YouTube Transcript:
Jaishankar_ Stubb_ Huntsman_ Nusseibeh_ Tocci on Geopolitical Shifts in 2025

Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.

Video Transcript

View:

I think calling the change saying this

is your alternative or else it's the law

of the Jungle is a kind of scare

mongering tactic it isn't the law of the

Jungle I mean it's from a very cozy room

everything looks like the law of the

jungle out there it's a more competitive

world it's a world where more countries

have the freedom and the choice to

pursue their interests I mean if that's

the jungle I'll take my chances on it

because I'd rather be in that jungle

than be in the pen which a few people

controlled

good afternoon thank you once again for

joining us for today's lunch uh titled

exception and exceptionalism deciphering

the 2025 world order my name is Sharon

Sterling I'm the Chief Operating Officer

of ORF America one of the hosts together

with the Observer Research Foundation of

today's lunch and this is done in

partnership with the India's Ministry of

external Affairs um distinguished

panelists need no introduction among

this group but uh let me just go ahead

and do that uh starting from the far

right his Excellency Alexander stub

president of the Republic of Finland his

Excellency SJ Shankar minister of

external Affairs of the Republic of

India Her Excellency Lana nbe from the

assistant Minister for political Affairs

and Envoy of the Minister of Foreign

Affairs from the United Arab Emirates

Ambassador John Huntsman Vice chairman

and president of strategic growth at

MasterCard and Dr Natalie toi director

Instituto aario International Italy and

our moderator today will be Dr Samir San

who is the president of the Observer

Research Foundation but before I turn it

over to him to kick things off please um

welcome the ambassador of India to

Germany um Ambassador anjet gup for a

few words of

welcome excellencies dignitaries and

dear friends it gives me immense

pleasure to invite all of you for the

fifth edition of the ORF Forum lunch

this has become a much anticipated

tradition of the Munich security

conference the USP of this forum is that

it brings together diverse voices

perspectives and intellectual Acumen

from different parts of the world to

discuss the most challenging and thought

Pro provoking contemporary

issues excellencies the long-standing

India Germany relationship has grown

from strength to strength in the last

few decades last year was particularly

momentous we had the seventh

intergovernmental consultations in New

Delhi and October 2024 our bilateral

trade reached a new high of $33.3

billion Investments grew both ways and

defense and security cooperation G

gathered renewed

momentum the Indian diaspora is growing

rapidly and you can see them in

different parts of

Germany they are making an important

contribution to the German economy in

the 25th year of our strategic

partnership we look forward with

optimism to even greater engagement

particularly in the field of security

cooperation and new and critical

Technologies the panelists don't need

any introduction in particular our

external affairs minister is able to

condense entire encyclopedic work uh

books into a couple of witty comments

which are then quoted time and again but

I look for forward to hearing the

panelist thank

you thank you Ambassador and

um okay uh so let me start with this

panel now I I had earlier described this

panel in slightly more uh verbos terms

economic exceptionalism fraying

multilateralism uh the normalization of

sovereign action but I thought maybe the

world order today can be broken into an

easy

definition people who like JD want's

speech and people who don't like JD

want's speech

and I think that's the world order today

and in some sense it might not be a bad

point of departure to have a

conversation on where we are and and in

some ways how are we going to respond to

those big questions of connectivity of

climate action of trade that lifts uh

the 45 billion who are still to benefit

from globalization discovering peace in

Europe discovering peace in the Middle

East in Africa in many other parts of

the world how are we going to respond to

it in this new mood that prevails uh and

let me start with the president stub

um you had a book coming out and you

still have a book coming out which in

some ways um put the world into three

easy containers as it were or three

corners and and the interplay between

them in your view was the future of the

world order does that theor still hold

yeah well thanks thanks Sam and thanks

for having me here um just to summarize

that the name of the book is uh the

triangle of power rebalancing the New

World Order uh I started writing it when

Donald Trump finished his first term and

I finished writing it when Donald Trump

began uh his second term so the world

has changed in between quite a lot the

big thesis is that there are three

spheres of power the global West the

global east and the global South and

various variations thereof the global

West used to be driven by the United

States wanting to maintain the current

world order multilateral institutions

norms and rules the global east about 25

countries led by China and Russ Russia

wants to break them change them at least

and my big thesis is that the global

South uh 125 countries un fairly lumped

into one will be the decider the global

South is going to be the one that

changes it and inside the global South

you have a few swing States big powers

like India and I don't say this only

because the two of you are here um Saudi

Arabia Nigeria Kenya South Africa uh

Argentina Brazil Mexico now my big

thesis is that the world can tilt in

three different directions because my

thesis is that this is our 1918 1945 and

1989 moment when a world order is

changing it'll take about 10 years and

it can tilt in three directions one is a

multipolar

transactional world without any kind of

clear set rules we form these uh Unholy

alliances between different players

which are not very often values based or

interest based that's one possibility

and of course if we look at say the

United States at the moment that's the

direction in which they might be taking

it the second option is the

regionalization of power so basically we

start seeing globalization become

regionalized we start seeing um types of

uh value chains being brought home and

then my third option which is my

preferred one is that we see a rejuven

multilateralism because I believe that

multilateralism leads to order but in

order for that to happen the West

especially needs to understand that we

need to rebalance the power we need to

give an agency and more power to the

global South starting from the UN

Security Council and so on and so forth

why do I suggest this and this is my

final point because this is what you

asked precisely at a time when we

probably need

cooperation more than ever we're

rejecting it Global Goods such as

technology or artificial intelligence

such as a such as energy uh such as

demography uh or uh information in

general climate change you cannot solve

that without common rules and standards

so this is my sort of quick take on the

book I guess so president let me ask you

a quick followup um in this scenario

that you've just vividly painted for us

uh why do you suppose and I'm I'm giving

you an anecdotal uh experience you know

it's anecdotal based experience why do

you suppose that there is far greater

acceptance of the Trump 2.0 phenomena in

the global South than there is in Europe

it's anecdotal but I travel across I

think you're right I think you're

absolutely right uh it is because it is

in the vested interest for some in the

global South correctly to try to play

ball directly over the institution so my

argument is that what we're seeing now

from the global West is power Nostalgia

of a system that doesn't really exist

anymore whereas from the global South

we're seeing great you know what we

don't always necessarily want to play

ball with China we don't always want to

play ball with Russia but now if we're

interested if we're interesting we can

start playing ball with the United

States so it's much more direct forward

but of course anecdote Le Ence let's be

uh quite honest I didn't see too many

Applause when President Trump suggested

that Gaza should become a Rivier true

true but you know the world order today

very early days of the New World Order

yeah very much so but but it also can be

defined as those who have met Trump and

those who have not met Trump till now

one of them is here with us Dr SJ shank

Trump in his second term coming back

from DC having traveled Europe

extensively in the last few weeks having

been to the Middle East um a number of

uh sites there how do you assess what's

happening

today uh well

uh clearly a lot of new things some of

which was predictable if we were tuned

into what was coming out of the US for

the last year or before that perhaps

even

longer uh obviously lot of anxieties in

some parts of the world lot of

opportunities for many I think the

what's important is to kind of assess it

without getting to emotional or you know

attached to your habits you know

understand that this is a change which

is upon us uh whether we like it or not

it's happening by the way we do like

some parts of it definitely uh so uh and

then look to see where are the openings

and and the possibilities out there so

uh uh you know there are uh uh to my

mind uh I mean if I could pick up on

what president stop said I mean one of

the issues we have struggled with in a

way is a kind of

hegemonism uh of of the global

West uh and you know I uh hear a lot of

uh talk today about say uh

uh external interference or political

interference but in a way the same thing

was happening in the name of Human

Rights and values and so on so uh when

we look at it there are now

possibilities of evening out this

conversation that many uh many practices

which were supposedly Universal which

were not we have now a greater ability

to push back uh to say that well it may

work that way where you're concerned but

that isn't so for everybody so I I would

argue in a way there's a greater

opportunity in a more

um uh Diversified World differentiated

world to have more democratic

conversations so the the persistent push

for universalism that moment you believe

is now perhaps facing a severe push back

I I think that kind of globalization

uh there was a economic

uh Foundation uh to it and there was an

ideological super structure to it uh I

think the super structure definitely is

challenged if not discredited I think

the uh Foundation is being contested uh

so today when we say okay let's have

more resilient reliable Supply chains

that's a polite way of saying I contest

that model of globalization where all

roads lead to one geography mhm I when

you say that you know let's have an

active debate you're challenging The

View that there is one truth and it has

to come out of people in New York mhm

I'm going to come to someone from New

York but just in a bit but let me first

turn to natti I natti I could not help

but read your Tweet last night and it

kind of provokes some some thoughts in

my head and and you know I was like I

could see European anger against what JD

Wan said yesterday

and I was like you know what this speech

could have been given to any Global

South Country by any person from Europe

America at any given point of time in

the last 80 years we have heard such

speeches given to us in our auditoriums

by folks coming from this part of the

world all the time a democracy as large

as ours is told by barely surviving

democracies that you need to learn our

model of of bringing collectives

together so I by the way I took some

pleasure in seeing some pain

that some people felt when they were

lectured to and I love that line that if

Greta tunin lectured the world on energy

choices you can possibly hear Elon Musk

lecture the world on on on technology

choices so just your you since you have

tweeted about it I want to I want a fair

European assessment of where you where

you think this relationship the

transatlantic partnership is headed in

the next year four so let me perhaps

sort of um start with where we are in

this journey on order or disorder end

with with JD Vance in Europe um so it

seems to me that there are sort of three

steps in this journey step number one

we've been at this for a while the end

of the unipolar uh order and the the

unipolar system and with it the end of

the liberal International order right

with increasing contestation of that

order we went through a phase of

debating about how to reform

institutions and all the rest of it and

that was kind of step one we then enter

step two okay so what's the new shape of

the International System is it bipolar

is it multipolar is it tripolar so what

is it and especially after Russia's

large scale invasion of Ukraine we start

getting and the US China competition

leading to the debate on on decoupling

we start getting this feeling that

perhaps what this is doing to order is

uh leading to a multi-order world right

uh of of Separation there are still

rules and Norms but basically different

parts of the world subscribe to

different norms and rules I think we're

entering now stage three in this journey

right and stage three in this journey is

actually a world which is non-polar and

by non-polar what I mean is firstly

there is no real ideological glue uh

tying different countries or or regions

uh together uh and and that where

transactionalism is on the rise uh and

where basically it's kind of the law of

the Jungle right uh and of course if

you're down that food chain you're kind

of increasingly in trouble and this is

where we get to JD Vance so to me the

troubling aspect of that speech was not

so much I mean you know the whole

freedom of expression thing was just a

bit weird Frankly Speaking but okay fine

you know let's have a conversation about

it but it's um the freedom of expression

and you are moving away from your values

conversation followed by uh well eight

days before an election and followed by

a meeting uh with the leader of a far

right sort of Neo-Nazi party right um

that kind of suggests that the aim is

not that of having a debate about

freedom of expression but the aim is

that of deliberately not just weakening

but perhaps even destroying the

foundations of liberal democracy in

Europe and European integration to the

extent to which these far right parties

are explicitly euroskeptic and and

Nationalist and so and this is why I

come come to the law of the Jungle and

the non-polar system right because a

pole presumably is not just a country I

mean a pole has a sort of series of

Partners and allies and friends that it

works with and here we have the very

deliberate attempt at prevaricating and

indeed po possibly destroying what those

partners and allies were all

about I want to ask you something about

Ukraine but I'm going to hold that

pieace right now I will to come back to

Ukraine I think that's an important

issue but I do want to leave a thought

with you that if I was to make a list of

envoys from Europe and America who have

gone and met uh quasi Anarchist in my

country that list would be endless and

and there would be you know the global

South that you mentioned may not find

that really odd behavior that's it

doesn't make it right no I'm not saying

it's right I'm just saying it is not an

odd behavior uh folks I think Samir is

getting kicks out of this I can

sense good friend I'm just wondering why

is Europe so upset with something that

was so predictable

I mean that speech was written a long

time back and it was only delivered

yesterday and you surprised you never

heard it but but I'm going to come to

Ukraine I want to come to both of you on

Ukraine let me turn to Lana Lana uh and

finally you're going to defend America

so but but I'm going to first come to

Lana Lana you've spent a lot of time in

New York and you understand the power of

collectives of collaboration of building

Partnerships especially on projects that

are long-term by definition peace

connectivity infrastructure energy

transitions these are long-term projects

that require sustainable Partnerships in

a world that is in many ways thriving on

short-termism on

transactionalism uh on in some ways uh

convenience of of the opportunity that

is available how do you build something

sustainable especially from The Gaze

that you have sitting in the Middle East

which requires which is actually

witnessing all of this at the same time

energy transitions economic transitions

search for peace new Partnerships and

connectivity how do you look at the

world thank you Samir and I'd like to

just quickly refer to uh the president's

comment on how we reacted to president

Trump's Gaza Riviera statement and I'd

say we'd welcome Gaza becoming a Riviera

of the Middle East but a Riviera of a

Palestinian State as the Arab position

so you know I think there's some

agreement there but it's just about what

the end point is in terms of the

political Horizon for the Palestinians

uh more broadly to your question and uh

New York and where Dr J Shanker has said

power has for so long where the rules

have been given and taken by a different

configuration of countries uh and many

of us have spent some time with Dr

Kissinger there and I remember the book

he wrote on trust and mistrust in the

transatlantic partnership uh that he

spoke about in one of our discussions

and his agent was quite surprised by how

well the book was doing until uh he

found out that it was in the marriage

and divorce section of most of the

libraries and bookshops in the country

and the reason I turned to that is

because a lot of these issues in terms

of Partnerships that you're talking

about are about not putting the kind of

effort that goes into a relationship

when it's taken for granted and I think

that's to answer your question on the

UAE position and many countries in the

global South's position effort needs to

be put in in a regular way into a

marital relationship and it needs to be

put into the Partnerships that we have

developed over the years with our

strategic Partners including uh the

great Powers so that's the first point

and when we don't find the return on

that investment I think as Dr J Shanker

has said we are looking for the right to

diversify our portfolio of Investments

our economic Bridges our Partnerships

with other countries in terms of defense

and security and I think that is the

word world order we are moving to it's

not necessarily transactional but I

think it's cleare eyed and pragmatic

about the state of the the world as it

is today so that would be the second

point for the UAE we're an economic Hub

uh we managed to become that way by

being agile diplomatically and

economically we've signed over 20 free

trade agreements we negotiated with

India most famously in 888 days at the

directives of uh Dr J Shanker and our

foreign minister we've been trying to

negotiate one with Europe for 30 years

oh we are 23 I'll let that sink in as

the mood music in Europe is about

competitiveness economic competitiveness

uh strategic uh autonomy and

Independence uh increasing defense

spending you need to create an agile

bureaucratic structure and diplomatic

structure that responds to the needs of

today's world and that goes to your

connectivity Point uh yesterday Prime

Minister Modi and president Trump came

out with a joint statement from

Washington it referred to two really

interesting initiatives that came out of

India and the UAE the IMC and the I2 UT

that's the kind of connective tissue

today that countries are looking for in

their Partnerships so we want to connect

through trade we want to connect through

rail we want to create jobs and

opportunities for the 140 million youth

in the Mina region uh who are looking

for stability and economic prosperity

and security we won't be able to provide

that necessarily through the traditional

platforms but we shouldn't give up on

the traditional platforms the Norms

exist whether we're in a 1945 moment or

a cold war moment or a 1930s moment

where we're looking at the signs and

worrying about what comes next the mood

mun music in Munich this you know two

days has clearly been quite downbeat I

think we have to respond to this moment

with some agility with some flexibility

and with some creativity those are

things that smaller countries who are

not so trapped in the bigger

bureaucratic structures can do uh and I

think that's to the point of bringing in

different size powers to see what kind

of Leverage they can bring to the table

in terms of keeping some of the very

good rules of the road in place um L I'm

going to come back to the Middle East in

just a bit I want to have a little bit

of a conversation on what could be the

road pathway ahead but Ambassador John

hman let me turn to

you as you explain what's happening

today are we seeing an American am which

is becoming expensive rather than rather

than retreating uh or is it choosing the

spaces that it wants to be present in

and forfeiting some of its overheads in

other uh domains where it had little

returns uh that it that it calculated

over the P past few years so what is

really happening here is it an expansive

America a retreating America and

isolationist America what is America

today please explain to us well first of

all it's a pleasure to be here and let

me just say this is a topic that lends

itself to heavy drinking so we're in the

right

place

um I'm always amazed at how often people

misread the United

States I think there's a lot of hand

ringing unnecessarily so so the United

States is made up of 50 Sovereign

entities called States they all have

their own Constitution they all have

their own legislature they all have

their own Economic Development plans and

educational strategies and they

determined the cycles of success in the

United States Washington is largely

irrelevant now that may sound strange

because we're all fixated on the latest

phenomenon called Donald Trump but

that's the way the United States works

and because of that the cycles of

politics in Washington will continue

sometimes appearing as if it were a 19

1964 Ford Fairmont running off the side

of the road ready to kill the driver but

we have to take a step back and say okay

what really makes America

run and every one of the states in

America have their own trading

relationships they have their own

International strategies I know because

I was governor of a state uh and we in

this room make a mistake by not reading

America as it was designed to operate so

so that's point number one point number

two is uh the Trump phenomenon is an

expression of the American people we've

seen we've seen a massive diminution of

trust in politics I think everywhere

including the global South that's why

you see a lot of people who have glommed

on to Trump's message because the voters

have been failed by their sovereigns

institutions are increasingly seen as

irrelevant uh even though I think

they'll be recharged over time uh and

right now the American political

Zeitgeist is playing to the hometown

crowd so yes we heard JD Vance's speech

yesterday and for those who were shocked

by it I would say shocked by what were

you not following the campaign did you

not hear the rhetoric and many thought

well the rhetoric would discontinue uh

upon the inauguration that's not how the

Trump machine operates so JD came and he

gave a speech and I think it was largely

tailored for a certain constituency and

audience not here so this is kind of the

new kind of rhythm of Washington MH uh

and I think the Rhythm will continue in

a transactional nature I think Trump is

very much based on personal

relationships so you say well how will

trade policy go well the trade policy

function in Washington is way different

than it's ever been USR used to call the

shots I was there at one point as the

deputy us trade representative and uh

negotiate trade deals during this

Administration you're going to see

something different I think you're going

to see Trump develop relationships if he

likes relationships if he gets along

well with somebody if he sees common

cause and the extension of America's

interests he's going to negotiate deals

I think India is a perfect example of

that uh so I think we're in this Mode

Call It Whatever you want you I 10 terms

come to mind but I don't think any of

them are necessarily fitting because

we're running up against the cycles of

American politics which I think we lose

sight of and that is Trump has one term

which means he has not four years but

two because you've got the midterm

elections that strike it less than two

years from now and the House of

Representatives is likely to be lost

because you've got the house up by one

and the midterm Cycles generally will

favor the party out of power the Senate

May Be Shaken it's hard to know uh and

then you've got a lame duck status and

the race for 28 has begun so I think in

looking at and analyzing Trump I think

we need to understand that yes

conservative M of some kind might

Prevail unless there's massive overreach

and a blowback which is not unusual in

American politics and we'll be back to

kind of a more identifiable familiar

pattern but right now we're not there so

I want to ask you and Dr Janka to

respond to this particular aspect that

you actually um very you know lucidly

described the American people have

spoken uh American elections are an

expression of their people uh I would

suggest that over the last few Cycles

including the election of Biden you

would find that certain changes in

America are definite irrespective of the

party that is in power for example uh

exclusive economic policy Ira inflation

deduction Act was a muscular industrial

policy that was serving its own

industrial aspects the China policy

bilateral consensus um the decision to

invest in certain relationships for

example the US India relationship

bipartisan consensus the Middle East

transformation bipartisan consensus the

the point I'm trying to make here is

that while the elections may be in two

years America may have changed

dramatically and some of its cousins

across the Atlantic are not getting that

message it does not M Trump is not the

problem here they are not reading

America right and what you were

mentioning and do you think is that the

problem that America has changed and the

world is still negotiating with the 1945

America and that's my question to Dr J

Shankar as but first to you Ambassador I

I would say that America is changing

somewhat uh I think it's changing based

upon a number of things I think it's

changing based

upon Co which I think Shell Shocked the

American people and when you look at the

private sector's response to co every

boardroom in America is having the same

conversation how do we redesign and

rebuild Supply chains because they all

collapsed during co uh which had a

massive implication on employment for

example uh I think we were

dumbstruck um by the' 08 financial

crisis and you keep layering things upon

each other the rise of China has shaken

many people in the United States and the

net result is an inward look at

rebuilding the fundamental building

blocks of of The American Nation some

people call it isolationism uh Trump

calls it rebuilding rebuilding from

within and I think that is a trend that

is likely to continue so the idea of

bush internationalism or Reagan

internationalism I think we get back to

it some point because I think we need to

with the rest of the world economies

will have to expand beyond their own

borders but for the time being it will

be a moment of domestic rebuild and

whether that's Trump or somebody who

runs in his place I think a message will

be similarly tailored to that cry out by

the American people for one reason

rebuilding trust which no longer exists

politics uh two notes of

dissent the first one about something

Natalie said

look I think think calling it calling

the change saying this is your

alternative or else it's the law of the

Jungle is a kind of scaremongering

tactic it isn't the law of the Jungle I

mean it's from a very cozy room

everything looks like the law of the

jungle out there it's a more competitive

world it's a world where more countries

have the freedom and the choice to

pursue their interests I mean if that's

a jungle I'll take my chances on it

because i' rather be in that jungle than

be in the when which of few people

controlled or the garden the or the

garden the gardens so that's one descent

I like the I like desent the second

descent uh look uh I take John's point

but I think he's

underestimating

Washington I think you'll get enough

things in those two years or less which

will profoundly change the world so the

50 states may carry on with a model but

because the president of the United

States holds such exceptional power and

the country has so much influence that

within a matter this period in fact I

would predict much earlier that you're

going to get po policies which will

reshape the international order as we

have got used to so I would not uh you

know I'm saying this in a very I'm not

saying it's good or bad I'm just

predicting what is to come and something

big I think is coming at us uh my third

point is where I agree with him uh is

look I I do think around the world uh

politics and

politicians have generally got

discredited I think there's a loss of

trust I would again argue we are a bit

of an exception it's not it'll be very

tough today in a really Democratic

Society for anybody to get three

continuous terms which is what has

happened in India but we are an outlier

uh in this respect but it's not just

politics which has got discredited I

think uh in a way diplomacy has got

discredited the international economy

has got discredited the kind of uh model

which we have

touted as being universally good is seen

by many people as being built on their

jobs which were taken away from them in

India for example there's if you look at

small uh you know and medium producers I

mean they they are very angered at the

kind of dumping of goods which is taking

place in the Indian market we all know

from where so so I I think we are

dealing today with a much more

disillusioned um unhappy World which is

ready for change which says that look I

don't believe all that non law of jungle

stuff which I've been hearing for so

many years I am now prepared to take my

chances in whatever life eyes out there

because I think it'll definitely be

better than what I have today and just a

quick one uh democracy itself and you

know since you mentioned uh democracy in

your intervention Are We Now reaching a

stage that we are perpetually polarized

Democratic societies which means unless

our side wins democracy is not good have

we reached that stage that unless your

team wins democracy is bad we see that

in the US we see that in India to some

extent we see that in different parts

that unless who you vote for wins the

election are not good well uh sorry I

know no I'm coming to now I'm coming to

Ukraine very soon no but look I'll put

it to you this way I know people will

say that but if by the next election

they're not saying it democracy is fine

you know they will say it in the

aftermath of a loss you know that okay

the S you know the system wasn't good

that's why I didn't win but if they gear

up for the next election I think we are

uh underestimating the

and theit of democracy and actually the

attachment which people have to the

exercise of individual choices I think

we are too quick to dismiss it because

somewhere politics has not gone the way

some people would like it to go yeah I

think on Democracy our misconception is

sort of linked to this whole end of

History thesis of fukuyama which I

firmly believed in myself that all

nation states of the world World 200 of

them would revert to a combination of

liberal democracy social market economy

could have believed that exactly well no

I'm I'm a fin I'm a fin I'm a fin but I

think there but this is again you know

we we we come yeah yeah and but I mean

again that is not my point my my point

is that the fallacy and the mistake that

people like myself made at the time was

to think of democracy as an end state or

some something static democracy is never

that it's always messy and complicated

the thing that makes me believe in

democracy apart from you know Free

Speech open

Society um institutions rule of law

protection of minorities human rights

and fundamental rights is a

self-correcting mechanism that democracy

has because autocracies don't have that

now then we have to ask ourselves the

question what do we need to avoid

getting into this cycle where you know

Democratic change is basically constant

every two years or every four years I

think what has happened is that

democracy has not adapted to technology

democracy originally as crafted Say by

John Loach and his likes was supposed to

be slow messy and compromise seeking but

now we have a new instrument that has

come into play which is technology in

the beginning many of us thought that

technology was going to work only for

good and everyone will be liberated to

free speech and and the rest of it but

now we have suddenly seen that as a

matter of fact technology doesn't

necessarily adapt to democracy so I

remember not I'm not that old but in the

olden days politicians had about three

months to answer to the media then they

had about 3 weeks then suddenly it was 3

days then it was 3 hours then it was 3

minutes and it was 30 seconds and now

unless you put out something on X within

3 seconds that something has happened

and then we get into this cacophony of

information and I don't think democracy

has yet understood that information is

not wisdom so that's what I'm trying to

say that democracy needs to adapt all

the time uh and we have to understand

that right now it's in a certain

direction which some people uh don't

like but at some stage it'll adapt back

I think they're all making the case for

stable monarchies yeah well feel but

yeah philosopher philosopher Kings

philosopher Kings yeah eventually you

will agree with her exactly I will agree

but can I and I will respect your

people's vote on that yeah thanks okay

Nat yeah I mean I just wanted to come

back to this jungle business um I mean I

think we would all agree I also want you

to give me a quick prognosis from where

you're sitting on what could be uh the

future of the Ukraine okay uh quick uh

but on on the jungle business I mean I

think we would all agree that it is

right um that the rules of the road are

determined by not just one power and

that different players should be able to

shape the system and use the system for

their benefit I mean I think there's

kind of you know there would probably be

broad agreement on this um I think where

we get into jungle territory and I think

we would also all agree that including

Minister J shanka that it would not be

such a good thing if there are no such

rules at all and that if me and

president stob uh sign a contract I

assume that they is some sort of

institution out there that will make

sure that he respects the contract and

that if he doesn't I can sue him right

now if those institutions are destroyed

if those rules are eroded if nothing

does anyone about them anything about

them then then we are in that jungle

territory where if you are down in the

food chain you're in big trouble and

surely that is a situation that we no

one really wants to be in because indeed

if you are down that food chain you're

in immediate trouble but presumably even

if you're up there sooner or later you

are going to run into trouble um so to

me it's it should be a conversation

about about those rules about what we

think about them and especially about

how we collectively are going to do

something in order to ensure their

respect which gets me to Ukraine um so I

mean who knows what's going to happen

you know I mean I think we basically are

into two possible scenarios uh here

scenario number one um so I would tend

to exclude uh piece disagreement

scenario I think what at most we can

think might happen is a scenario in

which there is some sort of Truth and

then the question and it becomes a very

European discussion about what we can do

to ensure that that truth becomes um

more or less sustainable uh and this is

where we get into uh conversations about

uh defense both European Defense more

broadly but also continuing Military

Support uh for Ukraine um uh deterrence

troops I kind of you know I'm reluctant

to Define them as peacekeepers because I

don't really think there is going to be

a peace to keep anyway so that's sort of

one scenario then you have a second

scenario in which negotiations begin and

they continue and they continue and they

continue and in the meantime War

continues and continues and continues

and in that scenario which actually I

think is more likely than the first

scenario what I don't know but I'd love

to hear Ambassador huntsman's sort of

views on is what would Donald Trump do

would he basically just kind of get feel

slighted and get annoyed and double down

magically in in supporting Ukraine or I

fear get bored and look for his Nobel

Peace Prize elsewhere okay I'm going to

come to you Alexander you wanted to come

in sorry you want no no it's okay I mean

um so okay I I come from a country which

has

1,340 km of border with Russia I come

from a country country that fought

winter War and the war of continuation

with Russia and fought about the three

key principles of statehood one is

Independence the second is sovereignty

and the third one is territorial

Integrity we retained our independence

the only bordering country to the Soviet

Union at the time to do that the rest of

them became Soviet Satellites we lost

our sovereignty our right to choose

where we wanted to be European

institutions or otherwise and we lost

10% of our territory including the land

where my grandparents and my father was

born so this is the prism through which

we look at Russia's war or of aggression

uh in Ukraine and I you know Dr J

Shankar's legendary comment from Globes

sec in the olden times is that olden

times olden times because it's like

three years ago right something like

that but he was completely right to say

that we do a lot of Naval gazing in

Europe and we only care about our Wars

and expect everyone to care about our

Wars

whereas uh the other way around it

doesn't work my thesis on Ukraine given

the situation is that we need to look at

it in three phases the first phase is to

strengthen Ukraine militarily and try to

be as tough on Russia as possible with

sanctions frozen assets and increasing

military in Ukraine to give Ukraine a

position of strength to begin the

negotiations second phase and here's

perhaps where I unusually disagree with

Natalie a little bit is a ceasefire not

a peace process there's a bit of an

Italian Vie there right you were in

Florence at some point it was I was was

so we need a ceasefire and that

ceasefire basically needs to have a

demarcation of the border and then after

that you start talking about the agenda

of the peace and of course there needs

to be some kind of security security

Arrangements in place the third phase is

the long phase which we don't know where

it's going to end that is a peace

process and that means that you start

looking at territory you start looking

at SEC my question is this is what you

want it to be yeah what do you think it

is going to be that's what it's going to

be you know so the question is do you

think if if if the US has a different

view Europe is ready to walk alone to

make this happen uh I don't think it's a

binary question because Europe is not

going to walk Al alone but if you want a

conceptualization thereof on the

security Arrangements basically Ukraine

stands up and keeps it Europe supports

and gives the backup and the US gives a

back stop so the tradeoff there is that

the US doesn't put boots on the ground

but Europe does in one way or another

but obviously this is a long and what

people need to understand and believe me

we in Finland know Putin and we know

Russia he is an imperialist he is a

colonialist and a revisionist the only

thing that he understands is power

anytime you give in to Putin he will hit

you back twice harder so therefore you

need to put Ukraine into a position of

strength and I think already the fact

that seninsky didn't you know approve

the mineral deal or said that we cannot

have neg Neo iations between the US and

Russia on this is an indication there's

no other choice Ambassador did you want

to come in on this I'd love to please

because it scares me to

death uh I I think we're terribly naive

in the west about Putin y uh the

president is absolutely right uh I think

this is an opportunity however it plays

out for a number of leading countries of

the world to come together to find a

solution because I don't think it's just

the United States that should be part of

this

endgame my my fear is

this uh Putin is a master at uh dirty

tricks and at malign activity we've seen

it in Georgia 2008 and Beyond annexing

what now

we uh abazia South OA we've I'm I'm

concerned deeply about

mdova um he'll take the land in Ukraine

uh however this deal is cut that will

likely be part of it uh the security

guarantee will have to be negotiated I

think that will be probably the most

difficult part uh some sort of

peacekeeping arrangement but what I fear

most is this is a holding pattern for

Putin he'll claim victory and move on

and he'll wait wait for the next

election in

Ukraine and he will hope for a 2010

outcome and hope to control whomever

wins that election he'll flood the field

with propaganda disinformation and cut

out candidates and I think his goal

longterm will be not just the land the

20% that he's already succeeded in

getting but ultimately finding a

political subsidiary in keev that he can

control yep exactly and that will be his

victory yep Lana yes a sustainable

durable vision for the Middle East how

do you see it play out early days I

don't think we can reach a conclusion

now but how do

you sense the mood now in that region so

the mood is obviously uh a little bit uh

pessimistic um about the broader

trajectory of the last two years but I

think there have been some openings in

the past month that we need to build on

um the big picture obviously is how us

for policy in the region plays out Visa

uh two heimans Israel and Iran as well

as Saudi Arabia and other Regional

actors the Tactical questions are how we

resolve crises and that goes to your

point point on is the International

System today able to cope with the

current

crisis Dr J Shanker says we should see

what's coming and understand that change

needs to come in order to take a hold of

take stock of these conflicts and

actually resolve them and I think we

agree with that so under 60 conflicts

currently across the globe more than any

time since World War II however much we

are all attached to the International

System and the way it works it hasn't

it's been broken and it's been broken by

a number of conflicts over the past two

decades and it's been broken by the fact

we haven't been able to resolve those

conflicts we've been managing them so

whether it's Ukraine whether it's Gaza

whether it's October 7th whether it's

the broader Middle East uh we have a

moment of opportunity today we have a

possibility to build a stable future for

Lebanon for the first time in years uh

we have engagement with a uh complex

Syrian government today on the ground

nonetheless that it's giving out the

right uh signals and statements about

what it SE for its future in Syria

inclusivity obviously being a core

tenant of stability across the region um

and we have uh what is coming in terms

of uh where Iran fits in the region and

where Israel fits in the region as you

well know the uae's perspective as a

pragmatic uh and uh I think cleare eyed

investor in stability and the force

projection of stability in the region we

believe in the integration model so we

think all of these countries need to be

integrated and that economic

Partnerships are are the way to arrive

at that integration but it is going to

take a lot of work it comes back to that

really uh popular term today which is

regional Burdon sharing um but I think

that's it's a very good point I think

that regions have to come forward with

their own Solutions uh to some of these

issues and they have to be bolstered by

the presence of an international uh

Community that's what we're looking at

you know I think your example on Co was

a really good one for why

diversification has happened in the last

few years we all believe we all bought

into the globalization theory that we uh

are now connected uh that borders um the

nation state as it traditionally was uh

would not affect the equitable

distribution of vaccines of medication

uh of you know sharing knowledge on

Health Systems I think Co was a rude

awakening for a number of countries in

the global South that had to suddenly

selfinvest in these industries in their

own country so that Independence I don't

necessarily think is a bad thing I think

it was a good shot of adrenaline to the

system

we needed a geopolitical shot we needed

a geoeconomic shot and we've had them

and for the Middle East we plan to work

together in a likeminded collection of

countries with those who want to partner

with us to try and create a future that

is stable and prosperous uh and built

around integration of all of these

countries in the region we need to make

the case for that integration and we

will make that case so we're going to

take three questions from the audience

we have 11 minutes 10 minutes I know you

have to leave at 245 uh president 250

250 so we'll try to get you first uh so

we have a hand here we have Michael here

so can we have a mic to Michael we'll go

to Michael first then we'll go to my

friend from Portugal and let me go to

and let me go

to there you are let let me turn to

Peter then from Slovenia so we have our

three questions Michael first to you uh

first compliments to Samir and the

panelists I think this has been the most

interesting panel of the weekend so

thank you very much my question is to Dr

Janka You said Dr J you descent it from

am bassador huntsman's point about the

importance of states and you said

because of the importance of the the

great power of the office of President

of the United States and because of the

power of the United States in the world

the next two years or even less than

that I think you said are is going to

bring forth changes that will change the

International System and I felt the bar

mom tez sort of reverberating at that

point and I feel you teased Us by saying

that and not going a little further so

you have to give us a bit of a spoiler

alert Dr J shanka and tell us the nature

of these changes that you that you

foresee a permanent seat for India on

the security

Council uh I think there was a there was

a mic there go

ahead Anna go ahead good afternoon I I

just want being a former member of the

European Parliament uh I just want to

highlight and a former member of

Portugal of course to highlight what Mr

Lana said in because of the time that

Europe uh um deal trying to uh to have

an agreement you spend 88 days uh

negotiating a trade deal with India and

30 years uh with Europe so this is our

our biggest mistake and I am totally

support with this idea and I'm more uh

with you about the idea that we need I

like the idea of the shock this is a

shock for us I'm always saying about

that and I I am I'm s of uh question

question question the uh uh poetic

speeches in Europe is I I just want to

highlight this because this is very

important for us in Europe okay so

that's a statement um but but but U you

know I I I do know that negotiating an

FTA is a end in

itself it doesn't need to lead to an FTA

the process is the end itself okay you

you you have to understand the the idea

behind it go ahead Peter yeah thank you

Peter G bled strategic Forum um it was

interesting for me because basically for

the whole panel nobody mentioned China

so probably this is the only panel where

China as uh one of the global Powers was

not mentioned so my question is pretty

simple uh where does China fit in in

what Natalie was saying and also

minister jhanker in this new

uh reality that we are finding ourselves

uh in are they going to play the ball

are they going to

uh try to have an agreement on new rules

which they would abide by how is their

connection with America going on and so

on and so on thanks you know there's a

there's a famous saying that if the

world is a casino China is the house and

The House Always Wins no matter who

shakes the world it's the house that

takes the winnings so I think that's

thank you Peter for asking that how is

China going to respond to many of these

these developments so maybe let's go

down the panel let's start with uh let's

start with you president because I know

you have to leave a little let me start

with you please yeah I I'll just make

two quick remarks first one was the

trade issue I fully agree with you that

Europe is way too slow in forging its

trade agreements having said that I

think it has um over 40 trade agreements

with over 70 countries out of the 200

nation states in the world so it does

have the widest web of free trade

agreements but the way in which it

behaves in these free trade amen it's

simply unacceptable you know it just it

just doesn't and shouldn't be like the

way in which it is uh the second point

is on on China um I had the uh privilege

to spend three and a half hours with

President c shiing um on a state visit

uh last

October um I knew him from before we

spent two hours basically Teta uh

discussing the world order uh my

starting point is obviously that China

is the key player together uh with the

United States

my point is that uh China always plays

the long game you know for China a

centuries only a page in a book whereas

you know we in the past three weeks have

been shocked about the result of the US

elections he's probably looking there

come on guys this is only four years got

nothing to worry about uh what China has

done is strategically extremely wise so

instead of taking the moral High Ground

as we have in the west towards the

global South and elsewhere it has

created strategic relationships which

are finance and infrastructure based it

is now the biggest creditor to 120

countries out of 200 uh in the world

China is also quite wise at playing the

multilateral game it does talk about

multipolarity Etc and of course it

always maximizes its own interest the

negative side of China apart from the

fact that you know I don't share many of

the values portrayed by the Chinese uh

leadership but in my values based

realism there's space for dialogue

because you can't solve the world's big

problems without China for China the

main problem is going to be demography

the demographic curb of China is really

really bad whereas the demographic curve

for India is very very good and that

means that they are actually going to be

in a weaker position but then I think a

lot of this is then this is I stop here

a lot of it is going to depend on on you

know who gets the

technological uh oversight on it but

yeah just on the just on the FDA part

that if you count the top 10 largest

trading relationships none of them are

based on an FDA EU us IND uh you know us

and China China and Japan Japan and us

you go across the world look at the 10

biggest 15 biggest trading relationships

uh they tend to operate outside ftas

what I mean to say is we should try for

an FDA but let's get trade going let's

not just a final point in my mind of

course the WTO should be the center of

it and actually trade is on the up not

on the down as as many people think what

I think will eventually happen if the

Trump Administration continues to

threaten with trade barrier tariffs etc

etc not only is it going to hit the

American General Public uh and the

actually stock markets but what's going

to start happening is the rest of the

world trading around the United States

so you know it'll go in different

directions Nal you are you well I mean

it's actually a segue to what to what

president St was was saying and just

adding a more specific European angle to

the China uh question I mean I think you

know sort of prior to last November the

general direction of travel uh in Europe

was indeed aligning with the United

States uh no longer being star eyed

about China uh realizing that indeed the

economic security agenda Etc had to be

taken seriously and this was the world

of you know perhaps not decoupling but

drisking I think now because of

everything that we've just been uh

talking about um there is a growing

sense of we can't really afford to have

kind of three Wars at the same time

right uh and if we have one with Russia

and we are increasingly in conflict with

the United States uh we may not like

China uh but perhaps this is a time to

look at ways in which to cooperate with

it and I thought it was fascinating

listening to uh Minister y Wang's

statement yesterday

after JD Vance and all of if you were to

just take the snapshot right of

yesterday and of course forget you know

sort of months and years before indeed

you know all of a sudden China kind of

comes across as Europe's best friend

right now I'm not saying that we're

going to again forget those months and

years before but I think again because

of this uh growing transatlantic Rift

there's going to be greater openness um

provided that China plays well the game

and I think it is playing well the game

to actually look for ways of working

with but let me just inform you that

your China addiction predates jd1 Europe

has a China addiction Which is far older

and you need to fix that irrespective of

who's in the white house and we are in

Bavaria Ambassador uh well Jay and I

used to be neighbors in uh Beijing uh

where we first became friends um I would

just say a couple of things one uh it

was interesting that J D Vance did not

mention China in a speech so process

that one for a moment number two

notwithstanding my vast disagreements uh

with much of what China does and what

they promote uh it's a smart country

yeah and they thrive on a world full of

ambiguity and they do so because there

is zero ambiguity in their National

strategy they know exactly where they're

going and they task and Implement and

execute with Precision so a world of

ambiguity placed to their strengths

which is Shoring up relationships I mean

the the speech uh by wongi who I first

got to know when he was head of the

Taiwan Affairs office uh I I've heard

for 30 years I mean it's it's the same

basic talking points but it's a

reassuring set of points about China's

role in the world and where fair play

Level Playing Field and all of that uh

so China will be a factor in everything

we're talking about they need to be

drawn out in terms of problem solving

around some of the major issues of the

day so let me just take you to the end

point where I can imagine a summit with

Trump and shiin ping and I've heard from

Trump personally uh about his

relationship with shiin ping he thinks

he has a good relationship with shiin

ping likes likes the man so you can

imagine them coming up at least for the

a holding pattern a formulation for

coexistence but you could imagine the

coexistence drawing China into maybe a

Ukraine rebuild scenario or something

like that in other words the US China

relationship has always operated better

when there's been a large strategic

construct to pursue okay keeping us out

of trouble so I imagine that that could

be in our future proti relationship I'm

somewhat optimistic about where that

goes L I agree with um much of what you

just said I think for a country like the

UAE we need a managed detm between China

and the United States in the coming

period both for geopolitical and

geoeconomic reasons I think we need to

avoid the FUSD trap scenario that is

also something that has been a little

bit of a claring call for a number of

countries and analysts recently for us

we're the biggest trading partner to for

China in the Middle East and reexport

hub we're also a big biggest trading

partner for the United States but for us

the United States is an indispensable

strategic partner in the region and we

are always looking for ways to solidify

that partnership and China will always

be an important economic player and

partner and I think we need both for

economic growth which is the buzzword of

uh European reports this month so I

think this is good net net for everybody

I think you know big picture uh if we

can work with the United States and with

China in also increasing the stake they

have at these various tables in terms of

peace and security that would be a good

net outcome for everyone so that's the

position of the UAE and that's how we

see uh the two countries the last point

would be on AI which we've touched on

briefly um was deep seek a spotnik

moment I don't know the tech companies

the United States would say not um but

our investment has been upward of

hundred billion dollar in American AI

because we believe that you know we're

going to be moving from period of

geoeconomics to geotechnology and that

will Define and it should Define in a

good way whether we all continue to

economically Prosper or not so for the

UAE it's about everybody getting access

to that getting access to the data

centers and being able to exponentially

grow that's a target for US minister J

Shanker you have a direct question from

Michael but also maybe on the rest of

what you just heard you know I was kind

of marveling at what I heard so we have

the values based Europe very upset with

trumpan America and because it's upset

guess what they're going to turn to

China so there must be some great value

based connect between Europe and

China don't look at me I mean

look I I mean I I have invested in this

and and then let's let's take this

further so there's this terrible law of

the jungle out there okay we can't we

can't deal with it so let's stay with

the law which we have now what's that

law that game is been gamed by

China so the laws the law abiding the

rule based order the multilateral

institution which all of us by the way

said the China is getting the best out

of it uh and we say oh by the way we

must defend that because the alternative

worse so I'm left scratching my head a

bit that a flawed democracy is not not

as good as an efficient authorit

authoritarian regime I think that's the

bottom line stable monarchies I've said

this before stable monchies is we

reverting to that's we getting to conion

of having having said that let me turn

Michael uh look let's just reflect

on life since

November okay and it's it's less than a

month of this Administration in office

so think there are another 20 months to

go at

least so what has been the

conversation

Ukraine Gaza Greenland Panama

tariffs and you think the world order

isn't

changing I mean and this is less than a

month in

office but why Greenland I mean sorry

don't ask

me I neither said it not own

it so so the look The the point is that

at the end of the day if there is uh you

know I I think you use the word Samir

about overheads okay I found it very

interesting that the first foreign

policy engagement of this

Administration consciously was the

quot okay what's so nice about the

quad it has no

overheads it's a kind of a it's going

dutch everybody comes pays the

bill and and you know it's it's fair

right so look if we are looking actually

at a different vision of architecture a

different sense of the power of the

United States if there is a you know I

don't know I know uh fat Bol who left

the room was there but some of you may

have been at the earlier JD van speech

in Paris on the AI action Summit or may

have at least read

it you know there is a belief today in

circles which count apparently in the

United States the best that I can make

out that us

creativity uh Power Innovation is

actually hamstrung by its commitments

and relationships abroad that if if

America was really Unbound and allowed

to you know do its fullest uh it would

serve its interest much better you may

disagree with it or not but there is

such a belief and it's a very dominant

belief uh today uh out there so if

that's the belief and if diplomacy is

significantly shaped by overheads if

these are the kind of uh issues which

are being addressed or at least put on

the table fairly early on tell me the

world's not going to

change the point is that you all have to

watch out where you are in the American

diplomatic budget sheet are you in the

overheads or not and I think that will

decide your future uh in the next two

years at least but let me uh first

invite joint secretary raguram to come

and uh close this particular panel Ru

you're here this is the mic for you

thank you very much uh a quick qu of

thanks is in order I guess I would like

to thank honorable president stub who

has to leave us for another engagement

uh and uh Madame Minister uh Ambassador

John Huntsman and uh Dr naali for your

participation and wonderful insights uh

this week has been a very busy one for

Indian diplomacy uh Dr J Shankar was at

two important Sumit level engagements in

France and us uh we are very happy and

glad that he was able to come and

participate thank you very much sir uh I

would like to thank Dr and his team at

ORF for organizing this

uh I would like to thank all of you for

joining us I hope you enjoyed the

conversation and the lunch uh thank you

very much so let me let me let me close

this by making an announcement that some

of you like last year would be joining

us at Rina next month it's the 10th

edition uh the good news of all that is

happening in the world is that when Dr J

Shanker happened to be in Mars few days

ago uh they have uh uh announced a Rina

Mediterranean uh in in Mars itself which

will take place in 2025 I it's been I've

been informed that we have to do it this

year but the idea is that we are betting

on this continent we truly believe that

the India Europe and the Middle East

bridge is going to be the center which

is going to keep us all centered and and

our definition of Mediterranean is from

the Gulf to the Baltic

correct more expensive right so with

that with that new definition and the

new mental map in your minds thank you

so much for joining us and have a good

conference thank you

[Applause]

Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps

Paste YouTube URL

Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.

Add to Chrome — Free

Works with YouTube, Coursera, Udemy and more educational platforms

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube

←

→

↻

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YoutubeToText

←

→

↻

https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YouTube Transcript:Jaishankar_ Stubb_ Huntsman_ Nusseibeh_ Tocci on Geopolitical Shifts in 2025

Video Transcript

Paste YouTube URL

Transcript Extraction Form

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube Transcript:
Jaishankar_ Stubb_ Huntsman_ Nusseibeh_ Tocci on Geopolitical Shifts in 2025