transformation challenges because if we are to really get going with the science-based targets, to go to the decarbonization journey, we need to have the grip of the supply chain as partners. And not only when it comes to shipments, but when it comes to content, when it comes to innovation, when it comes to pets, plan about new nodes. So we are investing in our technology with those nodes where they are building capacity and not only talking generically about semiconductors. So transparency, understanding, and now when everyone needs really to get to know their supply chain, continue to build on it because you need it for the future in order to win the transformation as well. So task force here and now important, long-term strategic implications, even more important. Thank you very much. Now, I come back to you, Pat. Does it mean, and also to a certain extent following what we just heard, does it mean that your future development is very much to rely on regional apps of production where you can serve on a regional basis your customers? Well, we believe very firmly that our facilities should be global. We do believe that from all of our factories that we have around the world, we have Oregon, Arizona, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, Vietnam, and we'll be announcing two more sites. They should be supplying the world. But we also believe that they're benefiting by having a local presence. So to bias them towards supplying the local markets, we do think that that local and some of that's driven by economic benefits, but some of that's also driven by national security benefits. This is my supply chain on European soil or my supply chain on American soil. And we believe that those benefits clearly can be satisfying local markets as well as global markets. And that's why we say a globally distributed, resilient supply chain where no market is uniquely dependent on any other supply or any singular location. But there's also always a duplicity of supply chains available across the globe. And we found that in so many cases as we went through it and Martin's comments on transparency. I also think there's learnings, Klaus. When we went through the financial crisis, some of the things that we started doing after the financial crisis was that we started doing stress tests on the financial system. Well, I think given what the world's gone to, we have to start looking at stress tests on supply chains going forward as well. And, you know, as the auto industry has seen, all of a sudden they realize that their second, third, fourth tier suppliers were no longer having visibility in some of the underlying ingredients and they had sort of lost track of those supply chain implications. And all of a sudden we have Martin's trucks, you know, depending on a $5 semiconductor components and a $100,000 vehicle is not being able to ship and all the economic consequences, you know, thereof. You know, resilience, or as you say, it's, you know, just in case, you know, I think resilience, stress testing, transparency, and obviously Secretary Romondo and the efforts of Commerce have been about bringing more supply chain transparency as well. I think all of these things become essential if we're going to build a more resilient world to the future and that has to be one of the learnings from the crisis that we've been through. And Gosi, can the WTO integrate those requests for more transparency into its own scheme of negotiations and make it happening, develops the necessary guidelines about it? Yeah, let's, Klaus, let me first, before I get to that, you know, comment perhaps leaning on something that both Pat and Catherine talked about. The issue of, you know, this risk management or diversification that Pat was referring to, if you step back, I think one of the learnings from this, if you want to call it snafu, supply chain crisis or snafu, is that we shouldn't look at it. It could be seen also as an opportunity. What do I mean by that? You know, this is a chance for us to, in this diversification and going global, to integrate those countries and areas and parts of the world, or even parts of the country that have been left behind, not included in the benefits of globalization. So relocating or diversifying your manufacturing sites to other countries in the developing world, as you seem to be doing, Pat, is a good thing. We see shifts to Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Ethiopia and so on in our data. And I call it a way of re-globalizing and using this globalization and supply chain to solve some of the inequality problems that Catherine referred to earlier. So let's not all see the supply chain issue as one that is a problem. I see it also as an opportunity. I actually want to urge those investing like Pat, I like what you said, to use this as an opportunity whilst you're diversifying to also help solve those lack of inclusion type of ideas. The second point I want to make is that in order for supply chains to work, Laos, you're absolutely right. We need to look at what is happening to the rules-based trading system. We take it for granted. And I want to say we shouldn't because if it doesn't work, the whole supply chain won't work. If you have people or members who are putting in export restrictions and prohibitions, even one of those will prevent some inputs moving from one part of the world to the other where they are needed. And that will disrupt supply chains. So we also need to pay attention to how the multilateral rules-based trading system is functioning. And yes, I think monitoring the monitoring function that we have, the transparency function we have with our members, it's crucial to making supply chains work. We have used it to try and help with the pharma industry, the vaccine manufacturers, working with them to make sure that issues that come up on their supply chains, we target them and see if they can be solved where our members are involved. So I think the WTO is crucial to that. And people take it for granted, but they shouldn't. Thank you. I'm going to see what you did for the medical or for the, let's say, important COVID medicine with the vaccines. You were a major driver making it globally available. But let me come back to you, Ambassador Tai. I, we heard the US is a major player in the international trade system, one of the key essential drivers. What would you like to see when we improve now the international trade system? What key objectives would you have from your point of view, from the US point of view? Thank you for this question. It's something that occupies me and my agency every single day. In terms of our approach to trade, we are animated by a principle of ensuring that US trade policy and global trade policy be truly a force for good for the people of the United States and for the people of the world. And to build on some of Ngozi's comments, because I consider her a really strong and important ally and partner in this effort. What President Biden calls a worker-centered trade policy boils down to a trade policy that puts the interests of people and their livelihoods at its center. We need to ensure that trade, as we conduct it, supply chains, as we devise them, are built for resilience for the sake of maintaining and allowing for a high standard of living for our people. Sustainability, sustainability for our people and for our planet. Inclusiveness to Ngozi's point about this opportunity that we have now, seeing this as an opportunity, and obviously also competitiveness for all of our economies and for the global economy. So, Klaus, I think that the question that you ask is a really important one. It is about the strategic objectives that we put in front of ourselves to lead on trade and to lead in terms of transforming the purpose and the effectiveness of trade in our global economy, that it isn't just to generate wealth and income. It is actually to improve the lives of people. Ambassador, it fits so well into the philosophy of the World Economic Forum. It is a stakeholder capitalism concept. Now, let me turn to the three business leaders. My question would be based on your experience now of the last two years. What would be your advice to keep political leaders related to trade? What would be your advice? What are your wishes? What should be improved in the international trade system? What would be your concrete proposals? Pat, do you want to start? Sure. We're very encouraged by the CHIPS Act in the US, the European CHIPS Act, where governments do need to be involved in these and do need to be setting policies. And there's always this careful line of industrial policy and where they fit. But I think the last couple of years have clearly shown it's appropriate. I do think these concepts of transparency and resilience of supply chain become absolutely essential and never waste a good crisis. Well, we've had a good one. Let's not waste it. Let's do things that clearly put us on a course to be better. I love the ambassador ties comments. We think of, right, tech must be a force for good. And against that, are we truly building better supply chains, building resilience in the supply chains, and truly using technology to improve the lives of every person on the planet? And we do see that we have so many opportunities as these wonderful superpowers, as I call them, continue to evolve. And I do think that we in the industry, we have an obligation to our political partners. You know, these technologies are moving so rapidly. And how do we work with and partner and build policies that truly shape a better world, shape better supply chains, but do so in a way that truly is bringing about a technology that enables this force for good. So we must partner with our political leaders globally. And we do see technology, it's neither good nor bad. It's neutral. How do we shape it as this global force of good? Your part. Sultan Ahmed, I had the chance to visit your logistic facilities just some weeks ago. And I know how much you also are committed to use the latest technologies. What is your advice to the politicians for shaping the future trade context for your company? It's very interesting when we are dealing with the problem supply chain. It's bad enough to have the problem of not finding ships or containers. But we got the experience during our help with UNESCO to supply vaccines. I will urge many government officials to really improve their technology when you talk about custom process, when you talk about documentation. You can't imagine how backward it is still. Something like a vaccine, which is very sensitive to temperature, which is needed to be immediately into the clinic to give it to people. And you still have these old procedures. So I urge leaders really to adapt technology, adapt digital solution, remove some of the velcro that are today existing, which is adding more to what we have already in problems. I think government technology, digital improvement, we are even offering a custom system to certain countries when we find that they don't have a system. So trade facilitation through better use of technologies. That's your message. And Hans, Martin, what is your advice to the politicians? First and foremost, I think when we look into the regional value chains, that is something that has been ongoing also to Pat's point after the crisis. We need to reinforce that. But we need to reinforce that also taking into account that the globalization has been very positive in concert driving innovation. So not be tempted now to have short-term answers that could be opportunistic to really go for the long term here, not at least when it comes to the sustainability agenda on a global scale. I think if we can continue to discuss how do we get, even if that will take a while, on a global trading system for carbon, will be very important in order to drive the right type of innovation. I think when we talk about strategic autonomy, we should never forget open strategic autonomy because businesses are best to manage their supply chains and to drive innovation together with different partners. And the transparency that everyone has been into, I mean with the digital tools, then we can also connect in different shapes and forms to make it both fair and well-balanced and thereby making it inclusive. So those are some of the things that I think is very important in order to continue to develop and to utilize this crisis to also take on the challenges for the big transformation that we need to do when it comes to sustainability and to decarbonize these value chains together as well. Thank you, Martin. And goes any reaction to those, let's say, expectations from the business community? Yes. I like and I'm not surprised at what I hear. Let me start by saying that to speak to the expectations, let's remember that this multilateral trading system underpin by the WTO, actually the purpose of the WTO is what's set out to be to enhance living standards to create employment and to support sustainable development. So going back to what Catherine said and what Pat was emphasizing, it's all about people, you know, and it's all about making sure that people's livelihoods are taken care of. But who trades? It's the private sector that trades. So I would really urge a strong partnership between the WTO and more of the private sector. I often say that I don't see enough of the private sector people, agitating for strengthening the WTO, which is there serving the trading system. And when you talk about the governments and digitization, which I agree with what Salta just said, we have a trade facilitation agreement that is trying exactly to move countries towards that, to remove the red tape, to digitize the customs procedures, to modernize it. So a lot of things are happening at the WTO, but I don't know if the CEOs are following that. So to what you say, my answer to is, let's forge a closer partnership, whether it's through working with Klaus or some other means, so that we can see where we can work in a complementary fashion to help people. I really share that. I want to really share what Tafrin said. What is the good of trade? If it doesn't speak to the lies and livelihood of ordinary people, it's not about just the elite or those making people rich, but we need to look at how does it benefit poor people within rich countries and poor countries in the world, and how do we include them and integrate them into the global trading system? Ambassador Tai, this corresponds certainly to your own thinking, but any other comment? Certainly. Thank you, Klaus. And this is a wonderful panel for my own purposes in hearing what my fellow panelists have to say. Let me just reinforce this notion that the opportunity that we have right now is one to invest and reinvest. Invest in our commitment to the World Trade Organization, the world trading system. Invest in bringing an energy of innovation and improvement to the way we do trade, and certainly to the way that we tailor our trade policies and our trade goals to the interests of people, human beings, regular people, and also investment in ourselves and our systems to Sultan Ahmed's point. I just wanted to highlight the transformational changes that are happening here in the United States. President Biden just last week, or sorry, just this week, announced a $14 billion investment in U.S. ports to improve and strengthen our waterway supply chains. Last week, Transportation Secretary Buttigieg announced the largest investment in our bridges in U.S. history. That's $27.5 billion to help fix more than 15,000 bridges. And just to say that the spirit of investment and innovation and renewal needs to be ongoing. The opportunity that we have right now is to set ourselves and all of us on a strong path going into a future that can feel uncertain and can, through this pandemic, certainly shake our confidence. But just to reinforce something that Mgozi said, this really is an opportunity, and it is a time to think and act boldly. And the partnership, I think, is critical as well, both between governments and institutional, multilateral, international frameworks, governments and the private sector governments in our civil society. Thank you. Mgozi, we certainly will help to provide a platform between, let's say, the public and the private sector to build a more human-centered global trade system, but to build it in a very innovative way, as you said, Ambassador. We come to an end of our fascinating discussion, and I think it was a very constructive discussion, optimistic that we can create a trade framework which is up to the task in the world of the forced industrial revolution. But I would like to ask each of the speakers, just with one or two sentences, to respond to a last question. What is your biggest fear at the moment related to the global trade system? What is your biggest fear? Let me start, Pat, with you. Maybe building on the comment of Captain Tai, there is no going back. We only have to look forward embracing this crisis, what COVID has induced upon us to build a better future that's more resilient, more digitized, and that there is no going back to what we used to enjoy. It's all about going forward to the future together. More resilient, more digitized, and more sustainable. Thank you. Sultan Ahmed, yourself. You're mute. I'm sorry. Technology and changes in technology is what's scaring us all, really, is are we able to be able to use the technology on time? Another problem we face, really, today, which we faced when we started to reduce and accelerate many platforms that are helping us digitally is how do you get the people to really use it? Because they think it's only to use it for the problem, which we face now. And what we are trying to do is to change them and tell them that what is in the past is gone. This is a new technology, and that's what we have to do. A lot of people are talking about our company. How long are we going to do this? As if when this is over, we're going to go back to what we did. And that is really a key problem when we have to educate the people and tell them this is it. A new thing is what we have to do. Thank you, Martin. No, I think it's the opposite of what we have said. That is important, obviously. And that is that we are not getting it right when it comes to the balance both for people, as many have mentioned, but also for the planet and for different regions. And thereby nurturing and increased protection is because that will not help us to create a better planet and a better place for everyone. Thank you, Ambassador. Klaus, your question is really a challenge because I think that if I'm going to answer it the way you've posed it, I risk being the doom and gloom voice on the panel and I think that we're trying not to go there. But let me say this. I think that what I fear most is that we don't see this opportunity. We don't think big enough. We don't act boldly enough and we don't bring enough new ideas. Klaus, let me build on what Catherine said and make three points of three of my fears. The first is that we don't allow geopolitical tensions to really morph into protectionist measures and policies that use trade as a weapon rather than as a solution. So I lose a little bit of sleep at night about that. The second is worsening inequality in the world that we place a position trade to help solve this problem because it's becoming worse with the pandemic and trade is a solution. It's not part of the problem. It can be part of the solution. And the third is when we talk about digital trade, my fear is what you said in the beginning that we lack that institutional frameworks and rules lack behind the emerging new ways of doing business. That's a real fear. We have to work really hard to make sure we keep up with those. Let's conclude by just saying let's hope that none of those fears become reality. I want to thank on behalf of the participants and the listeners to our panelists for the most exciting discussion. I know trade is sometimes regarded as, let's say, something which happens by itself. But I think we had a demonstration not only of the issues but also of the efforts which we can undertake to really modernize and keep the global trade system open. So a great thank you to you all and good evening, good morning, good night. Thank you very much. Bye everybody.