Be the president. A lot of these trends have been long in the making, some more recent but the bottom line is whoever wins the election can chose everything. Their running mate, policy and the only thing they cant change is their inbox and i wanted to talk about what greeted the next president and how we got from the optimism of 25 years to something that is not optimistic and i talk about what we should and shouldnt do about avoiding it. I noticed in the beginning of the bock you discussed you had the opportunity to speak at Cambridge College that richard deer brought you in as the visiting professor of state craft and diplomacy. Great title. Great title. Yes, it is. What influence during the lectures you were delivering . How did this gel . You didnt know what was to come but when you impacted by your students . Lectures you were giving . What about that connection . Any time you give three formal public lectures it helps you organize your thoughts. I gave those and got lots of feedback. It got me thinking. I did the transcription and fused with the manuscript for several months. I could not get there. It turns out what may work as a set of lectures didnt work as a book. I literally threw it out. There is a great quote from a famo famous yiddish writer that a writers best friend is his trash basket. I started over sand started ove thinking about why are things not better in the world if great p power and conflict were muted why was it a disorderly or why was it a world in disarray. It was the solving of that puzzle which i did Walking Around central park that essentially told me, okay, i have a book here. I can explain why things arent working better than they are. Explain what is similar and what is also different about this moment in history and then again i can explain how is it we arrived here. You cant write a sober book and say that is it. I thought i needed to suggest what could be done about it. We will get to the substance of the book in a moment but i want to ask you a few more background questions. I noticed at the beginning of the book you dedicated to several of your former teachers. What influence did they have on this particular topic . The teachers i worked with at oxford had tremendous pr probably headley beau had the most. He wrote a book and i talk about the book in the text. As the title suggests, at any moment in history the world can best be understood as the balance of forces on anarchy. We are nation states that agree to rules and follow them. What is is revealing is this balance. I find that the single most useful framing for any take i may have an history or International Relations. I mention albert herani who was a great historian of the middle east. He wrote a fantastic essay about the crisis of 1956 and about the suez and middle east and hungary and europe and that ended the european era in the middle east and the super powers took over. It got me very interested in transitions from one historical era to another. We worked with michael howard, the great historian of war. And two professors one was my first professor and the other was the one who taught me religion and that is what got me to the middle east and in some ways in those five professors is the explanation of what really launched me and got me going on the career path that i am still in. Moderator thank you for sharing that. I thought it was interesting you had cited them and i wondered what the connection was and i think you wellarticulated it. And i was struck boy in the introduction you talk about you spent time with the word disarray and thought maybe the best word to be used might be chaos or anarchy. Things about how you landed on the word disarray. Guest you are right. I am old fashion and i think i still have the thesaurus and i dusted it off. I am the president on the council of foreign relations, an organization you know well. And i thought i could not use words like messy because that lacks elegance. Chaos or anarchy seemed to be strong and other than parts of the middle east i felt it didnt apply. One day things may come to that. I hope not but we are not there yet. There is a degree of order. Great power relations say between the United States and russia are nothing like the way they were in most of the 20th century. What i was looking for was a word that conveyed messiness or disorderliness and i wanted to give a sense of something that was dynamic. Not fixed. I did. Again, i went through the thesaurus and dictionary and disarray came closest. I ran it by my editor and originally they wanted to call the book disarray and i thought that is too general and could simply be a book about your sock drawer and things were a mess. I thought we needed to frame it in terms of what was going on in the world so i suggested a world in disarray and everybody said that is it. That sums it up. Just getting ahead of ourselves for a second. It is funny. I have written more than a dozen books and this is the first book i dont have to tell people the subtitle. People say you have a new book and they say what is it called and i say a world in disarray and they look at me, nod, and say yup, it is. It checks the box of having a selfexpla selfexplanatory title. Moderator it results in a good outcome in that sense with people immediately embracing, grasping and understanding it and you dont have to go the subtitle. You divide the book up into three parts. Your first part traces, as you put it, the history of International Relations starting in the mid 17th century and through two world wars and on to the end of the cold war. The thesis you primarily put forward is you say there was considerable continutity in how the world works during that period. Describe that. History was different in each of these periods you point that out. But what was the continuitey . Guest one was nation states were the principle actors on the stage or to use the cliche were on the chest board. If you look at the 20th century, you have two extraordinarily costly world wars as well as a cold war and a lot of the structure of the world, such as it was, was based on this idea of sovereignty. The idea that borders were significant. That they define nation states. Countries. And that there was a deal out there that we wont try to change your borders by force if you dont try to change our and we wont mess around inside your territory if you dont interfere inside of ours. It was a live and let live society. When there was peace in the world it was largely because of the balance in power. When there wasnt, it broke down and one country saw an advantage of trying to change the map. But to answer your question, the contenuity and being the shaper of history and this sovereignty is the organizing principle. What were the Lessons Learned . In this section of the book you do provide analysis, description, contrasting one period to another and tell us what were the Lessons Learned particularly from the quote unprecedented disorder of the 20th century. In other words, looking at the two world wars. Gl the most fundamental lesson is it is necessary but not sufficient to have a shared understanding of what i and others call legitamacy which is we agree what the rules are and how you set and change them. So you need legit and a balance of power. It is inevitable that one country will get to the point where they wont like what the map looks like, it wont like what the chess board looks like and if it cant get its way peacefully it will act with military force. That seems the basic lesson. You need these set of rules, a process for setting and amending them, but you always need a balance of power in order to lock them in. Again, it is inevitable you will always have what Henry Kissenger called, revolutionary states that if they see an opportunity to change things they will do just that. Moderator let me bring in the fact in 2014, russian president Vladimer Putin held the val die conference. I believe that was the 10th anniversary and the title of the conference was world order, new rules on a game without rules. How does that relate to the thesis you are putting forward and looking back historically how you set the stage in the book . I think it is relevant in a couple ways. Here we are a quarter of a century since the berlin wall fell and i would argue several things are happening. One is there is less consensus than there was on what the rules of the order be. Exactly what order be the principles that organize the world. What ought to be the behaviors, shall we say, that are acceptable and those behaviors that are discouraged. I think there is growing friction in particular russia, to a lesser extent china and the United States and others including europe. I think the balance of power is weaker than it was. Nato in many ways demilitarized after the end of the cold war. Russia did many things but it is clearly not demilitarized. Indeed, that is the principle instrument of Russian Foreign policy. China has remilitarized in certain ways. Certain shifts in the balance and power and they go with the change and balances of economic wealth. You have had the rise of nonstate actors most dramatically the alqaeda and isis. You have medium states, the north korea and iran who could be a real factor in their regions. You have enormous flows from viruses whether they are real or computer, to guns, to drugs, to Greenhouse Gases, to components of missiles or bombs, the hacking of things that hackers would send around the world. You name it. Essentially anyone and anything that knows across the borders with tremendous speed and volume. So, i think, the old rules, the ones that to one extent or another helped us through four centuries have essentially been overwhelmed by this combination of globalization, dissimination of power into all these state and nonstate alike and the rise of new powers that are not totally comfortable with the distribution of arrangements in the world and the rules as they are. When the russians Start Talking about not having rules or the end of the old order, i think this is their way of saying we are not comfortable and think what exists is boys against us and there to help the United States and its allies and as the guy said in the movie we are not going to take it anymore and i think that is what we are beginning to see. Moderator let me stick with the historical backdrop a bit. You have a session devoted to the postcold war period. Talk a little bit about that because you do discuss the progression and how the world order was defined at that time. And you focus on the issue and the importance. Isnt that part of the discourse today . After world war ii you had the two principle sources of order. One was various dimensions of the cold war. The nuclear war heads. Neither pressed too far and left the other to dig in its heels and think about the Nuclear Weapons. We suggested one anothers fear of influence. The United States was limited in what it tried to do say at least in europe to weaken their soviet hold over the warsaw pack neighbors. The soviets were mostly ci and at the end of the day, the soviets backed down. So i think that tells us something about one source of order of the postworld. There is a whole bunch of institutions. The u. N. , the International Monetary fund, the world bank, Alliance Systems that grew up and the Marshall Plan that strengthen countries of the United States and europe and gave them the capacity to withstand communist movements. What you had coming out of world war ii were cold war related arrangements and larger institutional arrangements. So when the cold war ended we lost those disciplines and you had the break up of the soviet union and the warsaw pack. So you had to loosen the bonds of International Relations. You still had in place some of these institutions and rules. What i argue in the book is as welcome as thinks like the u. N. , world bank, or imf or other arrangements were, they were not enough to contain the new pressures and dynamics that emerged in the world over the last 25 years. Let me go to the part in the book where you do discuss, as you put it, the other order. You know, the post world war ii order. The liberal democratic order. Many would subscribe today to that order and say that the issue is, the value, the institutions put in place, that frame were to expand. What needs to be modified in many ways and things need to be updated on values but on terms of the institutional arrangements that the world has changed and there has to be greater adaptability there. How do you respond to those who argue very aggressively that really is the issue of the liberal democratic order . I think a democratic order is fine but it doesnt go far enough. It was invented in a world 70 years ago and a lot of challenges in the current world didnt exist then. The big concern was to promote peace to get other countries to respect sovereignty. Not to use force to change borders and that is all it continues to be relevant and necessary. There is no way we would give u. S. , russia, china, britain and france vetoes and not have significant roles from other countries like japan, to india, to germany. So the institutions havent kept up but how do i deal with Nuclear States once the prolifary treaty prevents them from becoming nuclear . What about global terrorism and global Infectious Disease . And on and on. We need to take the basic mechanisms of world order that were invented four centuries ago and update them. The biggest single change we need to make is we need to introduce an idea i call sovereign obligation. It is at the heart of world order 2. 0. It is the idea that goes on inside of other countries can no longer be their business alone. That province alone. If what goes on has the ability to affect other countries and populations negatively. You cant have terrorist in your country if they are going to do terrorist acts beyond your borders. You cant allow computer hackers to operate freely. You have to make sure that the Infectious Disease doesnt break out and if it does you have to take steps to bring it under control. You have to act responsible about climb change and cant just burn coal for electricity. What i am arguing is we need an American Foreign policy that is increasingly informed by both the old basis of stability which was sovereignty to now something that adds a new layer called sovereignty plus or sovereignty nation where countries have obligations as well as rights and we have to fulfill these obligations and in some cases we will have to set an example, in some cases we will have to incent incentvise and in some cases have to be prepared to penalize these not willing. This isnt idealism. This is my attempt to take good old fashion realism and update it or adapt it for a global world where everything is so interconnected. Moderator it might be worth stepping back because it is a primary thesis. You talk about world order 1. 0 and world order 2. 0. You mention sovereign nations and develop distinct as sovereign as responsibility. Make the distinction so the viewership understands the difference clearly. Guest let me try to go to the basic distinction. World order 1. 0 is about sovereign rights. The right of countries, nation states, to live in peace and pretty much do what they want within their own borders. These borders are not to be changed by force and no one is meant to be in a position to tell them how they act within their own borders. That is the basic idea. This was all well and good. My argument is it is no longer adequate for a world where inside the countries of virtually any country things are going on that will have reprecussions for them and everybody else. We dont have the luxury of saying what is going on inside your borders is your business alone because it turns out what goes on inside their borders is our business. If they let terrorists or computer hackers operaraerate f, if they are selling drugs or guns, to Nuclear Missile parts, acting irresponsible in regards to the environment. If they are producing carbon and Greenhouse Gases those gases are not staying trapped within their borders but they will spread around the world and contribute to Climate Change. So on issue after issue, giving the reality of globalization we have to accept, my favorite phrase is nothing stays local for long. What we need to do is adapt International Relations. Trying to get countries to behave responsible and accept allegations in the aspects of their neighborhood that has potential negative implications for others. This would be a basis of a new era, what i call world order 2. 0. Moderator in the book, you say there is a gap on meeting the challenges of globalization and what is possible. You speak of the global gap, one of the principle reasons for the disarray. What does this precisely mean . You are right. I put my finger on what i think is one of the main problems. You have challenges from terrorism, to climate, to maintaining an open world trading. The positive aspects need to bear fruit but they need to not overwhelm us. The willingness of governments to sign up and follow through on what is needed is not there. There is a large gap between the scale of the challenge and the nature of the response. I call that a global gap. One of the consequences of it, as this phrase that is so often used in our business, International Community, there is much less of than meets the eye. If there were much International Community we would not have this gap. One of the reasons i wrote this book was to put forward ideas and suggestions about narrowing the gap of the challenges to it and it existing. I think in that gap lies many of the defining challenges and problems of this era of history again whether it is proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and materials or largescale terrorism or Climate Change or infect Infectious Disease that can wipe out tens and millions of people. We have