Transcripts For CSPAN Hudson Institute Discussion On International Organizations 20240713

I will be the moderator. Senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who put together this panel, which i think is on a key issue. It is talked about a lot, but there arent that many panels about the topic around town. I look forward to this discussion. As i mentioned for the past couple of years, there has been a lot of debate about Multilateral Institutions. And on chinas influence and how that is quickly growing and leading to changes in the fundamental rules of these institutions, and also giving rise to alternatives to the old ones. Arises then,that does that make the institutions that we already have counterproductive to preserving a liberal world order when authoritarian states rise within the institutions and partly take over responsibility for them . Another key issue is the one on fragile states. They seem to be continuously bogged down in poverty, lack of education, etc. Although, we have spent decades on development aid, peacekeeping, etc. From the institutions such as world bank and the u. N. Does that mean the institutions that have failed to contribute to raising basic individual welfare and qualityoflife . Also the issue of the human rights situation in countries such as molly and south mali and south sudan continues to be disastrous despite you and peacekeeping u. N. Peacekeeping. Does that mean these instruments have failed . Does the Multilateral Institution not done their job well enough . Have they instead become money machines for corrupt governments and employees instead of assisting the civilians that they pretend to serve . Issues some of the key that i hope we can talk about today. Few people seem to think the institution should be left as they are. Some demand pragmatic reform. Others call for wholesale transformation. Totalt, others, destruction of the global framework that we have now of Multilateral Institutions. This panel will address the pros a systemof preserving of Multilateral Institutions at a time where we have fluctuating risinges, trade wars, authoritarianism and other developments that fundamentally affect how they work. We have 4 distinguished speakers to address these issues. The professor of affairs who has written numerous books on u. S. Politics. Her most recent books is called the challenges of , coming out of Yell University press. Prior to this, she has been a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for scholars. She also held numerous other positions as researcher. She was staff at the House Committee on Financial Services. Eli, currently a partner at a law firm. Prior to this position. He served as the executive rector of the world bank from 2007 2 2010. He has extensive experience. Advising with respect to World Trade Organization and regional trade integration. Earlier this month, he served as the witness on the u. S. House committee on Financial Services hearing on Multilateral Development and institutions. Third, we have a fellow here at hudson. Most recently, he served as the executive director of the task force which is a congressionally mandated project convened by the u. S. Institute of peace. Prior to that, he was director of the bipartisan alessi centers National Security program where he managed a team responsible for research and developing calls and recommendations concerning a variety of National Security issues, including iran and its nuclear program, u. S. Turkey relations. Have thenot least, we ambassador and permanent representative of denmark to the. Nited nations before taking up this position, the ambassador served as a state secretary for development in the Danish Ministry of foreign affairs. Heor to this appointment, served as ambassador to indonesia and was also papua new guinea. Before that, he worked for the undp and bhutan. The panel will spend about an hour debating the issue of multilateralism institutions. After that, we will open it up for questions from the audience. I will start. Lisa you have just written a book about Multilateral Institutions that will is about to come out or will come out. Can you briefly describe how you see the role of Multilateral Institutions in todays world order, where we have these fluctuating alliance patterns, trade wars, rising authoritarianism. Do these trends mean that these institutions are counterproductive to preserving a liberal world order . Are they taken over by authoritarian regime with little respect for basic liberal market and economic principles . How should we read it . Kathryn thank you for that question and thank you for inviting me here at the Hudson Institute. It has been a privilege to meet my copanelists. I look forward to the discussion. I think you are raising related questions. The book is forthcoming. At kind ofally looks the long view of multilateralism and the long view of the history of these organizations. I think when you take a longer view, by long, i mean the end of the napoleonic wars. When you go back that far, you see so many things that are the same, and then you see a few things that are different. Tendencies, the controversy is about the organizations themselves, has certainly always been there. The way i look at the history of the organizations is that they have been intermingled with the history of the scientific process and the industrial revolution. I scientific progress has been involved, states have had to figure out ways to be involved, but also the International Community has had to understand that. If you want to think about Something Like an environmental issue, back in the 18 hundreds, the issue of migratory birds were very important. When you look at the history of disease and cooperation and health, what was very important was trying to grapple with the problem of cholera on the trade routes and the british empire. The problems that people encountered back in the 1800s had to do with a lot of the science going on. We were talking about the telecommunications unit. Madison had to come to terms with what caused cholera and how to treat it. Once you could get that agreement, you could figure out what nations could handle and what the International Community could handle. As students of international relations, World History has had intermittent episodes of hegemonic war. If you want to look at it is more on the optimistic hopeful side of the picture, and some of the darkest hours, people have tried to figure out what to do about multilateralism. How can we make these institutions better . Have thature i would instinct as world war ii is dying down on what to do, but that has certainly been the history. To the present era, the way i look at the problem, scientific progress has continued. Two big things have happened since the 1960s. The digital revolution, we are aware in real time what is going on. Also, massive advances in global health. The World Community trying to come to terms with how those benefits are going to be distributed and who is going to pay for them as welfare systems have evolved. We know that institutions have fostered the National Welfare systems, but coming to terms with that now our problems. These are real challenges that these organizations confront. I dont know if i would say it is an either or in terms of whether or not they need to go or Something Like that. They are certainly going to need to adapt to the new realities of the problem of global advance in and industrial democracies. I think there is also reason to believe they have been able to adjust in the path and mope past and will probably be able to do so in the future. Lisa thanks. Whitney, you have been executive director of the world bank. A lot of contemporary critics of these institutions point to an imbalance between the financial const contributions made by Member States on the one hand and the actual tangible benefits forultilateral institutions a common interest in prosperity and stability. Can you tell us from your experience to what extent these Multilateral Institutions such as the world bank are more ending up being tools for corrupt governments or authoritarian governments than they actually help the people they pretend to serve . Whitney thank you for inviting me. Pleasure to be here today, particularly amongst such distinguished company. That we cant reach definitive judgment on the Multilateral Institution like the World Bank Without remembering that it is a one player in a Larger Development landscape. Includesandscape countries themselves who are clients of the bank. I we do take a longer view, think you could say that we have made huge progress on this planet. We have brought more people out of poverty in the last 2530 years then in all the rest of human history. That, to me is a fairly remarkable measure. I think that the multilaterals have made a significant contribution to the. That. They also have accumulated a lot of knowledge about the Development Process and disseminate that around the world. It is interesting, when i was testifying two weeks ago on the hill, i got any number of questions about why does china continue to borrow from the bank . I think the primary answer there is not because they need the money, obviously, but because they do value the Development Expertise that the bank has. That may beg the question of why are they borrowing . I personally think it is time for them to graduate. They could do what saudi arabia does which is pay for whatever knowledge Technical Assistance they want. As they go. On the other hand, if you understand anything about the thetical model of at least idr d component of the world bank group, i have to point out that there are five parts of the world bank group. Each one of them has its own separate financial model. You need to understand those models before you Start Talking further. Side, which is where china borrows, a very large component of the annual budget comes from the interest which is earned on the loans. China, repay everything tomorrow, there would be a big hole in the budget. Is alwaysople, there room in budgets in institutions like this. Heaven knows, when i was u. S. Executive director, we were one of the budget hawks. We were on the Audit Committee always trying to improve things. The phaseout would be appropriate here in terms of the institutional approach. There also are other aspects of Multilateral Institutions, which i think are important to remember. Ofy can provide a lot knowledge of Public Financial Management. Are not learned instantly by every country or of the world, but on the whole, i think there has been a lot of progress. One aspect of that Public Financial Management is actually the management of trust funds. I think i would submit to you that perhaps one of the more successful multilaterals husband the global fund, fighting disease. The United States is on anriated four times annual basis to the global fund as it has to the world bank. The world bank manages those trust funds. That is in itself a valuable service. Aboutwer your question there isnd so forth, politics at the world bank. It is a little bit like casablanca. Im surprised there is gambling going on here. It is constant. I had a question when i testified two weeks ago about, how could it possibly be that one of the managing directors of the world bank today is from china and he has responsibility for ethics . My response was, he is an International Civil servant. If he is not doing his job, the president can fire him. These are things that need to be dealt with. Questiona legitimate as raised by our moderator about whether these institutions are captive or just within the political economy of different countries, are there more to serve Civil Servants or the elite as opposed to the people of the country. I think in your question, you actually left out one dimension, which is the entire development community. A country ino africa on one of my ed trips out there world bank, i met with the head of usaid. I said how much is your budget . He said 80 million a year. I said how much of that is earmarked . He said 78 million of 80 million. Earmarks basically means, for the beltway bandits around here that have their contracts every year and so forth. He was at a disadvantage to the head of the u. K. Development agency because that country head had a discretionary budget of 10 million available to him. When the president of the country had a problem he wants help on, the u. K. Had 10 million and the United States had 2 million. I also remember looking at a loan for a road project inniger in niger. Lets say it was a 20 million loan. If you look at page 57 in the annexes, you found that 500,000 of that was to buy ford toyota land cruisers. As in any political situation, there are people whose interests are at play. As we reached the point of capture and we have alternative organizations, think of the organization started by the bricks. They were frustrated that the u. S. Congress took so long to approve the quota increase at the imf. They formed their own monetary organization and their own new bank, called the bricks bank. Look at what they did in the monetary arrangement. It has a headline number of x. But if you are an individual country and you want to access the monetary facilities of this new arrangement, you can only take 30 with no questions asked. Upperher 70 require an trausch imf program. Even the bricks are depending on another multilateral to establish important criteria. I think i will leave it there. From other panelists. Obviously, there is no black or white answer to the questions being asked. Lisa thanks. You have done a lot of work on fragile states. Arguably, fragile states seem to be continually bogged down in poverty, lack of education, all of the usual Development Program problems despite years of spending from the world bank, also the United Nations. Does that mean they have failed to contribute to raising basic individual welfare and qualityoflife or can they still be helpful . Do they need reform or can we use them as they are . Thank you for putting together this event on this important topic. Thank you to the audience for joining us on this discussion. Im honored to join this distinguished group of panelists and flattered that you think i can solve a fragile states question in five minutes or however long i have been allotted. As to just give context why i think it is important to think about the problems of fragile states. The is both because problems surrounding fragility are particularly problems that are wellsuited to or driven by the source of issues that Multilateral Institutions are solve. O Something Like 90 of all conflicts in the world are happening in a fragile state. Nationsthat the united are devoted to trying to minimize conflict. Increasingly, poverty is states. G in fragile 10 years ago, it was Something Like 15 of the worlds poor lived in fragile states. 10 years from now, it is going to be 50 of the worlds poor. Fragility is an increasingly important issue. Fragility is also an issue that matters to all of us. The ability of Multilateral Institutions to address fragility is something we should care about, whether it is problems like the spread of extremism and terrorism, civil displace hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, causing refugee and migration flows that have impacts well beyond their borders, whether it is the spread of pandemics like most recently, ebola in fragile states that like institutions to deal with those issues on their own, causing them to become mobile health threats. Fragility is going to become a major driver. It is important to think about how we deal with it. Far, theay that thus record of the Multilateral Institutions has not been great, partly because the emphasis on fragility has not been there, even within our own u. S. National security policy, fragility is a relatively recent phenomenon. We are thinking about failed states up until may a decade ago, whether that is somalia, the classic example or assumption going into the first 9 11 phase. Afghanistan and failed states that we thought were the sanctuaries and harbors of terrorism this idea of the fragility of states that havent decomposed, but are on the brink of it. Is that the seen sorts of solutions that have been applied thus far traditionally by the United Nations in terms of trying to promote peace and security by the world bank and trying to achieve Poverty Reduction goals either havent been applied to fragile states were havent been able to take root in fragile states. When you look at peacekeeping operations, most of the peacekeeping operations conducted by the u. N. Today are not in the places that we would think of if you are to come up with a list of the top fragile states. Peacekeeping. N. Mission in afghanistan and somalia and libya and so on. The first estate you would hit if you were to go down the list of the fragile states that has a human peacekeeping is u. N. Peacekeeping is mali. It applied its mostly technical Poverty Reduction message in trying to solve just the problem of poverty in fragile states. 2020, le, as of 2012, half of the programs that the world bank was running in fragile states were geared towards infrastructure development. Something that really didnt have a lot to do with fragility and the first place. The good news is that that that is starting to change. Recognitionreasing that fragility is a political problem. Lack ore it as the breakdown of the social contract between the government and its people. Trust,k of legitimacy, delivery of services and accountability to the population. Political of that problem of fragility has been recognized by both you in and the world bank. And the world bank. A report came out and 2017 looked at the nature of fragility and conflict and violence and how to start addressing it. They recognized that it is a political problem, and a political problem that is going to be double traditional attempt at peacekeeping or development unless you recognize that it is a political problem and try to develop Political Solutions to keep the attempts to peace or build prosperity. You have seen large commitment in its most recent replenishment fund, theelopment world bank amount of money it is when to give to fragile states from 7 billion to 14 billion. The bank is in the process of developing on a strategy for investing in fragile and conflict and violence states. I think we are also going to see the limitations of that approach, which i think are emblematic of the limp limitations that we have when we are talking about Multilateral Institutions and some of the challenges that have been laid out. Fundamentally, i think it comes kathryn the question suggested, his progress possible on a purely enlightenment, scientific track . Can we solve the problems of the fragility by just investing in building capacity in fragile states and training more Civil Servants and Building Government institutions, or is there sort of a darker side to things . Back, itngle grows doesnt always bend towards justice unless we will it there. I think some of the findings we have had is that fragile states are kept fragile because the people who rule them or are invested preferred to keep them fragile. Fragility is a government outsidee strategy by actors who prefer to deal with corrupt and autocratic governments or who prefer disorder to order. Unless we figure out how to solve the problem of political will that keeps these countries mired in fragility, we are not going to be able to address the sources of conflict and violence in them. The question is, can the world bank, can the United Nations create programs that start addressing these product problems of political will or are they going to remain purely Technical Solutions . I think that starts getting to the heart of this question of our multilateral installation institutions, as they are currently structured capable of the challenges we have. I think what fragile states show us is that challenges are political. They are challenges of how we think society should be ordered. The way that Multilateral Institutions have functioned thus far, promoting sovereignty system,ut theu. N. Technical governance, ignorance solutions within countries, it doesnt really begin to answer those questions. Lisa thank you very much. You raised a number of interesting questions about Economic Security and values as well. Ill move on to martin, and martin is an ambassador to the United Nations. Presumably you have a lot of insights on you in peacekeeping operations and their contributions to peace and stability, and we have now heard some critique of those institutions. I wonder if you could comment on that, if you agree with that. Is peacekeeping more about the image, welfare, and cooperation of peacekeepers and peacekeeping countries then about making a difference on the ground, for example . And also, the things that are addressed as problems. Martin thank you. For the opportunity to discuss what is a tremendous lien important issue. I arrived in new york a tremendously important issue. I arrived in new york, and one of the first things i did was to put up on the wall in my office a quote from the second secretarygeneral of the u. N. , who wrote it should remind ourselves that the purpose of the u. N. Was not to take mankind to heaven, but to Save Humanity from hell. I think when we talk not only about the you in, but the un, but Multilateral Institutions in general, we know they can do and how long it takes. They are dealing with extremely complex issues. We are talking about peacekeeping operations, and peacekeeping operations are one of these instruments of Multilateral Institutions, of has an extrat nearly bad name, which is a little bit odd because if you actually look at the facts, it is the story of what you might call a tremendous success. But actually, also a story that looks at a future that is going to be very challenging. If you look at the data, it is very difficult to come to any conclusion but the fact that you operations are cheap and are indispensable for the future. There are around 100,000 troops under the Un Security Council mandate for peacekeeping operation. Of a soldier with a blue helmet or a blue beret is lets be10, but generous, at least significantly below 1 4 the cost of a nato soldier. And they work in areas that nobody else wants to go. Cost of thel peacekeeping operation is around 7 billion. According to my numbers come out of that is 1 of the u. S. Budget for defense, around half of spains budget for defense. It seems to me that is a fairly good investment. It covers an area of around 3. Illion square miles you can do the math yourself. You can imagine that the peacekeeping troops are spread fairly thin. That is one of the reasons perhaps they dont always do what we implicitly expect them to do, and that is not only to keep peace, but to address the realities, they are deployed in areas where there is no peace to keep. Thats part of the problem was peacekeeping operations. They are not deployed in areas where there is a piece to keep. , they are spread so thin, they dont have the resources, the personnel and equipment, to actually enforce peace. So actually you end up with not peacekeeping, but freeze keeping. But is there not a value in that, actually keeping conflicts somewhat under wrap, predicting civilians, doing what you can to mitigate the human suffering . But my most important message, we tend to forget that peacekeeping operations have been a success. There are 72 completed peacekeeping operations, and many of them very successful. There are around 13 ongoing, difficult ones. Theyve mentioned all the places where there are no peacekeeping operations, and where you could argue, well actually, there ought to be a sort of military presence. Syria, yemen. Bute are you in operations, operations, but it is not the sick their general that does not want to deploy. It is the Security Council not the secretarygeneral that is not want to deploy. It is the Security Council that cannot agree. International cooperation is not the them, it is the us. We are all part of making that machinery work. I think the debate today around International Cooperation is absolutely fascinating. It seems to me that we live in an age in which we are more connected than ever before. The world is more connected than ever before, and not only by smartphones or digital technology. We are also more mobile than ever before in human history, whether it comes to people, diseases, or those that actually want to overthrow our way of life. This was approach to that demands of us more International Cooperation, not less. There are no boundaries that are going to stop as the stop stop has below the spread of resistant bacteria. This has become clear to me after 11 months at the u. N. , it is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do. There are bound to be areas where you dont necessarily agree in all the details of that particular case or file. And that exposes where your true commitment to International Cooperation is. Thatu actually believe International Cooperation is so important to solve some of the Biggest Challenges that you are willing to invest a little bit of yourself in not winning every time . I suppose for a country of five and a half million people, it is quite clear that pursuit of National Interests can only lead to the conclusion we must invest International Cooperation, in setting up and respecting the rules of engagement and respecting the need to, from time to time, compromise. Now, does this make me a believer in the fact of what we need to preserve when it comes to the u. N. Of yesterday . No it does not. But we must invest in is in developing the u. N. Because the world is also changing. He uttered those famous words, the main challenge to human kind was that we were going to kill each other by arms. That is not the only challenge out there today. There are many other challenges out there today, and some of them dont originate from states or governments. They originate from what you might call nonstate actors, whether you want to call it violent extremism or fanaticism or terrorism. But there are also some that originate from the fact that 7 billion that we are 7 billion people and counting, and are much closer together than we ever were before. So i am arrived at that, to some extent, painful conclusion that there is no alternative. There is no other option. But also, it is going to require a lot of strategic patients in the sense that things are not going to be resolved tomorrow. But there is no other option. It is going to be next to impossible to go it alone. Lisa thank you, martin. I will return to you with some questions, but i want to go back to whitney now because you several times mentioned china and their role in the world bank , and what we see now, a lot of people would say, is that china, as you said come on the one hand, can get loans on favorable terms from the world bank, but on the other hand, china is also a global power with the belt and road initiative, coupled with Financial Resources from the Asian Infrastructure investment bank. It has an alternative form of even ament system, and system to support that or developing it that doesnt have human rights conditions. It is not very transparent. Some people say it doesnt have all of the other elements that we would like to see from the old institutions want to view with this form of development of world prosperity. This and hownt on that influences the working of the system, this role of china and what should be done about it, if anything . If the other panelists can chip in on that, that would be great, at your convenience. Eli thank you. I think there is a distinction to be made between several actors in the chinese firmament, if you will come up between and aiibelop in bank on the other hand. Alumnirgely populated by , and they have environmental and social safeguards in most of the projects so far have been cofinanced with these other mainline institutions. Ie China Development bank think is a different story. Is thehink that this story of any rising power, when there is a multilateral organization. They will try to assert their influence using that tool. Just the way denmark does at the world bank. The magic word for the relationship between denmark and the world bank is leverage. The United States has leverage at the world bank. The United States has put in, if the new Capital Increases go through, we left put in exactly 3 billion of capital, and with that 3 billion, that institution has done eight hundred billion dollars of lending has done 800 billion of lending. Imagine that same equation from denmarks perspective, what they put in compared to what the world bank puts in is infinitesimal. Thehe same time, they use world bank capability to administer trust funds to great effect. They dont have a Huge Development agency. They have an institution they can be very proud of, but they also leverage the trust Fund Administrative capacity of the world bank to do their develop network. For 5 million or 10 million that they put into a trust fund, the get some one else to run it, and off they go. They dont have to have 10 more Civil Servants to do that. So leverage is a big word in any multilateral. So it is for china. They are learning those lessons, and now setting up Multilateral Institutions in which they can be the predominant voice, and it wont be any surprise. Imagine, as the u. S. Director of the world bank, the suspicions that come with any initiative that you take. On the other hand, u. S. Leadership at a multilateral what the world bank is extremely important in setting the town. I think that is where we have makereal contributions to as this competition unfolds around the world. The point of fragile states is a very important one. The entire world to the limit the entire World Development report in 2010, if you looked at 45 subsaharan african countries at the time, a good 17 or 18 of them were either in conflict, theyg out of conflict, and were some of the Development Cases that were most challenging. I think there is a cross. If you look at liberia, for example, the former leader of starling former reader of liberia did a lot for her country. But there was a price tag of 6 million a year to keep the peace in that country and to permit some of that development to happen. Suggested here by blaise,f the seat by if the Security Operations were authorized other places, we might see different results. The question is whether the world is willing to pay that price tag. Are we willing to pay 600 million a year to keep liberians from shooting each other and having a chance at developing institutions that will allow them to have good Financial Management and actually develop . Liselotte thank you. Katie . Philip andree constituencies and getting these institutions to reach out in industrial democracies and make them understand why they matter. Thats the reason we were able to get in the imf and the world bank, and had the problems that we had getting the league of nations through. When we think about constituencies matter, im from ohio. I had to go to hyo and explained to the youngstown United Nations them andion go to explain to the youngstown United Nations organization, why would we want to support an organization taking jobs away from youngstown, ohio . What i think the organizations job to do in this digital era, and many of us who are knowledgeable about these organizations, is to try to make that argument and explain why they matter. Absolutely, they matter because china is brought into this rulesbased system. If you want to talk about environmental policies, labor policies, even though china might not get exclusive funding from the world bank, when china put his baits in a world bank package that gives the Global Community an opportunity to influence some chinese policies. I just think that the message needs to get out in a way that i dont like this expression ordinary americans, because i think about myself as one of them, we need to get out. Politicians understood that in the interwar era. It is great that we didnt have another cataclysmic bore after the digital era, another we understand the global environment, and we understand it to be one ecosystem, we didnt know it at the time. If we want these organizations to work on these things and try to make a case about why china matters, we really need to explain that to people. And i think also, we had a lot of success froms Chinese Students studying american universities. I think the opportunity is there. We just need to reach out and grab them. Martin, you said that compromise is an important value in the u. S. System, and giving a little bit of yourself for something that is for the global good. Katie, you talked about bringing china into the rulesbased order. I think both of those points reminded me of my children, and i apologize, when you have young kids you completely see the world through them, but they are very much into playing board games right now. Ive haveyearold loves to memorize all of the rules, knows all of them, and adheres to them, and polices the fouryearold to make sure he adheres to them. The fouryearold, on the other hand, just wants to win. A will roll the die, get four, and move 12 spots. If he gets called out on it, he leaves. I think that is a good analogy for understanding this issue of china or russia or other actors in the international system. It is a system built on the idea of following rules and compromise and cooperation, but those are themselves political values that are not necessarily shared by the actors who are parts of the system. So i think you are correct that we follow this policy ever since, especially since, the fall of the berlin wall, of entanglement. The idea that if we bring in countries that were outside of the International Order into that order in various means, that order will perpetuate from into those countries and minimize some of their most damaging or corrosive or dangerous behavior. So weve tied ourselves china through the wto and singing about internet about international tendencies making us better. That economic liberalization will lead to liberalization at home. We see that that theory has largely failed, that rather than bringing them into the rulesbased order rather than compromise, rather than the regular use of leverage, what weve had instead is colonization of the multilateral system by countries who are not afraid to not follow the rules and use the fact that those of us who do follow the rules, use that against us. I think the perfect example is that where we send our peacekeeping forces is determined by votes at the Un Security Council. We have this interesting juxtaposition where the 2002 National Security strategy by the george w. Bush administration said the greatest threat to interNational Security is no longer countries invading one another, it is nonstate actors. The Trump Administration said the greatest tech to interNational Security is no longer nonstate actors and terrorists, it is how states invade one another. In reality, it lies somewhere in between. I think the case of fragile states is so interesting because their places where conflict overlap, where civil, ethnic, tribal conflicts are taken over by transnational jihadi groups who are armed for the purposes of geopolitical actors who are trying to achieve their own ends. Syria is obviously an incredible example of this type of inter intrastate warfare happening. It is happening in libya, and the horn of africa, and it is going to be an increasing feature of the world we inhabit. So even if we are talking about trying to solve some of the nonstate threats that you mentioned, martin, the nature of geopolitics and the fact that state backers using these conflicts to further their own ends is going to be a major problem. If we are committed to the idea, and i absolutely agree with you, that we want u. N. Peacekeeping missions in the places where there is both a peace to keep and there needs to be a peace to keep, but are the current mechanisms for constructing those forces comedy for those forces actually capable for solving the problems as they currently exist . I think as long as we are under the assumption that we play by the rules and everyone else plays by the rules and is going to be bound by them, that is ultimately going to fail. As much as i admire the peacekeepers, i need only to think back to see the limitations of the system imposed by outside great powers that have interests and how this comes lets unfold. Liselotte thank you. Martin, youve waited patiently. Martin thank you. Actually, u. N. Peacekeepers being put in a situation that there is a mandate, they are not at all equipped to handle it. That is how the worlds countries designed of them, is to put in between two armies that have agreed not to fight each other for the moment. That is what peacekeepers are. Look at all the theaters in which you have deployed peacekeeping operations today. None well, at least very few look anything like that. It just needs to recognize that it is an extremely complex environment. China, which you can spanned to india, ethiopia, south africa, the fact that a number of these countries have grown economically and politically i suppose is actually a happy occasion. At least, that is part of my profession into the limit for many years has been striving for for decades. To see people lifted out of poverty. It is no surprise that countries that have gained in economic weight and importance will also demand more of a say at the table. Is, ifllenge, of course, arelike, those aching pains difficult to handle in a situation where we have more global challenges than ever before. But the answer, of course, is not to walk away from the game, but to stay in the game. I think that was the point you were making, whitney. , lot of these new institutions these quasiMultilateral Institutions, have actually imported standards, procedures, approaches from the multilateral system, from the world bank and the imf, because they have an awful lot of experience. I think we have a profound interest in that, in recognizing that part of our legacy is not only the spread of ideas around liberal democracy. It is actually also around, but do we know about sustainable develop and . Sustainable development . What mistakes have we made that we can share so that the same mistakes are made . I think multilateralism is not an ideology. It is a method of work. I think that is extremely important. Sometimes the discussion around International Cooperation becomes, do you believe in it, almost like it is a religion. An ideology, a religious method a religion. It is a method of work. Think the big change here, as i tried to say before, this is no longer an altruistic project. If you look at denmark, i would 20, 30 yearst that ago, people looked at the u. N. As an altruistic project. The u. N. Was good for the world, didnt matter that much for denmark. But the u. N. Was good for the world. The past 10 or 15 years have change that calculation. Multilateralism and International Cooperation is about enlightened selfinterest. When you come to that recognition, you may realize that it is not working as well as it out to. It is not working as well as it should. But theres only one answer to int, and that is to engage to make it work better. Because if it we abandon it, god knows who is going to influence it. Liselotte thank you. Before we turn it over to the audience, i would like the speakers to address two important issues. First, how do you concretely envisage reform of the current institutions . Blaise, you mentioned the link between security and economic concerns. It seems that is the premise for a lot of economic decisions, who to give development assistance, who to give preferential trade access, etc. This link, is that part of the institutions or not . If it isnt, should it be . You also mentioned values. That would be another consideration. Do we need to have some significant element of common values, or can the institutions work in the absence of that . The other issue i would like you to address is the role of the u. S. During the korean war that was fought by the u. N. , and it was possible because the soviet union had a policy of nonappearance at the time in the Un Security Council. So what about the u. S. . Are they moving towards a policy of nonappearance . What is their position on these Multilateral Institutions, and is that have a positive role to play in your view, . How do you see it . Starting with katie. Kathryn thanks. [laughter] kathryn ive got the seat at the end. I appreciate that. I think they are great questions. I think the biggest problem Going Forward with multilateral organizations is that as we understand these problems, we understand how interconnected they are, and the old system of International Organization set up after world war ii was for specific problems as we understood them at the time. For example, when we talk about environmental problems, theres a lot of overlap with human rights problems. Problem, orrefugee the problems of health that interact with the environment, would we talk about arctic ice melting. Another project we are working on, part of that is disease that comes out of that, Mental Health of people that live in the region. Our system is very ill equipped for these institutions to interact with each other and address these problems that dont just require a state solution, but require the web. At one point, someone said that the World Wide Web is an International Organization, but that is an inadequate solution to me to needs of the world right now. We dont want to have to have a war to redesign the whole system. With respect to the United States, the question is out because, as you pointed out with the council of world relations came out in the last year or so, the biggest partisan split is on the issue of china. Membership remains consistently strong. It always has been strong. I think there is widespread support from the American Public to cooperate and collaborate. Certainly when we are being , that needsage of to be addressed and something needs to be done about that. I think American People are pragmatic. A couple of us were saying before that you can have these conversations about trade, but we also understand a lot of american jobs are dependent on trade. Trade needs to be made fair to all of the people participating in it. There are certain things the United States government can do. There are certain things you need the World Community to do something about. It is anyones guess with how a next administration would handle it. I think the problem we see now with multilateralism and the American Population go back to the problems in the 1970s. A lot of the problems are much deeper. They were covered over maybe by the years. The antiglobalization movement appeared, but then we had 9 11 and they were underground for a while. Been a debateys about multilateral organizations and probably always will be. Liselotte thank you. Whitney . Whitney if you dont mind, i d your questions because i think the question of reform is related to the role of the United States. Love. K the key is tough that is what we are seeing currently with the World Bank Capital increase. In Current Administration the popular view in this town is not seen as an administration deeply in love with Multilateral Institutions. And yet, the United States treasury took the initiative in the negotiation of the Capital Increase for the world bank. They said you think you need a Capital Increase, but here are some things that need to change. Richergoing to have countries pay more for loans than poorer countries. We are going to cut the budget. The top level salaries are going to be limited. And so forth down the line. That if one think has a leading role in a multilateral it is incumbent upon you to exercise leadership and do it well. Usuallytough love is the most appropriate approach. Liselotte thank you. Try to meld the questions. I think a year out from a president ial election is a bad time to be trying to predict anything about the direction of u. S. Foreign policy. I think even the criticisms we have seen of this administration of multilateralism are not in opposition to multilateralism per se but two different aspects of it. I think there is tension in some of what we heard from President Trump which can be encapsulated in his phrase, dont be a chump. It has two competing instincts. The first is the idea the United States should not be paying more than other countries in pursuit of common goals. It is not a rejection of cooperation per se, but it is an emphasis on what the president sees as fair sharing of the burden of that cooperation. Other countries should not be benefiting unduly on the back of the United States and its taxpayers. On the other hand, there is this wool is being pulled over our eyes as to the way these institutions operate and the things that get trotted out our things like venezuela being on the u. N. Human Rights Council or any other number of countries with dubious human rights records. Things that in and of themselves might not be systematic structural issues with Multilateral Institutions but twitch but seem to suggest institutions true purpose is being perverted. The balance between the goals and purposes of the Multilateral Institutions are being properly served but everyone is investing in them fairly i think is the tension that we have. I would go beyond saying there is a need for cooperation in solving global challenges and say there is an Important Role for Multilateral Institutions organizations in coordinating global responses. Rushes to tunisia to invest in countries that require international assistance, everybody is an international donor. Development agencies are giving thatmultiplicity of goals it overwhelms the ability of these countries to use the aid effectively. Some of the Biggest Challenges is not how much we give or what we give money to but how we give it. And having institutions able to play air Traffic Controller and coordinate that aid and make sure it is united find a common strategy and going to the right places and being used effectively is important. But in order for that to work, and this goes back to your first question, you need a coalition of the willing but a coalition that sees things in the same light. For example, if you are investing in a country where youre trying to fight corruption and address governance problems but you have china giving out sweetheart deals to build infrastructure that sees them skimming money off the top to give to corrupt elites, those two things are mutually incompatible. If we want to make a difference in these countries, we need not just cooperation and wasdination but that countries that share the same objectives and values. That is why you have seen the United States rely more on organizations that share its values like me to rather than nato rather than the United Nations when it needs to achieve harder goals like in afghanistan or iraq. Liselotte thanks. Martin, you get the final word before q a. Point which on that goes to the heart of the legitimacy. T is important to recognize someone said you have to recognize the u. N. Is a bit of a hybrid. A lot of these valuebased things, human rights , the eleanor roosevelt, the human Rights Council is one. And on the other hand, it is hybrid because it mixes that with the balancing of the power of states. The respect for sovereignty. Whatsometimes produces seems very odd situations. Made,k the point you there is a need to adapt and recognize some of the developments in this world have unforeseen,ate, unintended consequences for a lot of people i suppose. But the fact that changes on the agenda is inevitable. Inis how we handle change how we engage with change that will determine not only the fate of International Cooperation and Multilateral Institutions but also the future prosperity of our people. On reform, to answer your question, you have at the home of the u. N. A secretary general that is more committed to reform of the system than any other secretarygeneral in recent history. Him up. Up back u. N. Member states are not paying for their order. It is like people walking into a restaurant ordering will only pay 5 . There are less than 14 Member States of the 193 Member States of the you in the u. N. That pay on time and in full what their contribution is. It is difficult to ask an organization to reform if it has the resources or flexibility to allow it to do so. For all Member States, pay up. Denmark always pays on time and in full. The second thing is engage and be consistent. I was thinking here in washington of all the partnership the u. S. And denmark have had. On a number of tough questions, denmark has stood shoulder to shoulder with u. S. Soldiers across the world. We have bled together. That is a very special relationship and i think perhaps no other relationship is as important for denmark. U. S. Ed the that reform everybody agrees is ed, i find it difficult to see how that can happen without a strong and committed u. S. I can guarantee you it will be a lot more difficult without them. I am not seeing the uss disengaging u. S. Disengaging. I think that is an excellent strategy to approach this. Tough love, peace. Liselotte thank you. I will now turn to the audience. Please state your name and institutional affiliation. This gentleman over here. Thank you. [indiscernible] liselotte the mic is coming. [indiscernible] [inaudible] for any member of the panel [indiscernible] when the u. N. Charter was anticipated article within 10 years there could be a general conference that would take up the issue of reviewing the u. N. Charter in light of changes in the world. That has never happened. I think part of the problem we have with the United Nations is the u. N. Charter is a 1945 document, and we are living 75 years later in a dramatically different world. Is,so, my question to you why countries like the u. S. Do not take a leadership role in raising the issue of the need to modernize the charter in light of climate change, income inequality, and the catastrophic risks we face today which were not part of the landscape in 1945 . Unless we do Something Like that, i think we will continue to [indiscernible] and it will not be a very fruitful one. Liselotte the u. N. Charter, can we rethink it . Ambassador always carries it with him. Always. I will be a little bit cheeky. The constitution is from 1849. It has a lot of stuff in there that was not followed word by but has in the interpretation of it. There is a lot of stuff in the u. N. Charter where the countries of the world do not fully live up to this. I do not know that the articles have to be voted by 2 3 of the General Assembly to have such a review conference. If they fail to do that, the General Assembly should consider this at the next General Assembly. There is a lot of that types of voting going on at the u. N. I think it is important to charter wase u. N. Constructed in such a way that it is very difficult to change. That was the purpose for this. The u. N. Was created in the ruins of world war ii. In the most important thing was to prevent world war iii. It is very difficult to change the u. N. , but that is on purpose. It will require Member States coming together to begin to not necessarily the charter because i do not think there is a huge need for charter change. It will be difficult to force countries to do so. But more to change the way the u. N. Works, the interpretation of the rules and responsibilities the charter gives. When it comes to working with the private sector, civil society, and others, which is difficult for the u. N. , the u. N. Charter may start with we the years, itut for 75 has been we the government. The u. N. Has a difficult time adjusting to new realities. I do not think we will have the conference anytime soon. Liselotte thank you. Lets take a couple. There is one here, one here, and one in the back. We will take the three. Intelligence, and analyst and former i. O. Diplomat. I feel the biggest weakness is a certain spinelessness. The geneva conventions are shredded by russians using u. N. Data to bomb hospitals in syria. The largest population in the world is attempting right now to eliminate islam. And there is not a squeak from one of the i. O. s. Role in thei. O. Responsibility to protect, which is a fundamental u. N. Principle . Is there any hope of giving the i. O. s some teeth . Liselotte thank you. This gentleman in the front. We found in the recent ukraine scandal lots of the u. S. Foreign policy is based on the president s political, personal desires or something else. Is there any indication the u. S. Influence on Multilateral Institutions has been met by financial or political needs of President Trump . Liselotte and the gentleman behind you. I am here on my own behalf. Touching on the nature of the institution, the technical aspects of the institution in an environment that has changed so , looking at75 years an analogy with telecommunications in an environment where 75 years ago and nowased on cable, we are in an environment where people are empowered to communicate and broadcast from their smartphones. The same thing. We have institutions now that are entrenched within infrastructure from the mid20th century. How do you see this type of infrastructure having to change in order to adequately be relevant in a world that has changed so much . Liselotte thank you. We will take those. Responsibility to protect the ukraine issue and the developments in technology. Who wants to take a stab at any of those . Blaise i happy to jump in on the first one. I think this gets to the heart of this hybrid or dual nature of the u. N. System as it was created. On one hand, it enshrines state sovereignty as a foremost principle and also aspires to promoting universal human rights. Inhink the spinelessness this conflict within the United Nations goes back to the Genocide Convention that was passed in the 1940s and ratified in 1951 where the act of negotiating the convention was a political act. You saw the soviet union exclude political groups from the definition of protected classes under the convention and the application of the Genocide Convention failed to result in the prevention of the genocides in numerous places. We go through this crying out never again multiple times. I think until we resolve the question of whether the United Nations is of the governments or that will be focused more on rights as opposed to sovereignty, you will keep seeing the same issue play out over and over again. I think that goes back to the previous question about reforming the charter. I think the foremost issue to get at is the reform of the u. N. Security council. No one is going to agree to that because everyone likes building we willto which is why never be able to have the u. N. Have an impact on the wars going on. Liselotte katie . As, is it is the same the glass of water have to date half empty or half full . The thing to me is we have not had a hegemonic war in coming up on 100 years. On one hand, we can point to six Access Success in not having a nuclear war at the end of the second world war. One of the reviewers when i was finishing the manuscript said you did not mention david. He is not a favorite in the United States. I reread the british scholar at the end of world war ii and he said we are not building these institutions because we want to police the world as much as we are building them because we live in the world. As people who live in the world, we are trying to fight poverty, trying to fight ignorance, and trying to fight disease. Likee that because i think you are pointing out, look at the league of nations that failed to prevent world war ii, but there is also this broader purpose multilateral organizations have. But also a lot of success as well as failure. Liselotte you had a point, whitney . Whitney yes. I would like to answer the first question by going back to the previous round about the u. N. Charter. Think it would be important to update the political arrangements at the u. N. To todays realities. Today doesy council not necessarily reflect current realities. I think that would be important and useful. And some u. S. Leadership there the way it has provided leadership in the multilaterals where there has been an evolution in shareholdings and quotas in Multilateral Institutions to reflect those changes. I think that is appropriate. Today is in a situation in which the contributions are expected to be made based on your economic week in the world, but your vote is the same as everyone elses vote. That is a challenge. I think some updating would help. With respect to the question about personal interest or benefits of the Current Administration of the United States. I have not seen any immediate evidence of that. That the thente president of the world bank when this administration came to town the administration might not have the most love for multilaterals. And so, he reached out to take advantage of the fact that a close relative of the president was interested in a certain subject matter. And lo and behold, the United States provided significant money for an initiative of interest. Is that the administration or isring the family nest that an astute political actor saying if we want to get resources from the administration, this is the way we go about it . You can make your own decision about that. On the whole in connection with the most recent Capital Increase, i would say absolutely not. Aboutk on the question 20th century infrastructures, i think we just need to realize that politics, like everything else, evolves and there are different ways to play politics. When you have a world of social media and other ways of communicating and so forth, it necessarily changes in some ways the way politics works. It really changes the mechanics much less the underlying rules which i think have always been there. Liselotte thank you. Martin . Martin i was just thinking about what you call this spinelessness. I think that is a harsh judgment. If you go back and look, you will see not only the secretarygeneral but others speaking out quite clearly in the Security Council against the numerous violations of International Humanitarian law that have occurred in syria. Of course, it is always difficult. What do you do about it . Do notlity is the u. N. Have independent authority. They rely on the Security Council to reinforce. I think it would be fair to say that what we have seen over the last many years have been a gradual but constant decaying of respect for the most fundamental percevals principles of how you behave during war. Concernhis is of great to central figures within the haveand i think they spoken out against it. You mentioned responsibility to protect which is a topic i spent some time on. Protect waslity to a concept introduced in 2005. It has had a difficult time. There are those that say that one of the reasons is because the west used this as the concept that legitimized intervention in libya but not other places. Thosee engage on fundamental values and principles, i think consistency is extremely important to maintain legitimacy and credibility also in the eyes of the rest of the u. N. Member states. That point is a good example of why the u. N. s way of working needs to evolve. Lets be honest. Some of the big actors on Digital Development are not states. They are corporations. They need to revive the conversation about rules and regulations that would be in everybodys interest. Turns charter, the u. N. 75 next year. The secretarygeneral has said he will use that occasion not only as a commemoration but to try to stir a global debate and conversation about the future we want and the u. N. We need. There is an opportunity to engage in that discussion. Liselotte thank you, martin. We have three minutes left. If anyone has a quick question . You, that would be the last. Chance to work in peacekeeping operations in different parts of africa. Liselotte quick question. We were working on infrastructure development. One thing you will observe from the ground from the local people is when the u. N. Goes on the ground, they start thinking the problem is solved. Thereou talk to the u. N. , is no solution for the problems. I am talking about the reform. Reform. U. N. Required there was a question about the construction of the institution which is not a choice. I have a question from 2007 from the democratic republic of congo. I asked him, why did you join . The question was, why do you think a person like me can afford 1000 worth of weapons but cannot afford a dollar for food . Liselotte thank you. Lastminute remarks, half a minute. Kathryn very quick. Thanks. Say tot know what to that. Im sorry, in response to that question. Liselotte anything you want to say as a concluding remark . Kathryn just thank you for organizing the panel. I think it has been a great discussion. Liselotte whitney . Whitney thank you. I think what i take away from this session is there is an Important Role for Multilateral Institutions on this planet, but needed to make them fit for purpose in the 21st century. Blaise i would reiterate we all highlighted the need for continued multilateral cooperation. Most of all, i think some of the continued problems piece people face on the ground and the fact they look to multilateral organizations for help. Hopefully, there will be lots of discussions about how we can make reforms that will make these more viable. Martin International Corporation it is not a nice too, it is a need to. It will not be easy. Important stuff never is. Liselotte thank you. Join me in thanking the panel. Thank you very much for coming to this. [applause] coming up live today at 2 00 p. M. Eastern. Democratic president ial candidate and former new york city mayor Michael Bloomberg will speak to voters in norfolk, virginia. This is his First Campaign event since announcing his candidacy for president. See coverage of his rally live at 2 00 p. M. Eastern here on cspan. On tuesday, President Trump travels to sunrise, florida for a campaign rally. His first rally in the state since changing his official residence from new york to florida. Well have live coverage starting at 7 00 eastern on cspan. Journalwashington continues. Host this is elie mystal. He is a contri