[MUSIC] So now we are beginning with session four, segment four. And as I said in the introduction, we're now moving to another question. We're moving away from the core question of, what does it take to lead in the UN? And we are now asking the question, in a rapidly changing world, is the UN fit for leadership? Is it in a position where it can lead on major issues and challenges? The answer that many academics and many policymakers would give to that would be that, no, the UN is not fit to lead. The UN has a long way to go and major transformations are required. One could site many authors. Let me refer, for example, to Philip Bobbitt, who wrote a very incisive, thoughtful book on this called Consent and Terror. And as a student of the evolution of the interstate system, Philip Bobbitt describes what he considers to be a transformation from a world of what he calls nation states, which we're all quite familiar with, to a world of market states. He argues that the principle characteristics that define the concept of a nation state, which is absolute sovereignty and equality of nations and international law, he argues that those two qualities are exactly what's making it so difficult for the UN today to provide real leadership. Now, there's no question, it would seem to me, that the world is indeed changing very dramatically in a very rapid pace. You could look at a number of indicators. The emergence of major new powers. The very changed relationship between the market and states' developments in technology. All of these characteristics, all of these developments suggests that major changes have taken place and that the UN will need to adapt. What is not clear is, what is the impact of these changes? What is the impact of the changed world we lived in today for the future of multilateralism? Does multilateralism have a future? Can it provide the kind of service that it has in the past? So there are four scenarios that I would like for you to think about of how the United Nations might adjust to the changing realities that we face. The first scenario would be for the accommodation by major status quo powers to the demands of the newly emerging powers. It would be a very reasonable evolution, one could imagine. But if you look at it, it's not gone particularly well. There are former security councils, voting rights in the IMF. You look across the board, and the status quo powers are having a hard time with the process of adjustment. And that shouldn't surprise us. Because historically, it's often been that way. The second scenario would be just an outright rejection of the current rules by which the international order goes by. And you would have the emergence of competing centers of power that would undermine the existing multilateral framework. You could see the emergence of bodies like the G20 or the BRICS or various other configurations as representing a rejection of the current system. It's very far from the clear that that's actually the case. The G20, BRICS and others actually go quite far to try and reaffirm their allegiance to the broad principles of multilateralism as we know them today. A third scenario, which is a very unexpected scenario and we've seen it arise in the last year, is a rejection by the existing status quo powers. Because they feel that the system that they nurtured has kind of turned against them. And this is the populist movement in the United States. Various populists movements in Europe and elsewhere. This surely was not expected. And what goes with that rejection is an attack, actually, on some of the principles of multilateralism. It equates international bodies and organizations and civil servants with elites. And it relates to this international order as a phenomenon that kind of gives rise to exclusive elitism. And that has led, I believe, to a fourth scenario. That is the scenario in a way that we face, and that makes it so interesting to be engaged in this work at this time. And that is the need to reinvent our understanding of what we mean by multilateralism. To re-engage with the principles of multilateralism. To accept that we need a new form of inclusive multilateralism, that recognizes the fact that, in the globalizing world, there are losers and there are winners. There are not only winners. And if you don't concern yourself with the losers, you're going to have a very deeply flawed system. And that seems to be the problem that we have at this time. So I believe that what's really important is to think about how it is that the United Nations can get out front, in terms of giving a very high profile to the defense of multilateralism and multilateral principles. And that is the subject that I would like to conclude our course with when we next meet and have our segment five. Thank you. [MUSIC]
