0:00 I think calling the change saying this
0:02 is your alternative or else it's the law
0:04 of the Jungle is a kind of scare
0:05 mongering tactic it isn't the law of the
0:08 Jungle I mean it's from a very cozy room
0:10 everything looks like the law of the
0:12 jungle out there it's a more competitive
0:14 world it's a world where more countries
0:18 have the freedom and the choice to
0:19 pursue their interests I mean if that's
0:21 the jungle I'll take my chances on it
0:23 because I'd rather be in that jungle
0:25 than be in the pen which a few people
0:27 controlled
0:31 good afternoon thank you once again for
0:34 joining us for today's lunch uh titled
0:37 exception and exceptionalism deciphering
0:40 the 2025 world order my name is Sharon
0:43 Sterling I'm the Chief Operating Officer
0:45 of ORF America one of the hosts together
0:48 with the Observer Research Foundation of
0:50 today's lunch and this is done in
0:52 partnership with the India's Ministry of
0:54 external Affairs um distinguished
0:58 panelists need no introduction among
1:00 this group but uh let me just go ahead
1:02 and do that uh starting from the far
1:05 right his Excellency Alexander stub
1:07 president of the Republic of Finland his
1:10 Excellency SJ Shankar minister of
1:12 external Affairs of the Republic of
1:14 India Her Excellency Lana nbe from the
1:19 assistant Minister for political Affairs
1:21 and Envoy of the Minister of Foreign
1:23 Affairs from the United Arab Emirates
1:25 Ambassador John Huntsman Vice chairman
1:28 and president of strategic growth at
1:30 MasterCard and Dr Natalie toi director
1:33 Instituto aario International Italy and
1:36 our moderator today will be Dr Samir San
1:39 who is the president of the Observer
1:41 Research Foundation but before I turn it
1:43 over to him to kick things off please um
1:46 welcome the ambassador of India to
1:47 Germany um Ambassador anjet gup for a
1:50 few words of
1:55 welcome excellencies dignitaries and
1:57 dear friends it gives me immense
1:59 pleasure to invite all of you for the
2:02 fifth edition of the ORF Forum lunch
2:04 this has become a much anticipated
2:07 tradition of the Munich security
2:09 conference the USP of this forum is that
2:12 it brings together diverse voices
2:14 perspectives and intellectual Acumen
2:17 from different parts of the world to
2:19 discuss the most challenging and thought
2:21 Pro provoking contemporary
2:24 issues excellencies the long-standing
2:26 India Germany relationship has grown
2:29 from strength to strength in the last
2:30 few decades last year was particularly
2:33 momentous we had the seventh
2:35 intergovernmental consultations in New
2:37 Delhi and October 2024 our bilateral
2:40 trade reached a new high of $33.3
2:43 billion Investments grew both ways and
2:47 defense and security cooperation G
2:49 gathered renewed
2:51 momentum the Indian diaspora is growing
2:54 rapidly and you can see them in
2:56 different parts of
2:57 Germany they are making an important
2:59 contribution to the German economy in
3:02 the 25th year of our strategic
3:04 partnership we look forward with
3:06 optimism to even greater engagement
3:08 particularly in the field of security
3:10 cooperation and new and critical
3:13 Technologies the panelists don't need
3:15 any introduction in particular our
3:17 external affairs minister is able to
3:20 condense entire encyclopedic work uh
3:24 books into a couple of witty comments
3:26 which are then quoted time and again but
3:29 I look for forward to hearing the
3:30 panelist thank
3:32 you thank you Ambassador and
3:35 um okay uh so let me start with this
3:37 panel now I I had earlier described this
3:40 panel in slightly more uh verbos terms
3:44 economic exceptionalism fraying
3:47 multilateralism uh the normalization of
3:49 sovereign action but I thought maybe the
3:51 world order today can be broken into an
3:53 easy
3:54 definition people who like JD want's
3:57 speech and people who don't like JD
3:58 want's speech
4:00 and I think that's the world order today
4:02 and in some sense it might not be a bad
4:04 point of departure to have a
4:05 conversation on where we are and and in
4:08 some ways how are we going to respond to
4:10 those big questions of connectivity of
4:12 climate action of trade that lifts uh
4:15 the 45 billion who are still to benefit
4:17 from globalization discovering peace in
4:19 Europe discovering peace in the Middle
4:21 East in Africa in many other parts of
4:23 the world how are we going to respond to
4:25 it in this new mood that prevails uh and
4:28 let me start with the president stub
4:30 um you had a book coming out and you
4:32 still have a book coming out which in
4:33 some ways um put the world into three
4:37 easy containers as it were or three
4:39 corners and and the interplay between
4:42 them in your view was the future of the
4:43 world order does that theor still hold
4:47 yeah well thanks thanks Sam and thanks
4:49 for having me here um just to summarize
4:52 that the name of the book is uh the
4:54 triangle of power rebalancing the New
4:56 World Order uh I started writing it when
4:59 Donald Trump finished his first term and
5:02 I finished writing it when Donald Trump
5:04 began uh his second term so the world
5:07 has changed in between quite a lot the
5:09 big thesis is that there are three
5:11 spheres of power the global West the
5:13 global east and the global South and
5:15 various variations thereof the global
5:18 West used to be driven by the United
5:20 States wanting to maintain the current
5:22 world order multilateral institutions
5:25 norms and rules the global east about 25
5:28 countries led by China and Russ Russia
5:30 wants to break them change them at least
5:33 and my big thesis is that the global
5:35 South uh 125 countries un fairly lumped
5:38 into one will be the decider the global
5:41 South is going to be the one that
5:42 changes it and inside the global South
5:45 you have a few swing States big powers
5:48 like India and I don't say this only
5:50 because the two of you are here um Saudi
5:54 Arabia Nigeria Kenya South Africa uh
5:59 Argentina Brazil Mexico now my big
6:02 thesis is that the world can tilt in
6:05 three different directions because my
6:06 thesis is that this is our 1918 1945 and
6:09 1989 moment when a world order is
6:13 changing it'll take about 10 years and
6:14 it can tilt in three directions one is a
6:19 multipolar
6:20 transactional world without any kind of
6:23 clear set rules we form these uh Unholy
6:27 alliances between different players
6:29 which are not very often values based or
6:32 interest based that's one possibility
6:33 and of course if we look at say the
6:37 United States at the moment that's the
6:39 direction in which they might be taking
6:40 it the second option is the
6:42 regionalization of power so basically we
6:45 start seeing globalization become
6:47 regionalized we start seeing um types of
6:51 uh value chains being brought home and
6:55 then my third option which is my
6:57 preferred one is that we see a rejuven
6:59 of
7:00 multilateralism because I believe that
7:02 multilateralism leads to order but in
7:04 order for that to happen the West
7:07 especially needs to understand that we
7:10 need to rebalance the power we need to
7:13 give an agency and more power to the
7:18 global South starting from the UN
7:20 Security Council and so on and so forth
7:23 why do I suggest this and this is my
7:24 final point because this is what you
7:26 asked precisely at a time when we
7:30 probably need
7:32 cooperation more than ever we're
7:34 rejecting it Global Goods such as
7:37 technology or artificial intelligence
7:39 such as a such as energy uh such as
7:44 demography uh or uh information in
7:47 general climate change you cannot solve
7:49 that without common rules and standards
7:51 so this is my sort of quick take on the
7:54 book I guess so president let me ask you
7:56 a quick followup um in this scenario
7:59 that you've just vividly painted for us
8:01 uh why do you suppose and I'm I'm giving
8:04 you an anecdotal uh experience you know
8:07 it's anecdotal based experience why do
8:09 you suppose that there is far greater
8:11 acceptance of the Trump 2.0 phenomena in
8:15 the global South than there is in Europe
8:18 it's anecdotal but I travel across I
8:20 think you're right I think you're
8:21 absolutely right uh it is because it is
8:24 in the vested interest for some in the
8:27 global South correctly to try to play
8:30 ball directly over the institution so my
8:32 argument is that what we're seeing now
8:35 from the global West is power Nostalgia
8:38 of a system that doesn't really exist
8:40 anymore whereas from the global South
8:43 we're seeing great you know what we
8:45 don't always necessarily want to play
8:47 ball with China we don't always want to
8:49 play ball with Russia but now if we're
8:52 interested if we're interesting we can
8:54 start playing ball with the United
8:56 States so it's much more direct forward
8:58 but of course anecdote Le Ence let's be
9:01 uh quite honest I didn't see too many
9:03 Applause when President Trump suggested
9:05 that Gaza should become a Rivier true
9:08 true but you know the world order today
9:11 very early days of the New World Order
9:13 yeah very much so but but it also can be
9:15 defined as those who have met Trump and
9:17 those who have not met Trump till now
9:19 one of them is here with us Dr SJ shank
9:21 Trump in his second term coming back
9:23 from DC having traveled Europe
9:25 extensively in the last few weeks having
9:27 been to the Middle East um a number of
9:30 uh sites there how do you assess what's
9:33 happening
9:34 today uh well
9:38 uh clearly a lot of new things some of
9:43 which was predictable if we were tuned
9:46 into what was coming out of the US for
9:48 the last year or before that perhaps
9:51 even
9:52 longer uh obviously lot of anxieties in
9:55 some parts of the world lot of
9:57 opportunities for many I think the
10:00 what's important is to kind of assess it
10:05 without getting to emotional or you know
10:10 attached to your habits you know
10:12 understand that this is a change which
10:14 is upon us uh whether we like it or not
10:19 it's happening by the way we do like
10:22 some parts of it definitely uh so uh and
10:26 then look to see where are the openings
10:29 and and the possibilities out there so
10:33 uh uh you know there are uh uh to my
10:37 mind uh I mean if I could pick up on
10:40 what president stop said I mean one of
10:43 the issues we have struggled with in a
10:46 way is a kind of
10:47 hegemonism uh of of the global
10:50 West uh and you know I uh hear a lot of
10:56 uh talk today about say uh
11:00 uh external interference or political
11:02 interference but in a way the same thing
11:05 was happening in the name of Human
11:06 Rights and values and so on so uh when
11:10 we look at it there are now
11:12 possibilities of evening out this
11:15 conversation that many uh many practices
11:20 which were supposedly Universal which
11:22 were not we have now a greater ability
11:25 to push back uh to say that well it may
11:28 work that way where you're concerned but
11:31 that isn't so for everybody so I I would
11:35 argue in a way there's a greater
11:38 opportunity in a more
11:41 um uh Diversified World differentiated
11:44 world to have more democratic
11:47 conversations so the the persistent push
11:49 for universalism that moment you believe
11:51 is now perhaps facing a severe push back
11:55 I I think that kind of globalization
11:59 uh there was a economic
12:02 uh Foundation uh to it and there was an
12:06 ideological super structure to it uh I
12:10 think the super structure definitely is
12:12 challenged if not discredited I think
12:15 the uh Foundation is being contested uh
12:19 so today when we say okay let's have
12:22 more resilient reliable Supply chains
12:24 that's a polite way of saying I contest
12:26 that model of globalization where all
12:29 roads lead to one geography mhm I when
12:32 you say that you know let's have an
12:35 active debate you're challenging The
12:38 View that there is one truth and it has
12:40 to come out of people in New York mhm
12:43 I'm going to come to someone from New
12:45 York but just in a bit but let me first
12:47 turn to natti I natti I could not help
12:49 but read your Tweet last night and it
12:51 kind of provokes some some thoughts in
12:53 my head and and you know I was like I
12:56 could see European anger against what JD
12:58 Wan said yesterday
13:00 and I was like you know what this speech
13:02 could have been given to any Global
13:04 South Country by any person from Europe
13:06 America at any given point of time in
13:08 the last 80 years we have heard such
13:10 speeches given to us in our auditoriums
13:13 by folks coming from this part of the
13:14 world all the time a democracy as large
13:17 as ours is told by barely surviving
13:20 democracies that you need to learn our
13:21 model of of bringing collectives
13:23 together so I by the way I took some
13:27 pleasure in seeing some pain
13:29 that some people felt when they were
13:31 lectured to and I love that line that if
13:34 Greta tunin lectured the world on energy
13:36 choices you can possibly hear Elon Musk
13:39 lecture the world on on on technology
13:41 choices so just your you since you have
13:43 tweeted about it I want to I want a fair
13:45 European assessment of where you where
13:47 you think this relationship the
13:48 transatlantic partnership is headed in
13:50 the next year four so let me perhaps
13:53 sort of um start with where we are in
13:56 this journey on order or disorder end
13:59 with with JD Vance in Europe um so it
14:02 seems to me that there are sort of three
14:04 steps in this journey step number one
14:07 we've been at this for a while the end
14:09 of the unipolar uh order and the the
14:12 unipolar system and with it the end of
14:14 the liberal International order right
14:17 with increasing contestation of that
14:19 order we went through a phase of
14:20 debating about how to reform
14:22 institutions and all the rest of it and
14:24 that was kind of step one we then enter
14:27 step two okay so what's the new shape of
14:29 the International System is it bipolar
14:31 is it multipolar is it tripolar so what
14:34 is it and especially after Russia's
14:37 large scale invasion of Ukraine we start
14:40 getting and the US China competition
14:42 leading to the debate on on decoupling
14:45 we start getting this feeling that
14:47 perhaps what this is doing to order is
14:50 uh leading to a multi-order world right
14:54 uh of of Separation there are still
14:56 rules and Norms but basically different
14:58 parts of the world subscribe to
15:00 different norms and rules I think we're
15:02 entering now stage three in this journey
15:05 right and stage three in this journey is
15:07 actually a world which is non-polar and
15:10 by non-polar what I mean is firstly
15:12 there is no real ideological glue uh
15:15 tying different countries or or regions
15:17 uh together uh and and that where
15:20 transactionalism is on the rise uh and
15:23 where basically it's kind of the law of
15:25 the Jungle right uh and of course if
15:28 you're down that food chain you're kind
15:30 of increasingly in trouble and this is
15:32 where we get to JD Vance so to me the
15:35 troubling aspect of that speech was not
15:37 so much I mean you know the whole
15:38 freedom of expression thing was just a
15:40 bit weird Frankly Speaking but okay fine
15:42 you know let's have a conversation about
15:44 it but it's um the freedom of expression
15:48 and you are moving away from your values
15:51 conversation followed by uh well eight
15:55 days before an election and followed by
15:58 a meeting uh with the leader of a far
16:02 right sort of Neo-Nazi party right um
16:06 that kind of suggests that the aim is
16:08 not that of having a debate about
16:10 freedom of expression but the aim is
16:12 that of deliberately not just weakening
16:15 but perhaps even destroying the
16:17 foundations of liberal democracy in
16:19 Europe and European integration to the
16:21 extent to which these far right parties
16:23 are explicitly euroskeptic and and
16:26 Nationalist and so and this is why I
16:28 come come to the law of the Jungle and
16:30 the non-polar system right because a
16:32 pole presumably is not just a country I
16:34 mean a pole has a sort of series of
16:37 Partners and allies and friends that it
16:39 works with and here we have the very
16:41 deliberate attempt at prevaricating and
16:45 indeed po possibly destroying what those
16:47 partners and allies were all
16:49 about I want to ask you something about
16:51 Ukraine but I'm going to hold that
16:52 pieace right now I will to come back to
16:53 Ukraine I think that's an important
16:55 issue but I do want to leave a thought
16:57 with you that if I was to make a list of
17:00 envoys from Europe and America who have
17:03 gone and met uh quasi Anarchist in my
17:05 country that list would be endless and
17:08 and there would be you know the global
17:10 South that you mentioned may not find
17:12 that really odd behavior that's it
17:14 doesn't make it right no I'm not saying
17:16 it's right I'm just saying it is not an
17:18 odd behavior uh folks I think Samir is
17:21 getting kicks out of this I can
17:23 sense good friend I'm just wondering why
17:26 is Europe so upset with something that
17:27 was so predictable
17:29 I mean that speech was written a long
17:31 time back and it was only delivered
17:32 yesterday and you surprised you never
17:34 heard it but but I'm going to come to
17:36 Ukraine I want to come to both of you on
17:38 Ukraine let me turn to Lana Lana uh and
17:41 finally you're going to defend America
17:44 so but but I'm going to first come to
17:46 Lana Lana you've spent a lot of time in
17:48 New York and you understand the power of
17:50 collectives of collaboration of building
17:52 Partnerships especially on projects that
17:54 are long-term by definition peace
17:57 connectivity infrastructure energy
17:58 transitions these are long-term projects
18:01 that require sustainable Partnerships in
18:03 a world that is in many ways thriving on
18:05 short-termism on
18:07 transactionalism uh on in some ways uh
18:11 convenience of of the opportunity that
18:13 is available how do you build something
18:16 sustainable especially from The Gaze
18:18 that you have sitting in the Middle East
18:20 which requires which is actually
18:22 witnessing all of this at the same time
18:23 energy transitions economic transitions
18:26 search for peace new Partnerships and
18:28 connectivity how do you look at the
18:30 world thank you Samir and I'd like to
18:32 just quickly refer to uh the president's
18:34 comment on how we reacted to president
18:36 Trump's Gaza Riviera statement and I'd
18:39 say we'd welcome Gaza becoming a Riviera
18:41 of the Middle East but a Riviera of a
18:43 Palestinian State as the Arab position
18:46 so you know I think there's some
18:47 agreement there but it's just about what
18:49 the end point is in terms of the
18:50 political Horizon for the Palestinians
18:53 uh more broadly to your question and uh
18:55 New York and where Dr J Shanker has said
18:58 power has for so long where the rules
19:00 have been given and taken by a different
19:02 configuration of countries uh and many
19:05 of us have spent some time with Dr
19:06 Kissinger there and I remember the book
19:07 he wrote on trust and mistrust in the
19:10 transatlantic partnership uh that he
19:12 spoke about in one of our discussions
19:15 and his agent was quite surprised by how
19:17 well the book was doing until uh he
19:19 found out that it was in the marriage
19:21 and divorce section of most of the
19:23 libraries and bookshops in the country
19:25 and the reason I turned to that is
19:27 because a lot of these issues in terms
19:29 of Partnerships that you're talking
19:30 about are about not putting the kind of
19:33 effort that goes into a relationship
19:35 when it's taken for granted and I think
19:36 that's to answer your question on the
19:38 UAE position and many countries in the
19:40 global South's position effort needs to
19:43 be put in in a regular way into a
19:45 marital relationship and it needs to be
19:47 put into the Partnerships that we have
19:48 developed over the years with our
19:50 strategic Partners including uh the
19:51 great Powers so that's the first point
19:54 and when we don't find the return on
19:56 that investment I think as Dr J Shanker
19:58 has said we are looking for the right to
20:00 diversify our portfolio of Investments
20:02 our economic Bridges our Partnerships
20:04 with other countries in terms of defense
20:06 and security and I think that is the
20:07 word world order we are moving to it's
20:09 not necessarily transactional but I
20:12 think it's cleare eyed and pragmatic
20:14 about the state of the the world as it
20:15 is today so that would be the second
20:17 point for the UAE we're an economic Hub
20:20 uh we managed to become that way by
20:23 being agile diplomatically and
20:24 economically we've signed over 20 free
20:27 trade agreements we negotiated with
20:29 India most famously in 888 days at the
20:31 directives of uh Dr J Shanker and our
20:33 foreign minister we've been trying to
20:35 negotiate one with Europe for 30 years
20:37 oh we are 23 I'll let that sink in as
20:41 the mood music in Europe is about
20:44 competitiveness economic competitiveness
20:47 uh strategic uh autonomy and
20:49 Independence uh increasing defense
20:51 spending you need to create an agile
20:54 bureaucratic structure and diplomatic
20:56 structure that responds to the needs of
20:58 today's world and that goes to your
20:59 connectivity Point uh yesterday Prime
21:03 Minister Modi and president Trump came
21:05 out with a joint statement from
21:06 Washington it referred to two really
21:08 interesting initiatives that came out of
21:10 India and the UAE the IMC and the I2 UT
21:13 that's the kind of connective tissue
21:15 today that countries are looking for in
21:17 their Partnerships so we want to connect
21:19 through trade we want to connect through
21:21 rail we want to create jobs and
21:23 opportunities for the 140 million youth
21:25 in the Mina region uh who are looking
21:28 for stability and economic prosperity
21:30 and security we won't be able to provide
21:32 that necessarily through the traditional
21:34 platforms but we shouldn't give up on
21:36 the traditional platforms the Norms
21:38 exist whether we're in a 1945 moment or
21:41 a cold war moment or a 1930s moment
21:43 where we're looking at the signs and
21:44 worrying about what comes next the mood
21:46 mun music in Munich this you know two
21:49 days has clearly been quite downbeat I
21:52 think we have to respond to this moment
21:54 with some agility with some flexibility
21:56 and with some creativity those are
21:58 things that smaller countries who are
21:59 not so trapped in the bigger
22:01 bureaucratic structures can do uh and I
22:03 think that's to the point of bringing in
22:05 different size powers to see what kind
22:07 of Leverage they can bring to the table
22:09 in terms of keeping some of the very
22:10 good rules of the road in place um L I'm
22:14 going to come back to the Middle East in
22:15 just a bit I want to have a little bit
22:18 of a conversation on what could be the
22:19 road pathway ahead but Ambassador John
22:21 hman let me turn to
22:23 you as you explain what's happening
22:26 today are we seeing an American am which
22:29 is becoming expensive rather than rather
22:32 than retreating uh or is it choosing the
22:35 spaces that it wants to be present in
22:37 and forfeiting some of its overheads in
22:41 other uh domains where it had little
22:44 returns uh that it that it calculated
22:46 over the P past few years so what is
22:48 really happening here is it an expansive
22:50 America a retreating America and
22:52 isolationist America what is America
22:54 today please explain to us well first of
22:57 all it's a pleasure to be here and let
22:59 me just say this is a topic that lends
23:01 itself to heavy drinking so we're in the
23:03 right
23:04 place
23:07 um I'm always amazed at how often people
23:11 misread the United
23:13 States I think there's a lot of hand
23:15 ringing unnecessarily so so the United
23:19 States is made up of 50 Sovereign
23:22 entities called States they all have
23:25 their own Constitution they all have
23:27 their own legislature they all have
23:29 their own Economic Development plans and
23:31 educational strategies and they
23:35 determined the cycles of success in the
23:37 United States Washington is largely
23:40 irrelevant now that may sound strange
23:42 because we're all fixated on the latest
23:44 phenomenon called Donald Trump but
23:47 that's the way the United States works
23:50 and because of that the cycles of
23:52 politics in Washington will continue
23:56 sometimes appearing as if it were a 19
23:58 1964 Ford Fairmont running off the side
24:01 of the road ready to kill the driver but
24:05 we have to take a step back and say okay
24:08 what really makes America
24:10 run and every one of the states in
24:13 America have their own trading
24:14 relationships they have their own
24:16 International strategies I know because
24:18 I was governor of a state uh and we in
24:22 this room make a mistake by not reading
24:24 America as it was designed to operate so
24:27 so that's point number one point number
24:30 two is uh the Trump phenomenon is an
24:33 expression of the American people we've
24:36 seen we've seen a massive diminution of
24:39 trust in politics I think everywhere
24:42 including the global South that's why
24:43 you see a lot of people who have glommed
24:46 on to Trump's message because the voters
24:49 have been failed by their sovereigns
24:51 institutions are increasingly seen as
24:54 irrelevant uh even though I think
24:56 they'll be recharged over time uh and
24:58 right now the American political
25:00 Zeitgeist is playing to the hometown
25:02 crowd so yes we heard JD Vance's speech
25:05 yesterday and for those who were shocked
25:07 by it I would say shocked by what were
25:10 you not following the campaign did you
25:12 not hear the rhetoric and many thought
25:13 well the rhetoric would discontinue uh
25:16 upon the inauguration that's not how the
25:18 Trump machine operates so JD came and he
25:22 gave a speech and I think it was largely
25:24 tailored for a certain constituency and
25:26 audience not here so this is kind of the
25:29 new kind of rhythm of Washington MH uh
25:33 and I think the Rhythm will continue in
25:35 a transactional nature I think Trump is
25:37 very much based on personal
25:40 relationships so you say well how will
25:42 trade policy go well the trade policy
25:44 function in Washington is way different
25:46 than it's ever been USR used to call the
25:49 shots I was there at one point as the
25:51 deputy us trade representative and uh
25:54 negotiate trade deals during this
25:56 Administration you're going to see
25:57 something different I think you're going
25:58 to see Trump develop relationships if he
26:01 likes relationships if he gets along
26:03 well with somebody if he sees common
26:05 cause and the extension of America's
26:07 interests he's going to negotiate deals
26:09 I think India is a perfect example of
26:11 that uh so I think we're in this Mode
26:15 Call It Whatever you want you I 10 terms
26:18 come to mind but I don't think any of
26:19 them are necessarily fitting because
26:21 we're running up against the cycles of
26:23 American politics which I think we lose
26:25 sight of and that is Trump has one term
26:28 which means he has not four years but
26:31 two because you've got the midterm
26:33 elections that strike it less than two
26:35 years from now and the House of
26:37 Representatives is likely to be lost
26:39 because you've got the house up by one
26:41 and the midterm Cycles generally will
26:43 favor the party out of power the Senate
26:45 May Be Shaken it's hard to know uh and
26:47 then you've got a lame duck status and
26:49 the race for 28 has begun so I think in
26:53 looking at and analyzing Trump I think
26:55 we need to understand that yes
26:57 conservative M of some kind might
26:59 Prevail unless there's massive overreach
27:01 and a blowback which is not unusual in
27:03 American politics and we'll be back to
27:06 kind of a more identifiable familiar
27:10 pattern but right now we're not there so
27:12 I want to ask you and Dr Janka to
27:14 respond to this particular aspect that
27:16 you actually um very you know lucidly
27:20 described the American people have
27:22 spoken uh American elections are an
27:24 expression of their people uh I would
27:27 suggest that over the last few Cycles
27:29 including the election of Biden you
27:32 would find that certain changes in
27:33 America are definite irrespective of the
27:35 party that is in power for example uh
27:38 exclusive economic policy Ira inflation
27:41 deduction Act was a muscular industrial
27:43 policy that was serving its own
27:45 industrial aspects the China policy
27:48 bilateral consensus um the decision to
27:51 invest in certain relationships for
27:52 example the US India relationship
27:54 bipartisan consensus the Middle East
27:56 transformation bipartisan consensus the
27:58 the point I'm trying to make here is
28:00 that while the elections may be in two
28:02 years America may have changed
28:04 dramatically and some of its cousins
28:06 across the Atlantic are not getting that
28:07 message it does not M Trump is not the
28:09 problem here they are not reading
28:11 America right and what you were
28:12 mentioning and do you think is that the
28:14 problem that America has changed and the
28:16 world is still negotiating with the 1945
28:19 America and that's my question to Dr J
28:21 Shankar as but first to you Ambassador I
28:24 I would say that America is changing
28:25 somewhat uh I think it's changing based
28:28 upon a number of things I think it's
28:29 changing based
28:31 upon Co which I think Shell Shocked the
28:34 American people and when you look at the
28:36 private sector's response to co every
28:39 boardroom in America is having the same
28:40 conversation how do we redesign and
28:42 rebuild Supply chains because they all
28:44 collapsed during co uh which had a
28:46 massive implication on employment for
28:48 example uh I think we were
28:51 dumbstruck um by the' 08 financial
28:54 crisis and you keep layering things upon
28:57 each other the rise of China has shaken
28:59 many people in the United States and the
29:02 net result is an inward look at
29:05 rebuilding the fundamental building
29:07 blocks of of The American Nation some
29:10 people call it isolationism uh Trump
29:13 calls it rebuilding rebuilding from
29:15 within and I think that is a trend that
29:17 is likely to continue so the idea of
29:20 bush internationalism or Reagan
29:23 internationalism I think we get back to
29:25 it some point because I think we need to
29:28 with the rest of the world economies
29:29 will have to expand beyond their own
29:31 borders but for the time being it will
29:33 be a moment of domestic rebuild and
29:35 whether that's Trump or somebody who
29:37 runs in his place I think a message will
29:39 be similarly tailored to that cry out by
29:43 the American people for one reason
29:45 rebuilding trust which no longer exists
29:47 in
29:48 politics uh two notes of
29:51 dissent the first one about something
29:54 Natalie said
29:56 look I think think calling it calling
30:00 the change saying this is your
30:01 alternative or else it's the law of the
30:03 Jungle is a kind of scaremongering
30:05 tactic it isn't the law of the Jungle I
30:08 mean it's from a very cozy room
30:10 everything looks like the law of the
30:12 jungle out there it's a more competitive
30:15 world it's a world where more countries
30:18 have the freedom and the choice to
30:20 pursue their interests I mean if that's
30:22 a jungle I'll take my chances on it
30:25 because i' rather be in that jungle than
30:27 be in the when which of few people
30:29 controlled or the garden the or the
30:32 garden the gardens so that's one descent
30:35 I like the I like desent the second
30:37 descent uh look uh I take John's point
30:42 but I think he's
30:44 underestimating
30:46 Washington I think you'll get enough
30:48 things in those two years or less which
30:52 will profoundly change the world so the
30:55 50 states may carry on with a model but
30:58 because the president of the United
31:00 States holds such exceptional power and
31:03 the country has so much influence that
31:06 within a matter this period in fact I
31:09 would predict much earlier that you're
31:10 going to get po policies which will
31:13 reshape the international order as we
31:16 have got used to so I would not uh you
31:21 know I'm saying this in a very I'm not
31:23 saying it's good or bad I'm just
31:26 predicting what is to come and something
31:29 big I think is coming at us uh my third
31:33 point is where I agree with him uh is
31:36 look I I do think around the world uh
31:40 politics and
31:41 politicians have generally got
31:44 discredited I think there's a loss of
31:46 trust I would again argue we are a bit
31:48 of an exception it's not it'll be very
31:51 tough today in a really Democratic
31:53 Society for anybody to get three
31:55 continuous terms which is what has
31:57 happened in India but we are an outlier
31:59 uh in this respect but it's not just
32:02 politics which has got discredited I
32:04 think uh in a way diplomacy has got
32:07 discredited the international economy
32:09 has got discredited the kind of uh model
32:12 which we have
32:14 touted as being universally good is seen
32:18 by many people as being built on their
32:20 jobs which were taken away from them in
32:23 India for example there's if you look at
32:25 small uh you know and medium producers I
32:27 mean they they are very angered at the
32:30 kind of dumping of goods which is taking
32:32 place in the Indian market we all know
32:34 from where so so I I think we are
32:38 dealing today with a much more
32:41 disillusioned um unhappy World which is
32:44 ready for change which says that look I
32:48 don't believe all that non law of jungle
32:52 stuff which I've been hearing for so
32:53 many years I am now prepared to take my
32:56 chances in whatever life eyes out there
32:58 because I think it'll definitely be
33:00 better than what I have today and just a
33:02 quick one uh democracy itself and you
33:05 know since you mentioned uh democracy in
33:07 your intervention Are We Now reaching a
33:09 stage that we are perpetually polarized
33:12 Democratic societies which means unless
33:14 our side wins democracy is not good have
33:16 we reached that stage that unless your
33:18 team wins democracy is bad we see that
33:21 in the US we see that in India to some
33:23 extent we see that in different parts
33:24 that unless who you vote for wins the
33:27 election are not good well uh sorry I
33:30 know no I'm coming to now I'm coming to
33:32 Ukraine very soon no but look I'll put
33:34 it to you this way I know people will
33:36 say that but if by the next election
33:39 they're not saying it democracy is fine
33:41 you know they will say it in the
33:43 aftermath of a loss you know that okay
33:47 the S you know the system wasn't good
33:49 that's why I didn't win but if they gear
33:52 up for the next election I think we are
33:55 uh underestimating the
33:59 and theit of democracy and actually the
34:02 attachment which people have to the
34:04 exercise of individual choices I think
34:07 we are too quick to dismiss it because
34:09 somewhere politics has not gone the way
34:12 some people would like it to go yeah I
34:14 think on Democracy our misconception is
34:18 sort of linked to this whole end of
34:20 History thesis of fukuyama which I
34:23 firmly believed in myself that all
34:26 nation states of the world World 200 of
34:29 them would revert to a combination of
34:30 liberal democracy social market economy
34:33 could have believed that exactly well no
34:36 I'm I'm a fin I'm a fin I'm a fin but I
34:38 think there but this is again you know
34:40 we we we come yeah yeah and but I mean
34:43 again that is not my point my my point
34:45 is that the fallacy and the mistake that
34:48 people like myself made at the time was
34:51 to think of democracy as an end state or
34:54 some something static democracy is never
34:56 that it's always messy and complicated
35:00 the thing that makes me believe in
35:02 democracy apart from you know Free
35:04 Speech open
35:05 Society um institutions rule of law
35:09 protection of minorities human rights
35:10 and fundamental rights is a
35:12 self-correcting mechanism that democracy
35:15 has because autocracies don't have that
35:18 now then we have to ask ourselves the
35:19 question what do we need to avoid
35:22 getting into this cycle where you know
35:25 Democratic change is basically constant
35:28 every two years or every four years I
35:30 think what has happened is that
35:32 democracy has not adapted to technology
35:35 democracy originally as crafted Say by
35:38 John Loach and his likes was supposed to
35:41 be slow messy and compromise seeking but
35:44 now we have a new instrument that has
35:46 come into play which is technology in
35:48 the beginning many of us thought that
35:50 technology was going to work only for
35:52 good and everyone will be liberated to
35:55 free speech and and the rest of it but
35:58 now we have suddenly seen that as a
35:59 matter of fact technology doesn't
36:02 necessarily adapt to democracy so I
36:05 remember not I'm not that old but in the
36:08 olden days politicians had about three
36:10 months to answer to the media then they
36:13 had about 3 weeks then suddenly it was 3
36:16 days then it was 3 hours then it was 3
36:19 minutes and it was 30 seconds and now
36:21 unless you put out something on X within
36:23 3 seconds that something has happened
36:25 and then we get into this cacophony of
36:27 information and I don't think democracy
36:30 has yet understood that information is
36:32 not wisdom so that's what I'm trying to
36:34 say that democracy needs to adapt all
36:36 the time uh and we have to understand
36:39 that right now it's in a certain
36:41 direction which some people uh don't
36:43 like but at some stage it'll adapt back
36:45 I think they're all making the case for
36:47 stable monarchies yeah well feel but
36:51 yeah philosopher philosopher Kings
36:53 philosopher Kings yeah eventually you
36:55 will agree with her exactly I will agree
36:57 but can I and I will respect your
36:59 people's vote on that yeah thanks okay
37:01 Nat yeah I mean I just wanted to come
37:03 back to this jungle business um I mean I
37:05 think we would all agree I also want you
37:07 to give me a quick prognosis from where
37:09 you're sitting on what could be uh the
37:11 future of the Ukraine okay uh quick uh
37:17 but on on the jungle business I mean I
37:18 think we would all agree that it is
37:21 right um that the rules of the road are
37:25 determined by not just one power and
37:29 that different players should be able to
37:32 shape the system and use the system for
37:35 their benefit I mean I think there's
37:37 kind of you know there would probably be
37:38 broad agreement on this um I think where
37:40 we get into jungle territory and I think
37:42 we would also all agree that including
37:45 Minister J shanka that it would not be
37:47 such a good thing if there are no such
37:49 rules at all and that if me and
37:53 president stob uh sign a contract I
37:56 assume that they is some sort of
37:58 institution out there that will make
38:01 sure that he respects the contract and
38:03 that if he doesn't I can sue him right
38:06 now if those institutions are destroyed
38:09 if those rules are eroded if nothing
38:11 does anyone about them anything about
38:13 them then then we are in that jungle
38:16 territory where if you are down in the
38:18 food chain you're in big trouble and
38:20 surely that is a situation that we no
38:22 one really wants to be in because indeed
38:24 if you are down that food chain you're
38:26 in immediate trouble but presumably even
38:28 if you're up there sooner or later you
38:30 are going to run into trouble um so to
38:32 me it's it should be a conversation
38:34 about about those rules about what we
38:37 think about them and especially about
38:39 how we collectively are going to do
38:40 something in order to ensure their
38:42 respect which gets me to Ukraine um so I
38:46 mean who knows what's going to happen
38:47 you know I mean I think we basically are
38:49 into two possible scenarios uh here
38:52 scenario number one um so I would tend
38:55 to exclude uh piece disagreement
38:58 scenario I think what at most we can
39:01 think might happen is a scenario in
39:03 which there is some sort of Truth and
39:06 then the question and it becomes a very
39:08 European discussion about what we can do
39:10 to ensure that that truth becomes um
39:13 more or less sustainable uh and this is
39:15 where we get into uh conversations about
39:19 uh defense both European Defense more
39:21 broadly but also continuing Military
39:23 Support uh for Ukraine um uh deterrence
39:26 troops I kind of you know I'm reluctant
39:28 to Define them as peacekeepers because I
39:31 don't really think there is going to be
39:32 a peace to keep anyway so that's sort of
39:34 one scenario then you have a second
39:37 scenario in which negotiations begin and
39:40 they continue and they continue and they
39:43 continue and in the meantime War
39:45 continues and continues and continues
39:47 and in that scenario which actually I
39:50 think is more likely than the first
39:52 scenario what I don't know but I'd love
39:54 to hear Ambassador huntsman's sort of
39:56 views on is what would Donald Trump do
40:00 would he basically just kind of get feel
40:03 slighted and get annoyed and double down
40:06 magically in in supporting Ukraine or I
40:08 fear get bored and look for his Nobel
40:11 Peace Prize elsewhere okay I'm going to
40:13 come to you Alexander you wanted to come
40:15 in sorry you want no no it's okay I mean
40:18 um so okay I I come from a country which
40:21 has
40:23 1,340 km of border with Russia I come
40:26 from a country country that fought
40:28 winter War and the war of continuation
40:30 with Russia and fought about the three
40:33 key principles of statehood one is
40:35 Independence the second is sovereignty
40:38 and the third one is territorial
40:40 Integrity we retained our independence
40:43 the only bordering country to the Soviet
40:44 Union at the time to do that the rest of
40:47 them became Soviet Satellites we lost
40:50 our sovereignty our right to choose
40:52 where we wanted to be European
40:55 institutions or otherwise and we lost
40:57 10% of our territory including the land
41:00 where my grandparents and my father was
41:03 born so this is the prism through which
41:05 we look at Russia's war or of aggression
41:10 uh in Ukraine and I you know Dr J
41:14 Shankar's legendary comment from Globes
41:16 sec in the olden times is that olden
41:19 times olden times because it's like
41:21 three years ago right something like
41:22 that but he was completely right to say
41:25 that we do a lot of Naval gazing in
41:27 Europe and we only care about our Wars
41:29 and expect everyone to care about our
41:32 Wars
41:33 whereas uh the other way around it
41:35 doesn't work my thesis on Ukraine given
41:39 the situation is that we need to look at
41:41 it in three phases the first phase is to
41:45 strengthen Ukraine militarily and try to
41:50 be as tough on Russia as possible with
41:53 sanctions frozen assets and increasing
41:57 military in Ukraine to give Ukraine a
42:00 position of strength to begin the
42:02 negotiations second phase and here's
42:04 perhaps where I unusually disagree with
42:07 Natalie a little bit is a ceasefire not
42:10 a peace process there's a bit of an
42:11 Italian Vie there right you were in
42:13 Florence at some point it was I was was
42:15 so we need a ceasefire and that
42:18 ceasefire basically needs to have a
42:20 demarcation of the border and then after
42:23 that you start talking about the agenda
42:27 of the peace and of course there needs
42:28 to be some kind of security security
42:30 Arrangements in place the third phase is
42:34 the long phase which we don't know where
42:36 it's going to end that is a peace
42:37 process and that means that you start
42:40 looking at territory you start looking
42:42 at SEC my question is this is what you
42:45 want it to be yeah what do you think it
42:46 is going to be that's what it's going to
42:48 be you know so the question is do you
42:51 think if if if the US has a different
42:53 view Europe is ready to walk alone to
42:56 make this happen uh I don't think it's a
42:58 binary question because Europe is not
43:00 going to walk Al alone but if you want a
43:03 conceptualization thereof on the
43:05 security Arrangements basically Ukraine
43:09 stands up and keeps it Europe supports
43:13 and gives the backup and the US gives a
43:16 back stop so the tradeoff there is that
43:19 the US doesn't put boots on the ground
43:22 but Europe does in one way or another
43:25 but obviously this is a long and what
43:27 people need to understand and believe me
43:29 we in Finland know Putin and we know
43:32 Russia he is an imperialist he is a
43:35 colonialist and a revisionist the only
43:38 thing that he understands is power
43:41 anytime you give in to Putin he will hit
43:43 you back twice harder so therefore you
43:46 need to put Ukraine into a position of
43:48 strength and I think already the fact
43:50 that seninsky didn't you know approve
43:53 the mineral deal or said that we cannot
43:56 have neg Neo iations between the US and
43:59 Russia on this is an indication there's
44:01 no other choice Ambassador did you want
44:04 to come in on this I'd love to please
44:06 because it scares me to
44:08 death uh I I think we're terribly naive
44:11 in the west about Putin y uh the
44:14 president is absolutely right uh I think
44:16 this is an opportunity however it plays
44:19 out for a number of leading countries of
44:21 the world to come together to find a
44:23 solution because I don't think it's just
44:25 the United States that should be part of
44:27 this
44:28 endgame my my fear is
44:31 this uh Putin is a master at uh dirty
44:35 tricks and at malign activity we've seen
44:38 it in Georgia 2008 and Beyond annexing
44:42 what now
44:43 we uh abazia South OA we've I'm I'm
44:48 concerned deeply about
44:50 mdova um he'll take the land in Ukraine
44:54 uh however this deal is cut that will
44:57 likely be part of it uh the security
45:00 guarantee will have to be negotiated I
45:03 think that will be probably the most
45:04 difficult part uh some sort of
45:07 peacekeeping arrangement but what I fear
45:09 most is this is a holding pattern for
45:11 Putin he'll claim victory and move on
45:13 and he'll wait wait for the next
45:15 election in
45:16 Ukraine and he will hope for a 2010
45:19 outcome and hope to control whomever
45:22 wins that election he'll flood the field
45:24 with propaganda disinformation and cut
45:27 out candidates and I think his goal
45:30 longterm will be not just the land the
45:32 20% that he's already succeeded in
45:34 getting but ultimately finding a
45:36 political subsidiary in keev that he can
45:38 control yep exactly and that will be his
45:40 victory yep Lana yes a sustainable
45:43 durable vision for the Middle East how
45:45 do you see it play out early days I
45:48 don't think we can reach a conclusion
45:49 now but how do
45:51 you sense the mood now in that region so
45:55 the mood is obviously uh a little bit uh
45:59 pessimistic um about the broader
46:01 trajectory of the last two years but I
46:04 think there have been some openings in
46:06 the past month that we need to build on
46:08 um the big picture obviously is how us
46:12 for policy in the region plays out Visa
46:16 uh two heimans Israel and Iran as well
46:19 as Saudi Arabia and other Regional
46:21 actors the Tactical questions are how we
46:24 resolve crises and that goes to your
46:26 point point on is the International
46:28 System today able to cope with the
46:30 current
46:31 crisis Dr J Shanker says we should see
46:34 what's coming and understand that change
46:36 needs to come in order to take a hold of
46:38 take stock of these conflicts and
46:39 actually resolve them and I think we
46:41 agree with that so under 60 conflicts
46:44 currently across the globe more than any
46:46 time since World War II however much we
46:48 are all attached to the International
46:50 System and the way it works it hasn't
46:52 it's been broken and it's been broken by
46:54 a number of conflicts over the past two
46:57 decades and it's been broken by the fact
46:59 we haven't been able to resolve those
47:01 conflicts we've been managing them so
47:02 whether it's Ukraine whether it's Gaza
47:05 whether it's October 7th whether it's
47:07 the broader Middle East uh we have a
47:09 moment of opportunity today we have a
47:12 possibility to build a stable future for
47:13 Lebanon for the first time in years uh
47:16 we have engagement with a uh complex
47:20 Syrian government today on the ground
47:22 nonetheless that it's giving out the
47:24 right uh signals and statements about
47:26 what it SE for its future in Syria
47:28 inclusivity obviously being a core
47:29 tenant of stability across the region um
47:32 and we have uh what is coming in terms
47:34 of uh where Iran fits in the region and
47:36 where Israel fits in the region as you
47:38 well know the uae's perspective as a
47:41 pragmatic uh and uh I think cleare eyed
47:45 investor in stability and the force
47:48 projection of stability in the region we
47:50 believe in the integration model so we
47:51 think all of these countries need to be
47:53 integrated and that economic
47:55 Partnerships are are the way to arrive
47:57 at that integration but it is going to
47:59 take a lot of work it comes back to that
48:02 really uh popular term today which is
48:04 regional Burdon sharing um but I think
48:06 that's it's a very good point I think
48:08 that regions have to come forward with
48:10 their own Solutions uh to some of these
48:12 issues and they have to be bolstered by
48:15 the presence of an international uh
48:17 Community that's what we're looking at
48:19 you know I think your example on Co was
48:21 a really good one for why
48:22 diversification has happened in the last
48:24 few years we all believe we all bought
48:27 into the globalization theory that we uh
48:29 are now connected uh that borders um the
48:33 nation state as it traditionally was uh
48:36 would not affect the equitable
48:38 distribution of vaccines of medication
48:41 uh of you know sharing knowledge on
48:42 Health Systems I think Co was a rude
48:44 awakening for a number of countries in
48:46 the global South that had to suddenly
48:48 selfinvest in these industries in their
48:50 own country so that Independence I don't
48:52 necessarily think is a bad thing I think
48:54 it was a good shot of adrenaline to the
48:56 system
48:57 we needed a geopolitical shot we needed
48:59 a geoeconomic shot and we've had them
49:01 and for the Middle East we plan to work
49:03 together in a likeminded collection of
49:05 countries with those who want to partner
49:07 with us to try and create a future that
49:09 is stable and prosperous uh and built
49:12 around integration of all of these
49:13 countries in the region we need to make
49:15 the case for that integration and we
49:17 will make that case so we're going to
49:19 take three questions from the audience
49:20 we have 11 minutes 10 minutes I know you
49:23 have to leave at 245 uh president 250
49:26 250 so we'll try to get you first uh so
49:28 we have a hand here we have Michael here
49:30 so can we have a mic to Michael we'll go
49:32 to Michael first then we'll go to my
49:34 friend from Portugal and let me go to
49:36 and let me go
49:38 to there you are let let me turn to
49:41 Peter then from Slovenia so we have our
49:43 three questions Michael first to you uh
49:45 first compliments to Samir and the
49:47 panelists I think this has been the most
49:48 interesting panel of the weekend so
49:50 thank you very much my question is to Dr
49:53 Janka You said Dr J you descent it from
49:56 am bassador huntsman's point about the
49:58 importance of states and you said
50:00 because of the importance of the the
50:03 great power of the office of President
50:05 of the United States and because of the
50:07 power of the United States in the world
50:10 the next two years or even less than
50:12 that I think you said are is going to
50:14 bring forth changes that will change the
50:17 International System and I felt the bar
50:19 mom tez sort of reverberating at that
50:21 point and I feel you teased Us by saying
50:24 that and not going a little further so
50:26 you have to give us a bit of a spoiler
50:28 alert Dr J shanka and tell us the nature
50:31 of these changes that you that you
50:33 foresee a permanent seat for India on
50:34 the security
50:36 Council uh I think there was a there was
50:38 a mic there go
50:39 ahead Anna go ahead good afternoon I I
50:43 just want being a former member of the
50:45 European Parliament uh I just want to
50:47 highlight and a former member of
50:49 Portugal of course to highlight what Mr
50:52 Lana said in because of the time that
50:57 Europe uh um deal trying to uh to have
51:02 an agreement you spend 88 days uh
51:06 negotiating a trade deal with India and
51:08 30 years uh with Europe so this is our
51:12 our biggest mistake and I am totally
51:14 support with this idea and I'm more uh
51:18 with you about the idea that we need I
51:20 like the idea of the shock this is a
51:22 shock for us I'm always saying about
51:24 that and I I am I'm s of uh question
51:28 question question the uh uh poetic
51:30 speeches in Europe is I I just want to
51:33 highlight this because this is very
51:34 important for us in Europe okay so
51:36 that's a statement um but but but U you
51:40 know I I I do know that negotiating an
51:42 FTA is a end in
51:44 itself it doesn't need to lead to an FTA
51:47 the process is the end itself okay you
51:50 you you have to understand the the idea
51:51 behind it go ahead Peter yeah thank you
51:54 Peter G bled strategic Forum um it was
51:57 interesting for me because basically for
51:59 the whole panel nobody mentioned China
52:02 so probably this is the only panel where
52:04 China as uh one of the global Powers was
52:09 not mentioned so my question is pretty
52:12 simple uh where does China fit in in
52:15 what Natalie was saying and also
52:16 minister jhanker in this new
52:20 uh reality that we are finding ourselves
52:23 uh in are they going to play the ball
52:25 are they going to
52:27 uh try to have an agreement on new rules
52:30 which they would abide by how is their
52:34 connection with America going on and so
52:35 on and so on thanks you know there's a
52:37 there's a famous saying that if the
52:38 world is a casino China is the house and
52:41 The House Always Wins no matter who
52:43 shakes the world it's the house that
52:45 takes the winnings so I think that's
52:46 thank you Peter for asking that how is
52:48 China going to respond to many of these
52:50 these developments so maybe let's go
52:52 down the panel let's start with uh let's
52:54 start with you president because I know
52:55 you have to leave a little let me start
52:57 with you please yeah I I'll just make
52:59 two quick remarks first one was the
53:01 trade issue I fully agree with you that
53:04 Europe is way too slow in forging its
53:06 trade agreements having said that I
53:09 think it has um over 40 trade agreements
53:12 with over 70 countries out of the 200
53:14 nation states in the world so it does
53:16 have the widest web of free trade
53:18 agreements but the way in which it
53:20 behaves in these free trade amen it's
53:22 simply unacceptable you know it just it
53:24 just doesn't and shouldn't be like the
53:26 way in which it is uh the second point
53:28 is on on China um I had the uh privilege
53:32 to spend three and a half hours with
53:35 President c shiing um on a state visit
53:39 uh last
53:40 October um I knew him from before we
53:42 spent two hours basically Teta uh
53:46 discussing the world order uh my
53:49 starting point is obviously that China
53:51 is the key player together uh with the
53:54 United States
53:56 my point is that uh China always plays
54:00 the long game you know for China a
54:04 centuries only a page in a book whereas
54:07 you know we in the past three weeks have
54:09 been shocked about the result of the US
54:11 elections he's probably looking there
54:14 come on guys this is only four years got
54:17 nothing to worry about uh what China has
54:19 done is strategically extremely wise so
54:22 instead of taking the moral High Ground
54:24 as we have in the west towards the
54:26 global South and elsewhere it has
54:28 created strategic relationships which
54:30 are finance and infrastructure based it
54:33 is now the biggest creditor to 120
54:36 countries out of 200 uh in the world
54:39 China is also quite wise at playing the
54:42 multilateral game it does talk about
54:46 multipolarity Etc and of course it
54:48 always maximizes its own interest the
54:51 negative side of China apart from the
54:53 fact that you know I don't share many of
54:55 the values portrayed by the Chinese uh
54:58 leadership but in my values based
55:00 realism there's space for dialogue
55:02 because you can't solve the world's big
55:04 problems without China for China the
55:06 main problem is going to be demography
55:09 the demographic curb of China is really
55:12 really bad whereas the demographic curve
55:14 for India is very very good and that
55:17 means that they are actually going to be
55:19 in a weaker position but then I think a
55:21 lot of this is then this is I stop here
55:24 a lot of it is going to depend on on you
55:26 know who gets the
55:28 technological uh oversight on it but
55:30 yeah just on the just on the FDA part
55:33 that if you count the top 10 largest
55:36 trading relationships none of them are
55:38 based on an FDA EU us IND uh you know us
55:43 and China China and Japan Japan and us
55:46 you go across the world look at the 10
55:47 biggest 15 biggest trading relationships
55:49 uh they tend to operate outside ftas
55:52 what I mean to say is we should try for
55:53 an FDA but let's get trade going let's
55:55 not just a final point in my mind of
55:58 course the WTO should be the center of
56:00 it and actually trade is on the up not
56:02 on the down as as many people think what
56:04 I think will eventually happen if the
56:07 Trump Administration continues to
56:09 threaten with trade barrier tariffs etc
56:12 etc not only is it going to hit the
56:15 American General Public uh and the
56:18 actually stock markets but what's going
56:20 to start happening is the rest of the
56:21 world trading around the United States
56:24 so you know it'll go in different
56:25 directions Nal you are you well I mean
56:27 it's actually a segue to what to what
56:29 president St was was saying and just
56:31 adding a more specific European angle to
56:34 the China uh question I mean I think you
56:36 know sort of prior to last November the
56:39 general direction of travel uh in Europe
56:42 was indeed aligning with the United
56:44 States uh no longer being star eyed
56:46 about China uh realizing that indeed the
56:49 economic security agenda Etc had to be
56:51 taken seriously and this was the world
56:53 of you know perhaps not decoupling but
56:55 drisking I think now because of
56:57 everything that we've just been uh
56:59 talking about um there is a growing
57:01 sense of we can't really afford to have
57:05 kind of three Wars at the same time
57:07 right uh and if we have one with Russia
57:10 and we are increasingly in conflict with
57:12 the United States uh we may not like
57:14 China uh but perhaps this is a time to
57:17 look at ways in which to cooperate with
57:19 it and I thought it was fascinating
57:21 listening to uh Minister y Wang's
57:25 statement yesterday
57:26 after JD Vance and all of if you were to
57:29 just take the snapshot right of
57:31 yesterday and of course forget you know
57:33 sort of months and years before indeed
57:36 you know all of a sudden China kind of
57:37 comes across as Europe's best friend
57:39 right now I'm not saying that we're
57:41 going to again forget those months and
57:43 years before but I think again because
57:45 of this uh growing transatlantic Rift
57:47 there's going to be greater openness um
57:50 provided that China plays well the game
57:52 and I think it is playing well the game
57:54 to actually look for ways of working
57:55 with but let me just inform you that
57:58 your China addiction predates jd1 Europe
58:01 has a China addiction Which is far older
58:03 and you need to fix that irrespective of
58:05 who's in the white house and we are in
58:08 Bavaria Ambassador uh well Jay and I
58:11 used to be neighbors in uh Beijing uh
58:14 where we first became friends um I would
58:17 just say a couple of things one uh it
58:18 was interesting that J D Vance did not
58:20 mention China in a speech so process
58:24 that one for a moment number two
58:26 notwithstanding my vast disagreements uh
58:29 with much of what China does and what
58:30 they promote uh it's a smart country
58:33 yeah and they thrive on a world full of
58:37 ambiguity and they do so because there
58:39 is zero ambiguity in their National
58:42 strategy they know exactly where they're
58:43 going and they task and Implement and
58:47 execute with Precision so a world of
58:50 ambiguity placed to their strengths
58:52 which is Shoring up relationships I mean
58:54 the the speech uh by wongi who I first
58:56 got to know when he was head of the
58:57 Taiwan Affairs office uh I I've heard
59:00 for 30 years I mean it's it's the same
59:02 basic talking points but it's a
59:03 reassuring set of points about China's
59:07 role in the world and where fair play
59:10 Level Playing Field and all of that uh
59:12 so China will be a factor in everything
59:16 we're talking about they need to be
59:18 drawn out in terms of problem solving
59:21 around some of the major issues of the
59:23 day so let me just take you to the end
59:24 point where I can imagine a summit with
59:28 Trump and shiin ping and I've heard from
59:30 Trump personally uh about his
59:33 relationship with shiin ping he thinks
59:34 he has a good relationship with shiin
59:36 ping likes likes the man so you can
59:38 imagine them coming up at least for the
59:41 a holding pattern a formulation for
59:44 coexistence but you could imagine the
59:46 coexistence drawing China into maybe a
59:49 Ukraine rebuild scenario or something
59:51 like that in other words the US China
59:53 relationship has always operated better
59:57 when there's been a large strategic
59:59 construct to pursue okay keeping us out
60:01 of trouble so I imagine that that could
60:03 be in our future proti relationship I'm
60:06 somewhat optimistic about where that
60:07 goes L I agree with um much of what you
60:10 just said I think for a country like the
60:12 UAE we need a managed detm between China
60:15 and the United States in the coming
60:16 period both for geopolitical and
60:18 geoeconomic reasons I think we need to
60:21 avoid the FUSD trap scenario that is
60:23 also something that has been a little
60:25 bit of a claring call for a number of
60:27 countries and analysts recently for us
60:29 we're the biggest trading partner to for
60:32 China in the Middle East and reexport
60:33 hub we're also a big biggest trading
60:35 partner for the United States but for us
60:37 the United States is an indispensable
60:39 strategic partner in the region and we
60:41 are always looking for ways to solidify
60:43 that partnership and China will always
60:45 be an important economic player and
60:47 partner and I think we need both for
60:48 economic growth which is the buzzword of
60:50 uh European reports this month so I
60:52 think this is good net net for everybody
60:55 I think you know big picture uh if we
60:57 can work with the United States and with
60:59 China in also increasing the stake they
61:02 have at these various tables in terms of
61:04 peace and security that would be a good
61:06 net outcome for everyone so that's the
61:08 position of the UAE and that's how we
61:09 see uh the two countries the last point
61:11 would be on AI which we've touched on
61:13 briefly um was deep seek a spotnik
61:16 moment I don't know the tech companies
61:17 the United States would say not um but
61:19 our investment has been upward of
61:21 hundred billion dollar in American AI
61:23 because we believe that you know we're
61:25 going to be moving from period of
61:26 geoeconomics to geotechnology and that
61:29 will Define and it should Define in a
61:31 good way whether we all continue to
61:33 economically Prosper or not so for the
61:35 UAE it's about everybody getting access
61:37 to that getting access to the data
61:39 centers and being able to exponentially
61:41 grow that's a target for US minister J
61:44 Shanker you have a direct question from
61:46 Michael but also maybe on the rest of
61:49 what you just heard you know I was kind
61:51 of marveling at what I heard so we have
61:55 the values based Europe very upset with
61:58 trumpan America and because it's upset
62:02 guess what they're going to turn to
62:04 China so there must be some great value
62:07 based connect between Europe and
62:09 China don't look at me I mean
62:12 look I I mean I I have invested in this
62:16 and and then let's let's take this
62:18 further so there's this terrible law of
62:20 the jungle out there okay we can't we
62:22 can't deal with it so let's stay with
62:24 the law which we have now what's that
62:27 law that game is been gamed by
62:30 China so the laws the law abiding the
62:34 rule based order the multilateral
62:37 institution which all of us by the way
62:39 said the China is getting the best out
62:41 of it uh and we say oh by the way we
62:45 must defend that because the alternative
62:46 is
62:47 worse so I'm left scratching my head a
62:50 bit that a flawed democracy is not not
62:53 as good as an efficient authorit
62:55 authoritarian regime I think that's the
62:56 bottom line stable monarchies I've said
62:59 this before stable monchies is we
63:00 reverting to that's we getting to conion
63:02 of having having said that let me turn
63:05 to
63:06 Michael uh look let's just reflect
63:12 on life since
63:14 November okay and it's it's less than a
63:19 month of this Administration in office
63:23 so think there are another 20 months to
63:26 go at
63:28 least so what has been the
63:31 conversation
63:33 Ukraine Gaza Greenland Panama
63:40 tariffs and you think the world order
63:42 isn't
63:44 changing I mean and this is less than a
63:47 month in
63:49 office but why Greenland I mean sorry
63:52 don't ask
63:54 me I neither said it not own
63:57 it so so the look The the point is that
64:02 at the end of the day if there is uh you
64:06 know I I think you use the word Samir
64:09 about overheads okay I found it very
64:13 interesting that the first foreign
64:16 policy engagement of this
64:19 Administration consciously was the
64:22 quot okay what's so nice about the
64:26 quad it has no
64:29 overheads it's a kind of a it's going
64:31 dutch everybody comes pays the
64:34 bill and and you know it's it's fair
64:39 right so look if we are looking actually
64:44 at a different vision of architecture a
64:49 different sense of the power of the
64:52 United States if there is a you know I
64:54 don't know I know uh fat Bol who left
64:57 the room was there but some of you may
64:59 have been at the earlier JD van speech
65:02 in Paris on the AI action Summit or may
65:05 have at least read
65:07 it you know there is a belief today in
65:11 circles which count apparently in the
65:13 United States the best that I can make
65:15 out that us
65:19 creativity uh Power Innovation is
65:22 actually hamstrung by its commitments
65:25 and relationships abroad that if if
65:29 America was really Unbound and allowed
65:32 to you know do its fullest uh it would
65:36 serve its interest much better you may
65:38 disagree with it or not but there is
65:41 such a belief and it's a very dominant
65:43 belief uh today uh out there so if
65:46 that's the belief and if diplomacy is
65:50 significantly shaped by overheads if
65:53 these are the kind of uh issues which
65:56 are being addressed or at least put on
65:58 the table fairly early on tell me the
66:01 world's not going to
66:02 change the point is that you all have to
66:04 watch out where you are in the American
66:06 diplomatic budget sheet are you in the
66:08 overheads or not and I think that will
66:10 decide your future uh in the next two
66:12 years at least but let me uh first
66:15 invite joint secretary raguram to come
66:18 and uh close this particular panel Ru
66:20 you're here this is the mic for you
66:22 thank you very much uh a quick qu of
66:23 thanks is in order I guess I would like
66:26 to thank honorable president stub who
66:28 has to leave us for another engagement
66:30 uh and uh Madame Minister uh Ambassador
66:32 John Huntsman and uh Dr naali for your
66:35 participation and wonderful insights uh
66:37 this week has been a very busy one for
66:39 Indian diplomacy uh Dr J Shankar was at
66:41 two important Sumit level engagements in
66:44 France and us uh we are very happy and
66:47 glad that he was able to come and
66:49 participate thank you very much sir uh I
66:51 would like to thank Dr and his team at
66:54 ORF for organizing this
66:56 uh I would like to thank all of you for
66:57 joining us I hope you enjoyed the
66:59 conversation and the lunch uh thank you
67:02 very much so let me let me let me close
67:06 this by making an announcement that some
67:08 of you like last year would be joining
67:10 us at Rina next month it's the 10th
67:12 edition uh the good news of all that is
67:15 happening in the world is that when Dr J
67:17 Shanker happened to be in Mars few days
67:20 ago uh they have uh uh announced a Rina
67:23 Mediterranean uh in in Mars itself which
67:26 will take place in 2025 I it's been I've
67:29 been informed that we have to do it this
67:30 year but the idea is that we are betting
67:33 on this continent we truly believe that
67:36 the India Europe and the Middle East
67:38 bridge is going to be the center which
67:41 is going to keep us all centered and and
67:43 our definition of Mediterranean is from
67:45 the Gulf to the Baltic
67:48 correct more expensive right so with
67:51 that with that new definition and the
67:53 new mental map in your minds thank you
67:55 so much for joining us and have a good
67:57 conference thank you
68:00 [Applause]
Chrome Extension