Transcripts For CSPAN3 Hudson Institute Discussion On Intern

CSPAN3 Hudson Institute Discussion On International Organizations July 13, 2024

From the Hudson Institute, this is an hour and a half. Good day, welcome to the Hudson Institute, and thanks for showing up for this panel on Multilateral Institutions, indispensable or irrelevant to global peace and prosperity. I will be the moderator, im a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who put together this panel, which i think is on a key issue in d. C. And globally indeed. Its talked about a lot, but there arent that many panels about the topic around town. So i look forward to this discussion. So as i mentioned for the past couple of years, theres 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. And one question that arises then, 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, et cetera. Although we have spent decades on Development Aid on Peace Keeping, et cetera, from the institution such as world bank and the u. N. Does that mean that the institutions have failed to contribute to raising basic individual welfare and quality of life . Then there is also the issue of the human rights situation in countries such as mali and south sudan, it continues to be disastrous despite u. N. Peace keeping. Does that mean that these instruments have failed . Does the Multilateral Institutions not do their job well enough . Have they, instead, become money machines for corrupt governments and for employees instead of assisting the civilians that they pretend to serve . Thats some of the key issues that i hope we can talk about today. Few people seem to think the institution should be left as they are. Some demand pragmatic reforms, others call for wholesale transformation. And yet, others total destruction of the global framework that we have now of Multilateral Institutions. And this panel will address the pros and cons of preserving a system of Multilateral Institutions at a time where we have plufluctuating alliances, trade wars, rising authoritar n authoritariani authoritarianism. We have four speakers to address these issues. We have katherine lavel, professor of World Affairs at case western reserve university. Shes written numerous books on International Organization and u. S. Politics. And her most recent book is called the challenges of multilateralism, its come out at Yale University press and addresses the history of domestic and International Politics that have helped or hindered global cooperation. Prior to this she has been a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for scholars and she also held numerous other positions as researcher and she was a staff at the House Committee on Financial Services. Then we have eli whitney, hes currently a partner at a law firm. But prior to this position, he served as an executive director of the world bank from 2007 to 10. He has extensive experience in Major International Financial Transactions in the Capital Markets and functions at the forefront of trade liberalization advising with respect to world trade organization, panel procedures. Earlier this month he served as a witness on the u. S. House committee on Financial Services hearing on Multilateral Development institutions. Third we have blaze mishtoh hes a fellow, and lemost recently served on a congressionally mandated project convened by the u. S. Institute of peace. Prior to that he was director of the by partisan Security Center program where we researched policy recommendations concerning a variety of National Security issues including iran and its nuclear program, u. S. turkey relations, cyber security, and state fragility. And last but not least we have Martin Bilham who took up his post as ambassador of denmark to the United Nations in january of 2019. Before taking up his position, the ambassador served as state secretary for development and policy in the Danish Ministry and foreign affairs. Prior to this appointment he served as ambassador to indonesia and was accredited to new quiguinea. Hes also been the head of the department for asia and Pacific Region in the department of foreign affairs. The panel will spend about an hour debating the issue of Multilateral Institutions. And after that we will open it up for questions from the audience. I will start. Katherine, youve just written a book on the Multilateral Institution Multilateral Institutions that is about to come out or has come out. Can you describe how you see the role of Multilateral Institutions in todays world order where we have fluctuating alliance patterns, trade wars rising, does these trend means the institutions are counterproductive to preserving a liberal world order . Are they, for example, taken over by authoritarian regimes with little respect for basic liberal market economic and human rights principles or how should we read it . Thank you. Thank you for that question and thank you for inviting me and having me here today at the Hudson Institute. Its been really a privilege to meet my copanelists. I look forward to the discussion. I think that youre raising really good questions that might the book is forthcoming. And the book really looks at the, wed say kind of the long view of multilateralism and the history of the organizations. I think when you take a longer view, i mean end of the napol n napoleonic war long. The things that are the same are the nationalist tendencietenden controversies about the organizations themselves have certainly always been there. The way i look at the history of the organizations is they have been intermingled with the history of scientific progress and the industrial revolution. As scientific progress has evolved states had to figure out how to handle whats going on and discover but also the International Community has had to discover that. If you want to think about like an environmental issue back in the 1800s, the issues of migratory birds were important, when you look at disease, cooperation and health, what was important was trying to grapple with cholera on the British Trade routes. The problems in the 1800s had to do with science. But 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 would handle. We know as students of International Relations that then World History has had intermittent episodes of war. And i think if you want to look at it as more the optimistic hopeful side of the picture is in some of the darkest hours people have tried to figure out what to do about multilateralism, how can we make those institutions better. Im not sure i would have the instinct as world war ii was winding down to figure out what to do, but thats been the history. The way i look at the problem, is scientific progress has continued. Two things have happened since the 1960s, the digital revolution and also massive advances in global health. And the World Community trying to come to terms with how those benefits are going to be distributed and whos going to pay for them as welfare systems have evolved. We know the institutions fostered the National Welfare systems but then coming to terms with that now, our problems. These are real challenges that these organizations confront. So i dont know if i would say its so much an either or, in terms of whether they need to go or come or Something Like that. They have to adapt to the new realities of the problems. Of global immigration and taxpayers and advanced industrial democracies, but i think theres reason to be somewhat hopeful that theyve been able to adjust in the past and probably will be able to do so in the future. Thanks, kate. Whitney, you have been executive director of the world bank and a lot of contemporary critics of these institutions point to an imbalance between the financial contributions made by Member States on the one hand and then the actual tangible benefits of Multilateral Institutions for a common interest in prosperity and stability. Can you tell us, from your experience, to what extent these Multilateral Institutions such as the world banks are becoming tools for corrupt governments than how they protect the people they tend to serve . Thank you. Thank you for inviting me. Its a pleasure to be here today, particularly among such distinguished company. I think that we cant reach, you know, definitive judgment on a Multilateral Institution like the World Bank Without remembering its one player in a Larger Development landscape. And that the landscape includes the countries themselves that are clients of the bank. But if we do take a longer view, i think you could say that we have made huge progress on this planet. We brought more people out of poverty in the last 25 to 30 years, than in all the rest of human history. So that, to me, is a fairly remarkable measure. And i think that the multilaterals have made a significant contribution to that. They also have accumulated a lot of knowledge about the Development Process and disseminate that around the world. Its interesting when i was testifying two weeks ago up on the hill, i got any number of questions about why does china continue to borrow from the bank . And 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 its time for them to graduate and they can 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 political model of at least the ibrd component of the World Bank Group, and i have to point out there are five parts of the World Bank Group and each one of them has its own separate Financial Model and you need to understand those models before you Start Talking further. But in the ibrd side, which is where china borrows, a very large component of the annual budget comes from the interest which is earned on the loans, and if you said china repay everything tomorrow, there would be a big hole if that budget. Now some people, theres always room to cut budgets of institutions like this, and even knows when i was u. S. Executive director, we were one of the budget hawks constantly and consistently, we were on the audit committee, always trying to improve things. But i think a phase out would b appropriate in terms of the institutional approach. There are also other aspects of multilateral stupgss which i think institutions which are important to remember. They can provide a lot of knowledge about public Financial Management. These lessons are not learned instantly by every country on the world. But on the whole i think there is a lot of progress. One aspect of the Financial Management is the management of trust funds. And i think i would submit to you that perhaps one of the more successful multilaterals has been the global fund fighting disease. The United States has appropriated four times as much money on an annual basis to the world fund nan it has to the world bank. The world bank though manages the trust funds. And thats in itself a valuable service. Now, as to your question about capture and so forth, i mean, there is politics at the world bank. I mean, its a little bit like kass blank an. Im surprised there is gambling going on here. Its 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 sfr china appear has responsibility for ethics. And my response was he is an International Civil servant. If he is not doing his job, the president can fire him. But these are things that need to be dealt with. There is a legitimate question as raised by our moderator about whether the institutions are captive or within the political interests of other countries, are there more to serve the Civil Servants or the elite as opposed to the people of the country. I think in your question you left out one dimension, which is the entire development community. You know, when i went to a country in africa on one of my e. D. Trips at the world bank. Ip met with the head of us achlt d and i said how much is your budget. He said 80 million a year. I said how much of that is earmarked and he said 78 million of 80. Earmarked means for the beltway contracts around here who have their contracts and so forth. He was at a disadvantage to the head of difid, the Uk Development agency because that country head had a discretionary budget of 10 million available to him. So that when the president of the country has problem he wants help on, the uk had 10 million and the United States had two. There are captives. I remember looking at a lan for a road project in niger, lets say a 20 million loan. And if you look back on page 57 in the annexes you found that 500,000 of that was to buy four toyota land cruisers. So, yes, there are as in any political situation people whose interests are at the play. But as i reached the point of capture and we have alternative organizations, think of the organizations started by the bricks. They were frustrated that the u. S. Congress took so long to approve a quota increase at the imf. It took them five years. So they formed their own monetary organization and own new bank called the bricks bag baepg or now the new Development Bank. But look at what they did in the monetary arrangement. As a headline number of x, 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. The other 70 requires an upper tranche imf program. So even the bricks when forming an organization are depending on another multilateral to establish important criteria and so forth. So i think ill leave it there. And we can hear from other panelists. But obviously there is no black or white answer to the questions being asked. All right. Thanks, whitney. Moving to blaze. You have done a lot of work on fragile states. You arguably fragile states seem to be continuously bogged down in poverty, lack of education, all the usual development problems, despite years of spending from the world bank, also from the United Nations. Does that mean that they have failed to contribute to raising basic individual welfare and quality of life . Or can any still be helpful . Do they need reform . Or can we use them as they are . Thank you, lisa, for putting together this event on this important topic. Thank you to the audience for joining us for in discussion. Im honored to join this distinguished group of panelists and flattered that you think i can solve the fragile states questions in five minutes or however long ive been allotted. Let me give some context why i think its important to think about fragile states and discussion the multilateralism. Thats both because the problems surrounding fragility are particularly problems well suited to or driven by the sorts of issues that Multilateral Institutions are meant to solve. So Something Like 90 of all conflicts in the world today are happening in fragile states. We know the United Nations devoted to International Peace and security in trying to minimize conflict. Increasingly poverty occurs in fragile states. Ten years ago Something Like 15 of the worlds poor lived in fragile states. Ten years from today its going to be 60 of the worlds poor live in fr

© 2025 Vimarsana