And a half. Good afternoon, welcome, everybody to the discussion on how to strengthen cooperation in a fragmenting world. My name is julian, im both columnist at the Financial Times and provost in Kings College in bam bridge and im delighted to be joined with truly wonderful talent as they say earlier and many are known to you all, on my far left carolyn atkinson, adviser in the Obama Administration and very longtime veteran of the global geopolitical scene and efforts to try and create Global Corporation. Next to her via phone way, adviser to the is and cdd and who is also a veteran of Global Corporation and is particularly been involved in championing the voices of the known western world one might say. Next to her is gugian, president of the iff and ferrerly of the world bank. Again, another senior in the institutions and on my immediate left, your right is dr. Nancy lee who has very kindly stepped in for matthew who has unfortunately unable to join us today and having just been part of a really interesting report essentially graved the institution in terms of what they are doing and more importantly in terms of what they are not doing right now. And i say the issue about how to strengthen is very important because arguably there has never been a time in recent decade when cooperation was not badly needed given the scale of challenges be Climate Change and the fact, and you have seen the great reversal that came out this morning about the growing pain being felt in the poorest countries in the world in the great divergence. We have rising trade friction and rising geopolitical friction and tech which is upending so many aspects of our economy, all of that is coming together to require more Global Cooperation and yet we also face with fragmentation and friction. And to my line, a lot of focus in world war ii era. Of course, we are coming up to the 80th anniversary of that. A lot of the discussion which we will be touching on whether or not the institutions are fit for purpose, whether they need a revamp and whether they need to be essentially changed completely or not. The reality is that whatever you think of the institutions and we will be discussing that in a moment from the back of the report, reality is that the post 1945 period in many ways is the encouraging story about Global Corporation and thats the point i spent a lot of myself thinking about because in my perch at Cambridge University we had the archives and i spent some time recently reading through letters and wrote from paris in 1919 after world war i and before world war i there was overwhelming belief among elite that free market capitalism and globalization was good and would only continue to spread and technological innovation would be good for everyone. And such with level of complacency or arrogance that the global elite totally failed to see that innovations were not benefiting many people and there was rising and social tension, rising anger geopolitical conflict and, of course, the failure to see that its what led to world war i and more importantly failure to correct course led to dreadful decade and disintegration, not more collaboration. In my mind the first question to ask right now before we go into details is are we sitting in 1945 or 1919 . Are we at a point in history, we are about to get more collaboration and rejuvenated institutions to drive that collaboration or are we about to say decline into more protectionism, nationalism, fragmentation and all the dreadful implications for that type before. I can start with you caroline because you have spent time traveling the world with the obama team trying to promote the vision of 1945. Do you think we are at 1945 or 1919 right now . I dont think we are at 1945. I think that the election well, brexit and then the election of trump and then the movements in other parts of the world against the elites, against globalization were change in the underlying conditions, there is not a mood. I wish there were but i dont think there is a mood for king freshly or taking using the political will towards cooperation. The other thing which is a bit more political perhaps and theres cloud hanging over the worlds really is what is going to happen in the u. S. Election in november and that can make a big difference. I think something to say for the fact that the u. S. Is probably going to be fine by the way putting aside the threat of violence and so on but for the rest of the world it really matters which position the United States is taking. Is the United States closing in or opening up and trying to find corporation. I dont think we are quite in 1919 because i think the elites are worried but i dont think we have seen the political will and the leadership to promote a 1945 not yet. Right. Vera, what do you think. I forgot to say a few housekeeping points if you wish to live tweak, please mute devices. If you want to ask questions and we will create plenty of time for questions later on, you can ask questions if you are online by the youtube chat and i believe there already a little thing in a few moments. Anyway, thats giving you more time to think. [laughter] indeed. First of all, thank you and always grade to be at cdt. Like caroline, i dont think that we are in 1945. But i dont think we are in 1919 either and i think yesterday was increasing nationalism and we see that. I think there is a pleat breakdown in the u. S. More people asking was there ever trust and maybe never really was one. But i think that theres a few bright spots and this is why i dont think we are necessarily in 1919. I think theres a global emerging society that is actually coming together and so its its maybe not the leadership that we will have expected and maybe that is part of the issue is that we always expect sort of, you know, money conversation and 1919 or 1945 it was hedge money, there were clear leaders and we followed. I think it was a more complicated question and i think the good news is turmoil and some of it is good and we are asking the right questions, theres still an underlying and thats why we are here. Theres still an underlying conversation around the laterallism, the fact that we need even when, you know, we have going the other direction. They are still struggling with partnerships. In some sense the question is what kind of partnerships we build. My sense is what we need to do is take the lessons like you said of what we didnt do between 1919 and 1945 and see if after the period we can actually get a face that is much better. Absolutely, you make a very good point which, of course, the groups of countries which you might call the global south but you hate that world, you will tell us why in a moment, were not present in either of those discussions in 1919 or 1945 and in many ways the power balance and balance of Economic Activity has changed dramatically which is creating precisely some of the government challenges we are dealing with today. We will come back to that in a moment but i would like to turn to jen and ask you, again, china was not part of the conversation in either of those moments in history. How do you assess the kind mood . Do you think we are heading to post 1919 or 1945 more collaboration . First of all, i appreciate the opportunity to be here. I think regarding your question, i agree with the two speakers. Certainly we are not in the 1945. At the same time i dont see where yet into the foot of 1919 but increasingly we cannot do something and increasing risk, we probably conquer same situation like in 1919. In my mind you still need to try to do things under the same global framework. Following the same fundamental principles of eight market economy. You will probably find the ground for compromise. And then we can all move forward together. Click i would say i would not reject the whole multilateral list approach as a general construct. We are seeing completely divergent trends in different spheres. If you look at nato he will see an Alliance Gathering force gathering members, getting stronger. On the other hand you see economic Financial System which has been shocked when multiple dimensions. The strength of it multilateral alliances dependent in part the nature of the threat that holds it together. The members of alliance are satisfied by the nature of the threat has changed dramatically. Tagamet Climate Change and pandemic disease. Unburden sharing the major emitters cannot agree have the burden should be shared. Those excluded from decisionmaking and societies. Not happy with the role they are playing. Then we have gathering conflicts and we have a lot more conflict across the world. Civil wars. In the multilateral system make the institutions never really collaborated with each other in the first place. Its not as if we had a perfect system that was doing very well and now we have to try to regain it. All of this means we are talking about a major the system has to transform itself. Not just evolve. So to me that is the court to ce challenge, it can evolve to the 21st century or not . Because whatever happens when it has to be a new kind of multilateral. Quirks who have authored a report looking at the essentially trying to introduce some clarity as to whether they are living up to their missions or not. I asked you earlier backstage about what kind of grade that you would give them if you were in class. I sit optimistically at b and you said no, probably sc. [laughter] june to explain why it with the key elements of your report are in terms of what is going wrong . Quick so we tried to do was take all of the agendas have been proliferating over the last two years and the debates in the g7, g20 and at what we need the Multi Development banks to do. We tried to break that conversation down into identifiable reform items. We identified 28 we chosen 28 because they could be objectively assessed. We assess them across seven institutions. What we found was very uneven performance across the agenda and across institutions. Which is what makes it hard to grade up. I would say for bottom line road take from that report is if you look at the 28 items for the majority of those items, most of the Multi LateralDevelopment Banks have not started implementing reform. We are very rich of the stage of talking about reform. That is why i would not go as high as a be at the stage. Now to be fair the reform agenda has coalesced. Obviously is going to take a while. We need to start looking at the institutions in terms of what they are doing. Ask the question that raises is who might actually drive or not . Caroline i would like to ask you as someone who had the unenviable position of trying to sell the idea of multilateral reforms to the American Voter in your previous job, do you think appetite in america to try to drive forward this type of multilateral reform at the moment . When you look at the institutions that you are so familiar with do you think it is possible to reform them . Why celebrate, answer a bit. First of all, the american people, like people everywhere want to note they want their government and the institutions they support to do things for them. It takes explanation a Global Corporation isnt individual interest or the interest of the country. I think managing the irs sitting here at last week i guess put it rather well its in globalization is good in the sense that raising living standards. It helps people live a better life on average. But, the problem is that benefits are not evenly distributed. Even more important from the benefits of think the cost of pain is unevenly distributed. People find more about pain this is an anthropologist. That was it issue that was ignored and ignored for obviously too long. I think the way its being addressed now politically in the u. S. Is a bit wasteful. Give money to sing song to start a factory somewhere make peoples lives better and that both domestic and globally. I think selling the reform support to the American Public is a little bit different from finding the leadership to sell it also to the rest of the world. And on reforming, armor 30 years ago began the u. S. Treasury and the architecture we got bored with that analogy knocking things down and building things up. I think there is a problem rearranging chairs on the titanic im not so attracted to the idea of making small changes in the institution as i am thinking about how to generate political will and emerging societies and the major societies amongst the leadership as well as the people for Global Cooperation. Part of that is what is the threat . The threat is real on climate, on conflicts, may be on disease although i think Everyone Wants to forget about that now. And on migration which is another looming question. The threats are there and connecting those threats with actions government can take and can only take because they are Global Threats was a huge challenge but thats what leaders need to be due. I would like to ask you carolyn says we should not be out rearranging the chairs on the titanic. Running with the finer details of organizations in some ways. As a big report from the committee that says we should not be ripping apart the organization. We should try to be more effective. Very thoughtful report which i commend. But slightly a case of turkey for christmas youre not going to get the community saying that the for the park the brick and wood organization. Im curious from your perspective do you think we should keep the institutions as they currently stand . Or is it time to engage in significant reform look at things like shareholder ratings and things like that and relative power . Up to difficult question to answer in my own view is probably over 80 years the institution is established there probably better off without them at all. The same time a situation is involving serious reform. Particularly in one of the institutions which it worked for for a long time. You can see a different attempt to reform it partly because of complexity. Partly because of the interest from different stakeholders or the staff. You also think where will it be . Because i remember last year, here where we heard her change the leadership again. Staff and colleagues told me on through restructuring. Basically they state relatively stable. That really went to shaken institution. Also you need a lot of support from insiders. Knowing these stakeholders and the shareholders but the other thing i must say and even went i was there we talk a lot about how we work together. We are having the approach or products will be interesting. And then both sides can collaborate with each other. Otherwise again i think hopefully with Climate Change and other things and the new leadership could do better. Mostly i suspect marketing. The report and it doesnt point out the same issues around government implementation, accountability applies to private sector as well as the public sector. That is certainly true when it comes it questions like debt relief in questions like that. I like to bring you in and ask you, Bruce Mckinney tell us why you hate the word global south journalist like myself tend to test run a lot. One thing that unites everyone in the structure divided world is disdain for the media. You can all agree its the medias fault reason the wrong term i think language matters right now and how does that play in into the underlying problem around the brecon would organization . I think two things. Language is part of identity. Language is essentially and fundamentally your understanding of the perception the other has a view. Once the first entry of inter action or engagement i am very happy in the green room it was actually blue is the green room those actually blue. [laughter] and i sort of froze up but she said to say dont have any questions and i said naive give me the opportunity out so i hate the word global south that all new. That is the whole point. The rest of the world has aspirations we should have aspirations of prosperity and then we have of ourselves. Im not writing a report on some regulation that uses geography that essentially is counterintuitive the idea of emerging is what we want. The tension to your first question is maybe we can emerge but maybe not too much. Then there may be some tension. And i really believe emerging societies. It gives even i think, are all in that fight together. Its a multiple bolt collaboration. You are charged as individuals about it. Its the idea you can come out have your initial endowment to change your thought. Finally it just to pick up a little bit, i was playing with the idea of the other date rather than have that meetings we should have the iis, i am a s smeeting so we bring the private sector. One of the things we are clearly seeing is today, a lot of discussions we are having air about how we get. We dont have it in the room. Even when we are trying to do structuring that is why theyre taking so long. We bring them in the room early enough. What we have seen as the markets have opened and the markets have retaken countries looses to shoot when the market opens to them, then we go. Theres an a symmetry if we had the private sector in the room not lets write a nice report and leverage you guys to come it later but bring them in the room at the beginning. Maybe that is the new world. I think of three legate world and every report we write we talk about private sector bringing in more. I think the idea of not having them almost officially at the table. Cooksey to fight in the language question fascinating. Partly because i did trade as a anthropologist i strongly agree with you the words we wait frame the way we think. The fact we have gone from third world countries to developing world countries to emerging markets to know you are saying emerging societies which is lets focus just on finance is fascinating. I am curious what does that mean in terms of government of the institution . Do you see white and more powerful voice on behalf of the emerging societies to make them more effective . If you indicated earlier that may be part of the problem as to why collaboration is not breaking down the difference in the past. It is no longer just a game run by the g7. Cooksey report talks exactly as you said governance and implementation. One of the issues they identify in the report is kind of a consensus decisionmaking. In the end we dont measure things and no one is account