While, why dont we start. The microphone is on, and welcome to all of you. I am a professor at yale law school, and the director of our chinacentric. And i am delighted that we are doing this event, which is part of a formal collaboration that our center has with the john thorton chinacentric here. It has been a very valuable collaboration, and this is the first inperson person event that we have had related to the covert restrictions and it is wonderful to be here, to see you, and see our colleagues and friends. The topic, as you know, is United States, china and europes different visions of the International Order. And we have a group here that is ideally suited for that, a multisyllabic title. First moderating the event is ryan hoss, who has recently and splendidly been named the director of the john thorton chinacentric here. He china center here. He is a major figure in the china relations. Sitting next to him is susan thorton, a senior fellow at the chinacentric china center, and an important call lake for meat and all of us. As you may know, she joined us after serving for over 25 years in the state department and retiring with the title acting assistant secretary for east asia and the pacific. And [indiscernible] not representing china, but reflecting china is professor jow dow chung, it stinks professor at the peking university of International Relations, directing their Global Center on the south. And perhaps not for the rest the world the world, but for me, another important fact is that he is currently a visiting scholar at our china center. He has been a resident since finally, not representing europe but reflecting the perspective of europe, we have a visiting fellow here but prior to that and prior to that frequent sometime was the paris director of the european center. We have a terrific group. With that i am going to turn it over to ryan and look forward to hearing what everyone has to say. Quick thank you for your leadership of the yale bookings partnership. Weve been very enriched by the collaboration and we feel very rewarding to have you as a partner in todays event. This is intended to look at convergence and divergence of use. We are going to forgo the presentations that jump right at the heart of these questions. We are going to start with susan. What is the International System. People invoke it often but rarely define exactly what it is we are talking about. I have what, three minutes . I am glad you used the Term International system because that is the one i feel most comfortable with trying to describe, the International System that we are talking about is the system established after world war ii. Designed to in large part trying to prevent another cataclysmic conflict between the major powers for breaking out. And also to detect smaller powers from predatory actions by larger powers and it is a set of institutions and agreed rules to try to promote stability, prevent conflict. We have as part of the International System laws that actually predate this. But with the founding of the u. S. After world war ii, layers of institutions that are designed to try to preserve peace and try to promote stability. Of course, the International System after world war ii, part of the idea was to promote reconstruction, the financing for reconstruction of wartorn economies and to promote commerce and development. So we set up a number of institutions. The imf, the world bank. There are a lot of questions about how well the principle of territory Charity Means that borders of internationally recognized sovereign states should not be through use of force. That is a principle that was well observed for most of the last 75 years. And they have done a good job in preventing interstate conflict but was violated very obviously by the invasion of ukraine and russia being a permanent member of the un Security Council. I think that has really given rise to probably the panel we are having here today which has shaken a lot of peoples faith in the system. The u. S. Has played an outsized role in the International System. We have provided the leadership. They have provided a lot of the stability of the system through multiple Alliance Relationships and a lot of military deployment. We also i think promoted global prosperity on the back of open trade flows, open markets and commerce. Financial flows, capital flows. I think we have played a leadership role. One of the things we will talk about is whether that will continue or whether that should change. My basic bottom line is the International System has brought us a lot a lot of good. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We will get to the criticisms in a moment but first i want to give them a chance to offer any additional amendments to the definition of what the International System is that we are talking about. If it is international, it is by nature evolutionary, by nature, it invites it has to accept contributions and contests of different views to be self sustainable. 1. I would want to say is that the Hearing International assistant was it would benchmark that with the u. S. Based system that has served kennys interests extremely well and most of the principles, the core of the u. N. Treaties are quaint in line with the chinese statement on coexistence. Those five principles originated in india. Myanmar back in the 50s but nonetheless, the chinese reported that. But there is a bit of a new one in the understanding if you go back to historical studies, you are in line peaceful coexistence are not translated properly. I dont know of many of you here speak chinese. This would be more in line with reference to coexistence meaning fine, the war would be an option. Lets prepare for that. If youre looking for that Nuclear Arms Race but the the chinese warning for peaceful coexistence we have differences but nevertheless, we have to cohabit, except the reality that we are cohabiting one universe. I would think that nuance is often lost and to the extent it is partly because of the cold war and partly because of the power of rhetoric, sometimes the nuance is lost in translation. If you read some of the literature, especially the media, there seems to be uncompromising differences between chinese and american preferences for the International System today. I dont think that is reflective of the realities. You have what is said and what is not said. I would more invite more attention to looking at or examining chinas use by asking what they are benchmarking against which historical present or what kind of idea is taking some expression at the superficial level. Especially by excepting a translated work into english. We have the same challenge of translated translating english or other foreign linkages into chinese. If i bring myself to some sort of program, i do not believe it will be the kind of uncompromising rivalry. Between china and the United States or for that matter china and the rest of the world. It is interesting that youre, suggest china benefits and sees value in the International System as a figure that runs counter to some of the prevailing views in washington. China therefore is hostile towards it. I would say that the net the definition that susan talks about, the legal resolution of conflict is something europeans care very much about. The foundation of the European Union is a peace project. Sworn enemies are supposed to overcome their differences. Sometimes their hatred of one another. Through trade and cooperation. I think we have to Work Together in an international setting. Europeans like to call it the multilateral order. I think that is most of what this is. I think that with china we have a bit more of a difference. They came up with almost a holy trinity of what the opinion should be which holds other partners a certain way. There is an internal element to put it plainly, how the Economic System should work. There is an external component to it. It pertains to how we think of the International Order. I think about verification again. What i would say that europeans and americans have tried to push is they are trying to build trust, ensuring that the more that we now, the more protected we will be. That is something a number of people in china put back on. We are seeing this actually play out in a number of issues. One of the big issues is armscontrol. We see how we are struggling to sometimes share the same vision. We want to partner with china. A systemic rivalry doesnt mean they should be no corporation, we think of a number of topics when it comes to the global commons. Not only is there space but a necessity to cooperate. I was just going to Say Something unelected, definition. I think you bring up the tension in the International System between the printable of sovereignty, noninterference in the countrys internal affairs. That is a principle of the u. N. Charter. The International Community has a responsibility to protect people anywhere in the International Community from what is considered to be state power. We see the tension playing at. I would even say it has really come to a head in the wake of the collapse of the soviet union because these issues kept coming up. The responsibility to protect from the human in a case where there was civil strife and an attack on Minority Groups. It comes up in the realm of human rights. That is at issue between the u. S. And china and europe and the International System. This is an area that is constantly working on china and many other countries. This is the heart of the tension. When this notion of systemic rivalry came out of new rhetoric, most of the initial translations in chinese i thought were wrong. I thought we should read a piece to corrected it. It becomes a systematic rivalry. What is the system . If there was a reservation about the systemic difference, it was probably understood or feared to be a code word for regime change. It is about the governor system of china. We spent some good time to seek clarification with our european colleagues. It does seem to be getting clearer consistently. That speaks of need for further communication but armscontrol is for itself. What determines the result of warfare after it gets started is not weapons. It is human will. Words take place. They come and go. The chairman got that right. It is the human choice. Armscontrol needs to be discussed but it is a means to a larger end. This is how we learn to relate to each other and we use armscontrol as an instrument to reduce tension rather than revising some numerical parody. There are going to be differences. Question was talking about the right to protect. Human rights, many of them are better at it. You have some difference between International Relations and International Relations. Human rights, if you put more as International Relations, you have each state, each Government Entity doesnt have that beauty to protest human rights and enhance human right protection. But that it is very internationally related. But there was a chinese reservation. I think it was china alone but it was that concerns about human rights, how they could be better and more productively expressed. How they could see improvement to the group of individuals, especially minorities, women or ethnic minorities, marginalized and then how that can be more effective. Is that where you trade sanctions as a mean to say section delete and then hopefully they would turn around to change their behavior toward the poor and marginalized . Or you think about other means of doing this. I am not thought this through and especially beginning with libya, i do believe there is a lot of room in military intervention for the goal. It would be really effective or conducive to reaching a goal of improving human rights underground. I think that is a fair point that it is worthy of further discussion. Im not sure if we will find the answer today but it is an important topic. Every year around this time, there is a wave of articles and commentary suggesting the International System is not solving the worlds problems. I think that feeling is exacerbated by ukraine as well as in israel. I want to ask each of you whether or not you agree with that diagnosis. That the International System is not addressing the most pressing problems in the world. If so, what would you identify as the most pressing problems that merit further focus and resources . I think it is so uptodate in this is that we have not found something do we need to reform it . Do they need to make themselves much more hurt much more strongly in the sense that dell atavism is one country and one voice . One format i thinking of is the one Security Council that they inherited from a time when the power balance was very different that it is now. Europeans are among those same should be extended. We are thinking about a number of countries, germany was one every country is important. There should be more long to members of the one Security Council. It is not that have an they can happen in the u. N. But when you think of the International Order, they are really only two main elements. The first one is impartiality. As of now, the United Nations is the only institution providing these two elements. I think one of the things europeans are pushing a lot more is the ability to make the you and more representative. It is not just the power dynamite but the rights of everyone. Were looking at an increasing number of conflicts, with all the event of the work in ukraine. We are also looking at a number of Development Issues that are not going away. It is the question of climate adaptation, of course, Development Issues. We have to find a way to not choose between all these topics to make sure we address all of them and make sure we address all of them collectively. We are seeing a number of many natural format. The g7 have been extremely active in providing some more. We are seeing the brick. We are seeing a number of formats emerging. I think this is a trend of multilateralism. These many natural formats, they are a larger international organization. It is not unilateralism against multilateralism. We need to do all of this together in a larger framework. This is what the europeans are pushing for as much as possible. They are growing voice in the International System. Correctly you want today is in many ways a victim of its own success. People often forget how tremendous the human system if you look at the meteorology, if you look at health and food and the plan of action, that is among developing countries. U. N. Specialized agencies have done a tremendous job of connecting different parts of the word. Especially todays popular vocabulary for the global south to be generating more dynamic mess in their own society at the very beginning of the u. N. Or the early origins of the south corporation movement. The human is fit for purpose. Whose purpose if you think about it, the purpose of the vast majority of the world is quiet fit. If you measure that purpose by looking at secure development and human rights for that, each of the three categories, there can be some disagreement. There is a lot of blame on the u. S. System, especially Security Council resolutions. In terms of article five an authorization the printable of collective security and then at the end of the day, you think, why do two parties go to war . Who are the responsibilities there in the first place . Is it the response ability of the two direct parties . Is it the responsibly of a third party, some that grew up under the u. N. System . I would think there is more to look at the human system going beyond the human mechanism per se. There is an organization that the emphasis is on this. Members have tremendous differences. Regardless of all these large differences what is the deliverable . The deliverable is nobody. They are talking about war is a choice and further on, you can look at the centrality, japan or even japan, china, south korea, 10 plus three, there are a lot of things to look at and many other regional efforts. I profoundly disagree. It is how different members actually make use of it. They outsourced the blame to say they are moving the u. S. Forward. I said i think the one the u. N. Has done a lot in his history looked a puppy uphold peace, stability and we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater but there are some areas where we need to do some work. We have not enough capital flowing to the developing world from the developed world. We have huge transactional problems. Pandemics, the cooperation of the pandemic was abysmal. They should be taken as a point of departure for future lessons and maybe even coming up with improvement to work on this. Climate change is an existential threat to all of us. If we dont do something about that, there is no point in talking about the rest of it. I think certainly the failure to prevent outbreaks of conflict, we have seen that over the years. If you look at the other side, interstate, conflict has been you can count examples on one hand. I think the collapse of empires, decolonization, all of these things, the u. S. Has done an amazing job. New technologies will be another existential threat we are not set up at all to grapple with. I think many lateral formats can be useful. It is very hard to generate. It is slow and ponderous. There is a lot of administrative aspects to it. But as you say, talking is the way we stabilize, the way we prevent conflict from breaking out. The way we understand. As trite as that may sound. I think there are forms reforms that need to be made. One of the things i would say about this is that we know people are talking about the u. S. But i have to say whenever there is a fire alarm ringing somewhere in the world, where do people come running . There is a little bit of a chicken and egg problem here and we worked really hard with china to get china to answer the fire alarm in the past on some issues and not gotten a lot of response there. China tends to not want to stick his neck out and get involved in mediating disputes that are very risky to try to get yourself in the middle of. Europe, we had the crisis in the former yugoslavia. To some extent, the u. S. Is going to be the de facto leader of this International System for quit a long time into the future. We see a lot of other countries and power stepping up to contribute both ideas but also resources and action in some of these cases. I think it is frustrating for some of those on the usi to hear people constantly saying the u. S. Is always trying to tell you what to do and then when you try to get other people to get involved, it kinda comes up empty a lot of the time. I think we are working on that. I think we are trying to move in that direction but that is another avenue of change that needs to happen. On this point, i think europeans are acutely aware, without the u. S. There is no european security. We see this as very important and sometimes existential to us. We know the u. S. Decides who would draw partially or fully from a number of directors. We have to think about how the word liberal is perceived. That is where some of the criticism about double standards we have, we feel very strongly about how the system should support us. I do want to say this because it is important. It is one country, one voice. His it is about principles that i think we can get a majority of countries to agree on. There are experts in the United States who identified cardinal pillars of the International System and these include arms limitations, human rights, freedom navigation. If you look at those cornerstones, the United States and china have somewhat different views on each of them. Or maybe you disagree. But based upon that, is it feasible to expect that the United States and china will be able to will be able to comfortably live under the International Umbrella . I am curious to hear your thoughts. I dont disagree. I speak my mind. I dont mind. Territorial integrity as a principal, there is no disagreement whatsoever. Disagreement comes over what is the accepted borderline. I dont think we are going to be able to begin talking about the situation. In china, this is we many special audiences in the u. S. Here. We are using different peace treaties even within the country if you look at china and india, invasion, they may be referring to what the borders might be like. Demi got back to the region and there is a different account of what the board was like. Even our own systems that bank make the negotiations more complex. Territorial integrity is very important. It is an essential principle. But then it comes down to the details of whose version of where the territorial line is, that is important. I dont think the u. S. And china are really that different. I dont want to be repetitive. It is what another society can and should do. Affecting the real improvement of the situations of the people and should you equate one voice of a Minority Group or a focus group back in this culture im talking about the 1960s. Charlie used to parade one process leader of the United States after another. That could be viewed as what we did then in terms of the Civil Rights Movement and for china to take a stance whether it is helpful or not helpful i think youve got my point. What is the fourth one . Freedom of navigation. Commercial freedom of navigation is not a problem at all. But it is when the freedom of Navigation Missions conducted i see a risk of freedom of Navigation Missions being a precursor to a kind of justification for arms just for the sake of it. You can call it an emotive response. There were issues of international law, issues of norms. What i dont want to see is somehow in china were other parts of the world, you would have that sentiment that some day lets take the u. S. As an example because it has built the naval capacity to conduct missions close to the landmass of china. Why dont we do the same for the United States . Lets do a few of those off the coast of maine. Hawaii would be nobody cares. I have relatives who live in alaska. I see that as a sign of conflict promotion for the sake of it. It is not really that conducive at all. Those things need to be more thoroughly discussed. Effective communication should take place more frequently. Im interested in what he said about conflict promotion for the sake of it. Also, against the backdrop of politics. Strategic competition and all of the talk about that. I am not sure i am not sure i would agree with these pillars. Look at the issue of open commerce, open trade, open capital flows, the u. S. And china see some on the ones related to different ways of philosophical visions of how to run an economy but for the most part, have a lot of commonality now on this issue, a lot more than we used to have. I think free commerce and free navigation, there are specific differences. One difference is that china can be taken to a tribunal because it is signatory of the treaty. Mainly what i want to say is the International System set up to impose constraints on major powers in particular but also all powers, particularly major powers. The u. S. And china also all are very attached to our sovereignty. We both consider ourselves to be exceptional countries. We have a certain vision of our place in the world and whatever ambition is and so it is going to be difficult within one system to put these two countries together and have them cohabitate. But we have to do it, we dont have a choice. The u. S. China conflict would be an extinction event with ai. I think it would be an extinction event. We have to prevent it, we have to cohabit, coexist. Whatever word you want to use. There is a lot more commonality. I think the main thing we should focus on is what the ethos of responsibility for both our own citizens and for the welfare of the Greater Global Community within our two governments and systems and then within that you can find a lot of areas of commonality. I dont think china is ready to be a leader but i think it will be the u. S. For the foreseeable future try to get china to do more. How is that going to look . How are we going to bring the multilateral . How does that look . That change has to happen. We have to find a way to coexist and i think it will be a mistake not to do with one global community. Because there is other extinction type events that we need to address on much more urgency that are being tackled now. I have a final question for each of you because we want to flow onto our guests. There is a lot of discussion about the bifurcation or fragmentation of the International System. Looking ahead 20 or 30 years when my daughter or son is sitting in my chair asking the same question, will there be a singular International System that resembles what we have today or not, can we start with you . Sure. Request fragmentation is something they are very worried about. They have been giving a lot of speeches about this. The idea that we need to fight against the logic of blocks and not go back to a cold war era. We need to be clear about the difference is that we have. That is what the International System is about. We need to make sure that we settle these discussions and differences globally together. The idea that they need to provide an additional option. A number of countries from the socalled global south. It is not just an alternative to the u. S. And china, all of these options can be communicative. There are several options out there. You could say maybe this plays into the fragmentation but they are supposed to take their own role seriously on the international space. The strategy that the europeans have been going through, europeans are still very reluctant to think of themselves as a global power, to political power. The idea that this would do this , we are overcoming our own difficulties here. We have a huge tool which is our strongest and we need to use it. And the more geopolitical way. We are thinking about how we provide options to a number of countries in the international stage. This is exactly what the europeans want to do at a time when there scared of increased fragmentation of the world. I would think 20 years down the road, we are quick likely going to have a continuation of the current International System. There will be modifications. The temptation however you pair that matter, there is a lot of effects translated back and forth. You may have the temptation of saying lets have a bifurcated word, let us have a reality of doing things to create new separate systems. How successful can that be . You will need followers to do that. One recent example is a number of those countries that were considered strategically important. They choose to join projects for people joined by the g20 g7 framework. The notion of bifurcation being a viable choice sort of assumes you have their parties and forth parties to follow that kind of socalled leadership. They are short of choices. I think that is not necessarily true. The party tries to stay follow me and not him is a way of losing support around the world. Students talk about the democratization of the International System. That sort of rhetoric needs to be written given back. They should make a contribution to mankind . Until whatever leader said today they roughly translated a shared future. It is by consistent. In other words, going round and round to say the same about cohabitation, if i could go back a little bit, what is a very early on was that if there is a consistent chinese position that spans the test of time, it is the value of international we want to see how we can ameliorate our differences. It is fantastic, i just want to make sure we have an opportunity to bring our audience in. Just making sure we have of him we have a way to cohabit. The floor is not open to questions. We could start with nicholas. You have a microphone on its way. Thank you. This one works better. I come from the human rights world. I work in amnesty in human rights. I am normally the idealist in the world in the room. We know this is how institutions work. The real question is are the participants of the system willing to cooperate to reform the institution . I would like to know whether you see any inkling of that cooperation. All the different parties have big problems. The u. S. Has an enormous domestic problem that could change everything. The west is generally losing power relative to the rest of the world. The eu has a problem because it doesnt have the material means for its security. China has a problem in terms of reforming the International Order which i think it is not clear if they really want is responsibilities. It seems they dont they have the capacity to do it. The vision that china promotes is a vision of reduced and conditional territorial sovereignty. This is territorial sovereignty but not if some other party more accurately translated as reasonable security concern. Could this be some vague principle . I dont see any member of the International Community saying i am going to leave the u. N. Charter to join this one. My question a lot of what we attribute to china seems to be more about this that the real question i have is what we can expect is more decay of the fragmented order. Unless there is a real willingness what would it take for these different parties . The u. S. To really cooperate and reform the International Order and what result could we expect aside from that degrading the system to the lowest common denominator i tried to leave us on an optimistic note. We must deal with the fact that there is rescue decay as well. What resonates about what you said with me is that everyone says we need to do this, that and the other thing. We need to tackle climate change. Everyone has different ideas about how to do that and no one wants to pay. The International System is about resources, Global Public goods and you will pay for them. We have more and more needs. We have more and more reticence about paying and how are we going to figure out how to deal with some of this and the rich countries . China is the number two u. N. Dues pair in the system. With that respect, we do see some stepping up but we need to see a lot more. What we are talking about his complaints. I dont like the term global south but i will visit here, complaints from countries that have been neglected in the interest of what the International System was established for. Sort of in a Sustainable Way that takes into account more global community. I think they are frustrated. I think all of the major powers are also frustrated. We dont want to give up our privilege in the system either. That is why you have to see better Cooperation Among those major powers. You are right to be skeptical but we dont have anything better. I think young people really want to see this Global Institution working. They see the problems, they are frustrated. We have to do better. I dont think the direction we have gone in the u. S. And china relationship will make this any easier. Maybe step one is we have to figure out how to get that back on track. I do think that talking is important and engagement is important and we see some engagement now getting back on track between the u. S. And china whether that can go far enough to bring us to some point of cooperation to fix the International System it should but will it . We dont know yet. In the interest of time, i will be very brief. They had various positions on russia, ukraine and other positions and then the end of the day, we are trying to play a role. You need to have a fight in the direct parties on the conflict. In the case of iran and saudi arabia is situation, how did it turn out to be the way that it was . You need to bear in mind that when you talk about china, you cant be so abstract. How the International System comes today, the ideals, the laws, the philosophies and the accumulation of unwritten expertise dates back to world war i or even before that. For todays china, chinese diplomats, chinese scholars, chinese leaders, there is the absence of participation. We have to be a little bit more patient. I think europeans are worried about lowcost International Orders. I think that should be just about cohabitation or coexistence. China and russia are from the human counsel form. I dont like the expression the global south either. But it is much harder for china and russia to basically say no to them. It does break the narrative that it is the west versus the rest. I have many more questions to ask. That means we are going to return to this conversation in the future. There are real impediments to addressing this and the risk is real. Thank you to our panelists for their expertise