I'm going to give it a minute. They're still filling in. Well, good morning. I think we'll get started. We'll let the stragglers come in and pick up our conversation. I think it's fair to say, even though it's a little bit early this morning, that today's panel is perhaps one of the most interesting ones we'll have during this conference. And as the moderator of this panel, I promise you I will do my best to make it interesting. As you know, the title of this is A Year Into Donald Trump as President of the United States. And my first observation as a Washingtonian is one frequently hears in Washington that it seems like Donald Trump has been president not for one year but for 10 years. As for the quality of his foreign and economic policy, I'll just simply rely on what his Secretary of Defense, General Jim Mattis said earlier this year. And that is he said that you can always rely on the United States to do the right thing after it has exhausted every other alternative. And he told his audience, which was an audience in Southeast Asia, by the way, that he hoped that people would bear with us. And as I think of that as a model for American policy bear with us, I think it is maybe an accurate or realistic depiction of how to think about one year or so of Donald Trump's foreign policy. Donald Trump came to the presidency with some very hard and fast views, at least in one or two areas. One, certainly immigration, taking a strong position against enhanced or increased immigration into the United States. And interestingly linked to immigration, the other hard and fast position was trade. The strongly held view that no country should enjoy a trade surplus with the United States. There's probably been no country more affected by this emphasis on controlling immigration and taking a hard line position on trade than the country of Mexico, America's southern neighbor. And there's probably nobody better positioned today, this morning, with us to address these questions than my old friend Juan Gallardo. Juan is a prominent business figure in Mexico City. He's built a large business, a large agribusiness in Mexico. He serves on, though, several international boards. And for the purposes, really, of our conversation this morning, you need to understand that he can literally be described as one of the fathers of the North American Free Trade Act. So I'd like to begin with you, Juan, to describe how you see the future of the North American Free Trade Act and what, though, American policy towards NAFTA tells us more broadly about Trump's foreign and trade policies. Thank you, Rick. Let me start by saying it's a great pleasure to be with you, Rick, and with such a distinguished panel. I think Thierry's timing on the subject of what that you just brought up couldn't be better because we're, frankly, in the midst of the throes of this process of renegotiation. And I would like to break my comments into just simply three or four issues. Number one, NAFTA, where it is, where it stands, what it's doing. Number two, the wall and where it is and what's occurring in its implications. Number three, what is occurring in between and then finally what to do. So those are the guidelines. Starting, obviously, the two initiatives, both the renegotiation of NAFTA and the way it was cast and the construction of the wall have created two very distinct feelings, which I think are important to say within Mexico. The first one is one of uncertainty. Yesterday we were already discussing the questions of uncertainty and maybe protectionism and other in several of the different panels, but here very clearly, not knowing what is going to happen and when and so on creates this level of uncertainty, which is from a business standpoint, apart from others, obviously a big handicap because you don't know whether you should, shouldn't invest, how you should be going and so on, that has a cost, number one. And the second one is the way it was cast, both the trade and the wall, created a certain level of resentment and I think it's important to say it. When you're labeled as the culprit of all the immigration problems and all of the drug problems and on top of that you have samples of the wall being shown and so on, it's not exactly the most conducive conversation to a good working relationship. So in that framework, let me tell you where we are on each one of these subjects. Number one, in the case of NAFTA, I don't think I need to make an explanation of just how unbelievably successful it has been for all three countries. I mean, every single serious study shows it and demonstrated and to say that all trade of the US with the world, 40% of it is between Canada and Mexico. So it's been an enormous success. I won't go into more detail, but it goes beyond trade. It goes into rules of operation and I think that that part of the trade agreement is less visible but just as important. It sets a stage that brings comfort and support and credibility to a process and I think that element of NAFTA is very important. Where are we right now? Well, I think we're facing a great opportunity and at the same time a great threat. Great opportunity, why? Because simply any document you reread after 25 years of operation has got to have many areas of improvement given the enormous progress that has occurred throughout the world and within the area. So there are things that are very interesting like enhancing the dispute settlement system, like bringing together all the new technologies in the e-commerce, like locking in transformations like energy which occurred in Mexico which is a total no-no in the first go-around and which today can be locked in. And many other things that can be truly enhanced and made that much more efficient, that much more enforceable and therefore that much more credible. So there's literally today 700 very talented people working practically around the clock to achieve exactly what I just said. The three teams, Rick, the three teams from Canada, US and Mexico are people who have known each other for well over 30 years, know their subjects and know exactly what needs to be done. That's the good side of the opportunity. The difficult side of the opportunity and very challenging are a series of initiatives that have been put forth in the last round of negotiation which really basically go directly against the sense of competitiveness of all three countries, not just in Mexico but of the US and of Canada. For example, like trying to administer a deficit. I mean, clearly that's not doable nor should it be the measure of success such as doing away with a dispute settlement that brings credibility, strength, enforceability and so on, such as trying to link the agricultural industries of all three countries which by the way have been enormously successful, enormously successful to cycles that are not necessarily the ones attached to weather but when one is producing and when one isn't. And so on, and then finally one that is a sunset clause which I think is now being tabled hopefully which is we have to redo this process every five years. Well that automatically condemns any kind of permanence and credibility for a process. So that's the bad side, the teams are working. On the wall, the casting is what is so wrong. It's clear that both Mexico and the US have a distinct interest in having an efficient border. The US, the drug side, the immigration side which is so sensitive, though it must be important to mention that there's more coming back than going over now for the last three or four years and it's more Central American than it is Mexican. But be that as it may, it's totally valid to say I wanna control my borders and my immigration policy. I don't think there's any dispute on that. And the whole drug thing I won't go down that lane because it's a co-responsibility and it's so much more complicated than just a sentence. But on the Mexican side, we're just as interested. There are thousands, thousands of armories selling weapons, state of the art weapons to the Mexican drug dealers right across the border. And those armories are being paid with almost $50 billion of drug money flowing into the leaders of the cartels in Mexico. The combination of weapons and money obviously make the battle so much more difficult because everything is so much more affordable for them than it is in fact even for our own police to the extent that we've lost over 100,000 policemen in the last three or four years doing the battle. So I think that we're just as interested in that not flowing towards us and as they are in the other and there's so many new ways to be able to control and monitor and drones and so on electronics and what have you. They could be so much more efficient if we both really set our minds to it. So both things are doable, both things are threats. What is happening right now? What is happening right now is very interesting. First of all, both countries, Canada and Mexico, but speak for Mexico, we're developing very carefully our plan B. Should the United States decide to leave NAFTA? Where do we stand and what do we do? And we're doing that in a very, very specific grounded fashion. We're doing it by enhancing our trade agreements. By the end of this year, we'll have a state of the art trade agreement with Europe. We're enhancing, we're rekindling the Trans-Pacific Partnership without the US which is very interesting. It sounded like dead in the water, it's not. And we've improved what is called the Pacific Alliance. Beyond that, we're finding sources, sourcing for certain key products around the world which are more than happy to come into our market and that hadn't been there. So we have a plan B. Not, it's not the plan we wish for, but it's one we need to plan for. And so that's what we're doing on that side. I think also on the US side, and I'm sure you've seen this, the reaction from our colleagues in the private sector and in the different associations in the last week from these different, has been very strong. Their role in the law being very strong so we'll see what happens there. And then finally, we've also been very clear in drawing the line on anything that affects our non-competitive. Both Canada and Mexico have done that. And I think there's very much of a great possibility that that will hold and that we will overcome the situation as we're seeing it right now. Canada in turn has just finished, as I'm sure you know, a truly state-of-the-art agreement with the European Union. I mean, it is by far the most modern trade agreement to date and it includes all the different things that I just mentioned that we would like to have and ours and should have and ours. So there's the precedent, there's the capability. And then you have, I'm sorry? I still have a minute, I think, is that right? I think that's a countdown. Oh, I'm sorry. I get carried away with my subject so I'm sorry about that. It's just important to see that how the private sector is reacting. If you see the anti-dumping that was levied on Bombardier and the immediate reaction of Bombardier making a joint venture with Airbus means it's all about optionality. If you can't do it one way, you're going to do it another. And I think that that is very eloquent and that speaks a world for what can be done. What do we have to do towards the future, very simply? Continue to strive for making the best deal possible and we will continue in good faith to do so. Hold our line where we've talked about it. Define very carefully our plan B so that we're as efficient as we possibly can. I personally think that we will achieve what I'm saying we're saying. In other words, a state-of-the-art agreement. And finally, last but not least, let's see how it goes. So, inshallah. Thank you, Juan. Juan, you did a masterful job giving us a tour d'Arizona of the North American free trade environment. You took exactly seven minutes too long in doing that and I'm going to ask my other speakers to be a little more disciplined so that the audience gets a real opportunity to participate here. Now, I'm going to move to our next speaker. Donald Trump, of course, is traveling to East Asia in his longest foreign visit of his presidency so far and Japan will be a key stop on that visit and there he, of course, will be spending time with the newly elected Shinzo Abe and I think it's fair to say Trump faces a certain tension in his discussions in Tokyo. He asks on the one hand to deal with the whole issue of trade, U.S.-Japanese trade, and his focus on trying to balance that with the new emphasis on developing a new security partnership with a Japanese prime minister that seems open and ready to expand Japan's security role in the Asian zone. So to help us understand this trade-off and the tensions in these discussions is Yukio Okamoto, who now runs his own consulting firm after serving as a special advisor to two Japanese prime ministers. Mr. Okamoto. Thank you, Mr. Burt, and thank you for reminding me that it's a countdown watch. I'll abide by your instructions. Thank you. I have many comments to make about Mr. Donald Trump but after all, he is the duly elected president by the American people, so we respect their collective decision. And as far as Mr. Trump's relationship with Japan is concerned I would say he's a good president. The good president in my definition, in our definition is someone who prioritizes on security affairs rather than economic affairs. Who doesn't make abrasive economic demands? And so far, thanks to the help of three generals, especially Mr. Mattis, Mr. Trump, he's perceived as a good president for Japan. On the other hand, if I can be blunt, we are a little bit disappointed with the inaction of President Obama in Asian theater, which we believe has emboldened China's ambition to go outward, especially its expansionary maritime strategy towards Southeast China Sea, East China Sea, and to the Pacific. We have been always protected and supported by the defense people in Washington more than any other group else. And so we still feel that we are in the good hands of the wisdom of those defense clans. As far as the economic aspect is concerned, yes, Mr. Trump did walk out of TPP, but Japan, as you know, has started to coalesce around the remaining 11 members to form TPP-11, which, if everything goes smoothly, we will come to a near conclusion by the end of this year, at which point we hope the United States will reconsider its position. For one thing, for instance, American farmers will be at a very disadvantageous position if the United States does not come in. According to TPP, our final tariff, for instance, on beef, will be 9%, which the Australians will enjoy, of course, whereas if the United States doesn't come in, they will be taxed at 38% the current rate. So if they don't come in quickly, Japanese market will be swept by Australian beef. Mr. Trump's or the United States' most serious concern is North Korea. It is the same thing for Japan. It is our highest national security agenda. The problem is that this young, reckless, erratic dictator almost coming to the point of acquiring ICBMs capable of reaching the continental United States with nuclear warheads. The pace of the preparation is very, very impressive. This year alone, Young Kim Jong-un has shot 15 missiles, including the failed ones, and since he came to power, he shot 94 missiles as compared to what his father and grandfather did during the 25 years term, 61 missiles shot. And the pace with which Mr. Kim Jong-un is experimenting has been speeding up. I think the international sanctions has at last come to take effect slowly but steadily. And Mr. Kim Jong-un, before he is completely choked economically, has to have the weapons in his hand. That's my personal thinking. Of course, he aims to have these weapons in order to have the subsequent negotiations as a nuclear state with the United States at an advantageous conditions. But my conjecture is that he has further ambitions of unifying the peninsula, the abortive dream of his respectful grandfather, so that he will be able to say, hey, United States, don't you intervene this time. You know what will happen if you do this time. Mr. Abe and Mr. Trump are in very good terms. As a matter of fact, they are playing golf together tomorrow. And I think Mr. Abe's role is to stand by President Trump because this nuclear problem with North Korea will be a long, long game. After North Korea has acquired a de facto nuclear status, we will have to beef up our retaliatory capability at a massive scale as a means of deterring their temptation to use those weapons and also to build a credible missile defense system. And I think we will have to spend long time before they are coming to a normal state. Thank you. Thank you. Now, another important stop-off for President Trump in East Asia this week, of course, will be South Korea. And we're very lucky this morning, really, to have a key South Korean business figure with us this morning, Mr. Rin-Jin Roy, who is the chairman and CEO of the Pung-San Group. In fact, he told me just a few minutes ago before we started that he is speaking today. He was meant to speak tomorrow, but he has to get back to South Korea to attend a dinner with Donald Trump when he is in Seoul. Again, in South Korea, I think President Trump faces this tension or dilemma between efforts to strengthen the economic and investment climate between the United States and South Korea and protecting the chorus, the trade agreement that was negotiated with South Korea in recent years and the security dilemmas posed by the North Korean nuclear threat. So, Mr. Roy, we'll be looking forward to your thoughts on how we and how President Trump might resolve this dilemma. Well, thank you very much, Ambassador. I believe I'm the only one person from this session who spoke last year in the similar session regarding America and President Trump, who had just won the election. I hope I was invited back because I did such a great job in predicting what was going to happen with the new Trump presidency. Ambassador, you just broke the – you told the truth, so no, actually, yes, you're right, I have to go back today. And it's very ironic that I will be speaking about President Trump, whom I have never met yet but whom I will meet in the next few days. After my presentations here today. As I was going through my notes from what I said last year, I was correct in most of my predictions except for one, which I will explain to you later. First, I predicted that you will see an immediate shift from President Obama's liberal policies to a very conservative policies of President Trump. President Trump, in one of his first appointments, appointed a very conservative Supreme Court justice as I predicted, and he will continue to appoint conservative justices as some of the older ones will be retiring soon. I also said that his winning slogan, Make America Great Again, will be good news for those who do business inside the U.S., but a big challenge for those who exports to the U.S. from abroad. He has really turned the world upside down in that respect. For example, I have a big factory in the United States where we just celebrated our 25th anniversary. My late father, the founder of my company, built the factory and passed away a few years later after it was in full operations. Unfortunately, the factory didn't do very well over the years, so every time I visited my father's grave, I reported to him that your company is doing very well, but you made one big mistake in building the factory in America.    And there's more good news. President Trump is going to lower the corporate tax from 35 percent to 20 percent. Terry, this is even good news for you because just from the tax cuts, my company will be able to continue to support your conference for the years to come. So you are the beneficiary of the Trump tax cuts. I also said that President Trump will demand changes in the existing trade agreements, which is already happening now with NAFTA and trade agreement between Korea and the U.S. I predicted that President Trump will ask allied countries like Korea, Japan and NATO to pay more for the cost of the U.S. presence in their countries and in the region. You remember when he visited the NATO, President Trump said, I like your new building, but I won't ask you how much it costs. As soon as he said that, I think all the countries are spending about 2 percent on defense. So God is the man there. Finally, I said that the biggest change will be in the area of immigration, especially for those coming from Muslim countries in Mexico. The good days of the entire family immigrating to America for better lives and opportunities are almost over, unless you're qualified with some skill sets and be able to speak English. I made sure earlier that I was wrong in one prediction, which was I thought once President Trump took office, he will speak with more caution and in a more conciliatory tone with some demeanor. I was completely wrong in every aspect. And in fact, President Trump has gotten worse. He brags, he lies, he tweets and can't seem to control himself. But despite all that, a lot of Americans still like him and support him. The polls show that his popularity is the lowest for a president in his first year. But don't believe those polls. How wrong was the poll when they predicted that Hillary Clinton was going to win by a landslide? Likewise, there's a lot of Americans who criticize President Trump because it's embarrassing to support him or to say otherwise. But deep down their hearts, a lot of Americans quietly like and support him. So since I was correct in most of my predictions from last year except one, let me give you some predictions for next year. President Trump's slogan, make America great again, really means make America strong and rich again. I think his tax cuts will be popular in both the corporate world and for those who are in the lower income bracket. The bracket will be lower from 7 to 4. The U.S. economy is thriving these days as stock markets are breaking record every few weeks. The unemployment rate is very low, getting lower. And around 250,000 new jobs was just recently created for the month of September. So economically, America is going to do very well next year at the expense of other countries. There will be a readjustment in the trade agreements like NAFTA and the U.S.-Korea trade agreements that will benefit the U.S. with changes in the tax law, with some of the changes in the negotiations. With changes in the tax laws and tax cuts, many American companies will bring their assets and cash back to the United States. From overseas, there will be a lot of foreign companies that will be building factories and buying assets in the U.S. I mentioned earlier about the late successes of my factory in the U.S. and we are at the moment already preparing to build another facility in the U.S. So the economic outlook is very good for the U.S. next year. The challenge for President Trump next year will be the midterm elections. But with such good economic outlook, I think the Republican Party will be able to hold on to the majority or even increase the majority in both the Senate and the House. The biggest challenge for President Trump will be the outcome of the special prosecutor's inquiries on his Russian connections before the elections. But I don't think it is going to lead to his impeachment. There are so many layers to get to the top and I don't think it will reach to him. On the diplomatic side, you may not like to hear this, but I think Mr. Trump is the right person in dealing with North Korea as well as the terrorist organizations. America was very weak and passive in dealing with North Korea and the situation in Syria during the Obama years. I think President Trump will resolve the North Korea issue one way or another, hopefully in a peaceful way. But that will depend on Kim Jong-un. I think the terrorist organizations will continue to be weakened almost to a point of extinction as he will spend all the heavy military resources and intelligences to go after them. So overall, despite the fact that he is uncontrollable, vulgar, and insulting, President Trump is going to survive. I just wish that he could be more honest, modest, and a compassionate person, but I don't think that would happen any time soon. I ended up in my presentation last year by singing a line from Nobel Prize winner Bob Dylan's song called The Times They Are Changing and Boy Have The Times Changed. I won't end the song by singing this year, but I think there's a perfect song that somehow depicts both President Trump's personal and political life. It's called The Winner Takes It All by Abba. And yes, President Trump knows he's the winner, and he wants to take it all. Thank you. Well, I have to say, Mr. Roy, if Donald Trump needs a first-class roving ambassador, you're the man. We're going to move now from East Asia to Eurasia, or what might be called Eurasia. Needless to say, Russia has loomed large in the new Trump presidency, but in a way I don't think ever Donald Trump anticipated. Rather than a kind of breakthrough in a relationship that we saw, say, between Nixon and Brezhnev in the late 1960s and early 70s, or Reagan and Gorbachev later in the 1980s, what Trump confronts is not a new era of cooperation with Vladimir Putin. Instead, he confronts in Washington a scandal which is almost reaching watergate-type proportions. The question I have for our Russian participant this morning is, has Vladimir Putin written Donald Trump off, or does he still believe that it is possible for the two leaders, Moscow and in Washington, to somehow salvage some form of cooperation, whether in, say, the Middle East in Syria or in Ukraine in Europe? To help us address this really critical question, we have Alexander Panoff, who serves on the advisory board of the Security Council of the Russian Federation and heads the Department of Diplomacy at an important Russian think tank, Magimol. Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, first of all, I would like to say that many in Russia we see with humor and amusement what is going on in Washington these days. So many serious people in Washington are engaged in a very interesting and important activity, trying to find a black Russian cat in a completely dark room where there is no cat at all. And we wish them all the success, and it seems that it's an endless story. But more important, of course, to us to understand who is Mr. Trump. On my view, he is the leader of a yellow revolution, a blunder revolution in the United States. At last the United States also has its own color revolution. And why I think so? It's because he represents maybe not all, but middle class in the middle of living in the middle of America and who tired of American Washington establishment. That's why establishment, American establishment is against him so severely. But really what happened, why he was elected? Because many people in the United States, they are tired to see two families in charge of America, Clinton's and Bush's. And two days ago there was information that one year before elections, Clinton and the leaders of the Democratic Party already decided that she will be the candidate and all these primaries are useless. So Sanders from the very beginning didn't have any chances. Maybe it's real American democracy, I don't know. So Trump, on my view, he has foresight and the skill of prediction. He see weak points in American external position and internal development. He wants to revive American production capabilities to make America strong economically once again and to think more about American interests but not about interests of allies at American expense. So he thinks that multilateral agreements does not represent interests of America. So he started to move out of international organization, look at agreements, look UNESCO, Paris Agreement, TPP. Now there are rumors that America is thinking to leave WTO and he is trying to change it with bilateral agreements much more in favor of the United States. And what is interesting that American establishment after the collapse of USSR was ceased with happiness and euphoria because no strong rival anymore and their goal was to prevent revival of strong Russia. And political elite in the United States missed the appearance of China as a more serious challenge to the United States than Russia. China can lead the reorganization. We called it during Gorbachev's era Perestroika, the world economic order in its favor, pushing United States aside. Xi Jinping already said in Davos this year that not globalization is the source of the problems and the absence of adequate to these positive processes system of global governance. And they started timing Chinese to change situation in their views, according to their views. And the slogan of United States, the freedom and democracy is challenged by Chinese slogan, justice and equality. So you may say that it is a new addition of ideological competition between capitalism, American style and socialism, China type. Trump as a businessman was and he showed during his campaign he was afraid of Chinese economic might. And for him the Russia was not and is not a threat to United States. Nuclear war is impossible. Economically Russia is not so strong to challenge America. China knew about this that China supported Clinton actually. It's not about that I am warning about China. It's objective process. Trump intended to be tough with China, but now he forced by American bureaucracy to change this policy and to be tough with Russia. But the more he tough with Russia, more Russia is moving closer to China. Russia is not interested to have conflicts with United States. No reason what for. And does not understand why United States so anti-Russian even before elections was so. And I think that because of internal problems Trump is now and for coming period of course he might be successful on economic front but in general he is already lame duck.  He is jumping but in how directions and well because and now it's difficult to catch him but he is unpredictable in his movements. But he has no full power I should say and he is unable to produce not only global but also regional strategy. It's the best example is not scary. It's shouting diplomacy is not what we expect from great leader of great country or what about Middle East yesterday we discussed it also. Also there is no leadership of the United States in this region. So I think that we all need strong America. We need just America. We need not selfish America but we need America which can produce good ideas how to organize world order after Cold War but we don't see such leadership and very sorry to say that there is no communication between Putin and Trump. They met only once on sidelines of some conference that's all and dialogue political dialogue on all levels are almost frozen. So if such which hunting in the United States will continue I can't see the possibilities to improve bilateral relations. I only hope that in the United States this history about Russia will not finish in the way what happened in 50s during Cold War when Defense Minister crying Russians are coming jumped from the window and killed himself. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Panoff I was interested in your invention of the lame rabbit line. I'll have to remember that and I have to also tell you that unlike Mr. Roy you will not get a job offer as a roving Trump ambassador. Now finally we're going to move to Europe where I think it's fair to say there's a different view on the Trump presidency and we're going to explore the Trump phenomenon with representatives of two countries that are moving in very different directions as far as Europe itself is concerned. First I want to recognize Hubert Bedrin who when I was working in government was known in Washington as a very smart and very creative problem solver who then went on to serve as a distinguished French foreign minister. Of course we've been watching in Europe and in France itself over the last few years the emergence of the what might be called the populist threat. That threat at least as far as France is concerned with the election of President Macron has apparently been contained. So my question to Minister Bedrin is how does a Europe that is changing, evolving deal with a populist America under Donald Trump? Thank you. First of all, regarding the election of Emmanuel Macron they forgot that the French language was also a language of work here. Isn't it, Thierry? Yes, sir. This side of the room for some reason wasn't given any headphones. But oh merci. Yes, a creative problem solver, Thierry. Thank you. Did you need one as well, I think? Our Japanese colleague needs one as well. You don't have one? No? I'm sorry, Mr. Minister. It's okay. Yeah. So first remark. In the two years before the presidential election in France all the polls showed that Mrs. Le Pen, the National Front would be in the second round and all the polls showed that she would be beaten, whatever the candidate is facing. So the French presidential candidate played the first round, to see who would be there. And fortunately for France, it was Emmanuel Macron and we didn't have a choice between Mrs. Le Pen and Mr. Mélenchon. And after the personality of Emmanuel Macron created a positive shock, but it's not the main subject today. I would say that the Trump election has not always been understood by the Democrats in the United States, by the left forces and the progressive forces in general. And many of them had adopted the line according to which we couldn't convince the middle class who are reticent about globalization and about European integration and that we had to play the cards of minorities. And the Democrats, in particular, played the cards of the female electorate plus all ethnic, sexual minorities, etc. This strategy was already played and created a very deep intellectual disturbance in which all of these currents are not out. Second remark. The world in relation to Trump is divided between some leaders who are very happy. Trump started by Mr. Netanyahu, but it's not the only one. For example, the Iran-Pasdaras hope that Mr. Trump will break the deal since Obama's strategy is to fix them. So there are some few entities who are rejoicing. Then there are those who take advantage of it indirectly. It's not just a paradox, it's China taking advantage of it. It's obvious. They will take advantage of Trump's mistakes and try to capitalize them. Then there are those who doubt directly Trump's policy. Mexico, Canada, the taken by the Netherlands, of course, the Palestinians and others. Among those who rejoice, I must quote, of course, the Arabs too. Then there are those who are destabilized and who are worried. It's all the countries protected more or less by the United States since the after-war. It's the case of Japan, it's the case of Australia, it's the case of Europe. With an anguish concerning the article 5 of the time, in the case of Europe. But it didn't cause organized reactions at the time. But there is a sort of direct concern. And all the others, including Russia, actually wait for them. They don't know very well. They try to accommodate the phenomenon with tactics that can completely vary. Within Europe, there is a difference of attitude, but what tactics that are not strategic. Emmanuel Macron, who tries to form a sort of personal-paradoxal relationship with President Trump to kill the shock. Or the tactic of Madame Merkel which is different. It brings me to the scenario. There is the scenario of the implosion. The system is so U.B.S.C. absurd that in the end everything collapses. We can't bet on it. There is the scenario of the impeachment. It's unlikely because it would be necessary that the elected representatives release the President. They won't release him as long as the electorate will support him. And he has an electorate that is enchanted by his political provocation and which, for the moment, doesn't expect any particular results. So the impeachment, I can't say it's impossible, but it seems unlikely to me. Another scenario that seems very unlikely to me is that the President professionalizes himself. All we know about him seems unlikely. It's, by the way, not his objective. He would have been honest about one point in his campaign. He said, I would be unpredictable. It's a promise that is kept. The next scenario is the pursuit of the system as it is a little confused but which continues. Because there is no acute crisis. And I don't even notice the scenario of the re-election. Because if the democratic side doesn't overcome the deep question of majority minorities, it may be that he is not a candidate capable of countering. So it's still a scenario that no one is entirely encouraging to the whole of the others who were used to having the United States as a point of reference even when there were disagreements or controversies. It's still destabilizing. What to do? I'm not talking about adversarial countries. I'm talking about countries, friends, allies, partners, etc. What to do? In my opinion, it's Mrs. Merkel who is very strong. Richard Beurre has been ambassador in Germany. He knows all of this very well. Mrs. Merkel, after meeting President Trump in July, she said we can't really count on them anymore. We have to organize better by ourselves. It means the Europeans. But the Japanese can have the same kind of reasoning. There is a test in this moment, in a long time, it's the agreement on Iran. The whole world has reacted very well to the agreement on the climate. Mr. Trump can do whatever he wants. We continue.  First of all, the companies. Iran's agreement is more complicated. Are other co-signatures, Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia can apply the agreement as long as the Iranians respect it? And to apply it financially by protecting ourselves from the European Union. It's a key point for the rest of the world. That's it. I'm done on one point. I'm as synthetic as possible. Last point. I don't think that Trump is simply a parenthesis. And I don't think that after, we will find a rational, normal president and we will restore relations between the United States and the rest of the world and something that had started on Obama, which is a relative distance from the United States compared to their traditional role and the rest of the world. It's very complicated to compare because Obama was intelligent, seductive, sophisticated, etc. And Trump is brutal and vulgar but there are elements of continuity towards a kind of relative leadership compared to that. Since the first half of the century we have worked closely with the United States and we must think about the rest and not in terms of nostalgia, not in terms of return to a normal situation in the next election or in two elections. I found that presentation particularly interesting in two respects. I agree very much with the minister and his discussion of the Iranian element and I just have to say as a kind of comment on that the way President Trump has decided to deal with the Iranian nuclear agreement by essentially handing it off to the U.S. Congress and not destroying an agreement which he says is the worst agreement ever negotiated tells me maybe it's NAFTA maybe it's Iran it depends on the day but it tells me that Donald Trump his bark is worse than his bite. And number two what he said in his last remarks what the minister said in his last remarks about the future of maybe American politics is very important I think. I would not be surprised if the last real professional politician we've seen in current American history may in fact have been Barack Obama and that both parties in the presidential election will either get a charismatic businessman or businesswoman to run against a Hollywood actor and if you want to watch who's beginning to emerge in American politics keep your eye on those two categories of personalities we may have seen the end of traditional politicians as we know it in terms of American life. Our last spokesman is somebody from the United States well was the former head of Britain's legendary intelligence service MI6 someone who had also a brilliant career in British diplomacy and it is worth noting that if you want to understand I think the Trump phenomenon you also need to understand the Brexit phenomenon because they may in fact be one in the same thing so that leads me to ask John Sawyers my question of how did it come to this what is wrong with the Anglo sphere how did both the Americans and the British end up where we are today I should add that he is chairman now of macro advisory partners a consultancy in London John you have the floor Thank you very much and I think I can confidently say that at the end of my remarks I will with Ambassador Panof not being a candidate to be a roving ambassador for President Trump because I think President Trump has got off rather likely in this panel because is deep unsuitability to be US president is lack of the qualities of essential leadership of being able to empathize with those who are suffering like victims of Hurricanes and Las Vegas shootings totally inability to identify with people's feelings and his complete lack of experience and decision making capability on affairs of state exposed so I think we need to bear in mind we have at this dangerous time a candidate a president of the United States who is quixotic unreliable and fundamentally to the job of being president of the free world and that's a real danger you ask what's wrong with the Anglo sphere I think America and Britain were the two countries that most embraced globalization and the competition and the boosts that globalization gave our economies with positive macro effects but we were slow to realize that the beneficiaries of that were relatively few and those who did not benefit were very large so that fed into our political systems and the second factor I think is that America and Britain have prided themselves on a two party political system based on the first past the post electoral process that we have you have first past the post you have two parties you have a French system of dual election you end up with four basic parties but when you have two parties and there are new populist forces emerging they will emerge through those parties and so the populist took over the US republican party almost took over the democratic party in the US have effectively taken over the British Labour Party and to David Cameron's eternal shame and damnation he adopted the populist populist policies in the British Conservative party and granted the referendum on the European Union so that's why I think the Anglo sphere has gone astray and the basic defensive mechanisms have not come into play so anyway we are where we are Brexit is going to be a painful negotiation which will probably end up with an agreement but it won't be very satisfactory Juan was talking about the EU Canada agreement as being very advanced well it's not as advanced as membership of the single market because it doesn't cover trade and services but I think the UK will end up with something rather similar to the Canada agreement with the European Union and there will be a period where our growth instead of being greater than that of our G7 counterparts will be lower than that of our G7 counterparts it's possible it might come to a grinding halt if the present British government collapses which is entirely possible but it will take a change of government I think in order to change the course of this tragedy meanwhile on the wider leader stage we have as I say an unreliable and quixotic US president at a time when we have the strongest leader of China in modern history and I think the Chinese see the Trump administration as a huge opportunity for them to accelerate the displacement of US power in the world I think we will see the reaction of America's allies around the world as Uber has said of being one of having to look more to our own resources and to our own capacities to defend ourselves because that American security blanket is now conditional it used to be unconditional America's willingness to engage and resolve problems in the world as we heard from the cuttery foreign minister yesterday has just gone away and so countries and regions are going to have to solve their own problems without America's help and this is a great opportunity for China to step in where China is now in many ways replacing America as the supporter and upholder of public goods like action against climate change like free trade and United States has become a bit of a liability on some of these issues which I'm deeply I feel bad about and I also feel bad that the United Kingdom quite often would step into America's place on these issues is no longer able to do so because of our own political situation I'm very glad that we have what are usually called grownups around President Trump to contain the damage that the president might do in the world but I'm never very happy seconding diplomatic and political policy to generals. I have great admiration for generals on the battlefield but less respect for them in terms of developing a diplomatic and political strategy because I think what we will find is that the generals around President Trump will see military solutions to problems which might otherwise be dealt with through political and diplomatic means I think the chances of a conflict over North Korea are now considerably greater than before and I know Mr. Roy you're a great supporter of many aspects of the Trump administration but I think the impact on South Korea could be quite devastating if the generals around President Trump end up going down the path and taking the president down the path of a military confrontation with North Korea so that is one thing that we have to beware of what we're seeing in the Middle East is an encouragement to local leaders Muhammad bin Salman in Saudi Arabia is a classic example, someone with a good vision for his country but one without any experience or without the checks and balances within his own system to take wise decisions about how to achieve that vision and we've seen in Yemen, we've seen in the conflict with Qatar we've seen with the some realistic goals that Muhammad bin Salman has said that the ability of the United States to shape and channel a very important ally will be greater it's not just in the political and security fields either I think we will see America being pushed back as the dominant power in the global economic system the first thing we're likely to see is attempts by China and Russia and other countries to be able to clear trade deals without going through the dollar system I think we will see an alternative clearing system for international transactions which don't involve the United States and which will depend upon yuan as the driving currency and I think that will be a fundamental weakening of America's control and authority over the global economic system and as we're seeing in Saudi Arabia with the discussion about the IPO of Aramco is looking a bit difficult for the Saudis to float this in London or New York so we could well see this being replaced with a state sale to a Chinese entity and the Chinese will see in return I believe a stream of energy supply oil supplies priced in yuan rather than priced in dollars in order to create an alternative pricing mechanism for global commodities starting with the most important of all namely oil so we will see challenges led by the Chinese but supported by others in the global system to push back American dominance in the world and they are likely to be successful and we will see action by America's allies to look to their own resources and their own capabilities with some unwelcome and dangerous results as America's leadership role in the world gradually is replaced by a nationalist America first agenda well thank you for that and I would just observe that if we do see the emergence increasingly of a non dollarized international economy that will also have the knock on effect of undermining one of America's favorite foreign policy instruments which is sanctions so we've got a little over 20 minutes left in our program this morning I want to open it up there are a lot of people with their hands up ready to be called on please introduce yourself and we'll start right now with this fellow over here who did have two hands up now he's only got one but there you are my name is Stan Kozon, I have a question for you Mr Okamoto on North Korea what what could China and Japan do using trade and economic levers to get the country to choke using your terms before it gets full nuclear capabilities before that I was very envious listening to Mr Jones saw us I wish I could be as casing as he can but then I have no agency to protect me so I had to be moderate but there is a small reservation which relates to your question that I have walked through many Americans through Gulf War when I was in the government and it's my impression that military people are more cautious than civilians in using the force because they know what the military forces can do so I mean it all depends upon individuals so still I have a great faith in what the current generals are advising Mr Trump because in all honesty if I have to take a guess there is a 15% chance of the real war breaking out in the Korean peninsula because what if Mr Trump hearing all the military options say that okay I know that there are going to be many sacrifices casualties on our part but well there's no other way let's do it and what can the surrounding adults can do they have to obey by the supreme commander or unless they will be charged with mutiny all they can do is simply to resign so there is it all depends upon what Mr Trump himself thinks so it is much better if we can choke North Korea through sanctions which only China can do North Korea has proved to survive all the pressure so far the fatal blow to them will be the ban of oil export from China to North Korea but how serious is China in really sanctioning North Korea has been my doubt all the way it is a brotherly country for China and for them to go nuclear does it pose a real threat rather than to see another risk of China cooperating with the United States and pushing Kim Jong-un to the corner almost to the verge of fall inviting South Korean Red Unification to take place with US forces on the peninsula so China has been half hearted in my judgment so far but now because of Mr Trump's fierce rhetoric China may have begun to suspect that they may be a real chance of a military crash between North Korea and the United States which will entail China to a very critical situation so they are now doing that so we have I don't know maybe a year or year and a half before Kim Jong-un this crazy man have nuclear arsenal to himself but it all depends upon China how they can pressurize him and to a certain extent Russia too thank you a year or a year and a half right over here my name is Im Jong-joon former Korean ambassador to Canada and Egypt from the Korean perspective Trump presidency almost 10 months into the four year term showed some positive signs as well as negative signs in my view positive sign is that Trump has put his heavy hands on the North Korean nuclear crisis I think on this issue we may come back in the later sessions on Asian security negative signs for Koreans were that Trump didn't like the 5 year old Korea USFTA well that was unfortunately included in the moderator's term the worst ever deal and ordered his trade negotiators to make some change how? I don't know maybe revise maybe terminate or to make a new one Trump also withdraw from the TPP and almost terminated NAFTA Trump's America first the slogan did not stop there but the US walked away from more important international agreements like the Paris climate change accord nuclear agreements on Iran, UNESCO membership and etc these actions by President Trump many experts say may lead to further weakening of the US global leadership and furthermore disintegrating of the international liberal order backbone of the post-war world war global governance system then what will happen in Asia we have already experienced the strong rise of China my question maybe put to my old friend Alexander Panoff ambassador we worked together long time should we expect that the US liberal international order will eventually be replaced with a new Chinese international order in Asia if not in the world in what form thank you so I'm going to let Mr. Panoff take a minute to answer it but let's try to keep it short there are a number of questions very short I don't know you don't know I've had to come to Marrakesh to find an honest man yes, Elias Oda Aberdeen the capital trust my question is to you Mr. Ambassador when Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980 I heard his first speech he talked about the even empire he seemed very hawkish by the end of his term he evolved and became a moderate and achieved a detente with the Russians Donald Trump could follow that path you know I would hope and love if he did but I have to tell you I think there's a fundamental difference between Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump and the way I would describe that difference is you know many people don't know that Henry Kissinger had an older brother who also grew up in the United States born in Germany and when Henry Kissinger's older brother was interviewed he spoke with a perfect American accent and someone once asked him why do you have an American accent and Henry Kissinger still has a German accent he said because I was the one that listened and the difference the difference between I'm afraid Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan is that Ronald Reagan listened another question yes right here yeah, you're next of minority in the Polish Senate let me return for a while to your Atlantic zone and refer to what Mr. Soros said about this withdrawal of the United States from the position of the global leader I would share your opinion totally you know one year ago when we were just after the presidential campaign in which Donald Trump undermined it in fact many of fundamental pillars of American or Euro-Atlantic policy of America with the allies but after he softened his position concerning for example the Article 5 of the Washington Treaty after he after he decided to strengthen his cooperation with Japan and to support South Korea in this danger of the attack from the northern part of Venezuela I would say you know that your opinion concerning his way of thinking about the global affairs is not correct and the position of generals surrounding President Trump Jim Mattis especially is one of those pillars that make uncourse for the current presidency presidential policy you know in traditional way of American behavior so do you think really that without the influence of McMaster, of Jim Mattis the US would be able to really repeat its commitment to the Article 5 of the Washington Treaty that it would be able to continue successfully the coalition of the leadership within the coalition of willing against ISIS and finally to return to Afghanistan after three years of pushing Afghanistan aside, thank you I've got this working, I've got a huge aberration for those who are serving the President of the United States but I actually think they're serving their country despite their President rather than their President and I think on many issues they are containing the damage that President Trump might otherwise do so I'm a huge admirer of these people and I think getting President Trump to recommit to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty that the core NATO defense guarantee was an important step which was led by them but he's clear I think in President Trump's body language and in his public language that he's not really personally committed to allies and to alliances which is why I share the concern Mr. Vadrin may wish to add to his own comments on this, I share his concern as to not to what Mrs. Merkel said Chancellor Merkel said earlier this year but the underlying reason was that Europeans do not feel that they can rely on the United States in the same way that they could before so and when I exercise some caution about the military advice around President Trump and Mr. Akimoto picked me up on this as well I do think generals to their credit like clear-cut answers, they like things to be solved but in the North Korea case I think the generals are coming to the conclusion that containment is not an acceptable policy which for most Europeans would seem to be the only acceptable policy and I think it is more likely now and I put the chances at greater than 15% I don't know how high it would be but I think the chances are rising of a conflict of that nature because of the some of the attitudes that we see in and around President Trump but Uber, I don't know if you wish to add Mr. Vadrin on the Korean but just a statement on the generals I saw a few days ago Madeleine Albright staying in a close relationship and she told me as an American Democrat I am extremely disturbed because for the first time in my life I hope that the generals are the strongest possible for me to have a Southern voice to the debate and maybe a feminist voice so I would advise also to the organizer to get more female into the debate we are talking about global governance and I believe that women might add value to the discussion of course the United States is an important country to everyone for different reasons from the South and I think also from a diversity point of view by the way talking about minorities I think that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote so I think maybe her math in terms of numbers were right but maybe her strategy was wrong but that's not the question today my question to all of you is don't you have the feeling that there is a deep misunderstanding between the leader of what you call the global governance and the simple people which lead to some weird way of voting maybe that was the expression in the United States the right extreme wing in many countries getting stronger and even from where I am in Africa young people being despair when they do think that cynicism is more at the driving seat of international affair because when we hear the global discourse with very disrespectful terms toward women they are half of the population that's what we heard from one of the leader of this world when racism is dealt in a very casual way when some religions are also in the same disrespect why don't we then think that there is a link between the lack of ethics and morality at the global level and what we are seeing now in terms of dysfunctions in the global world from Africa we do also have some deep issues with young people for instance and we do see how it translate into terrorism in some places and when you talk to young people they feel deeply disfranchised there is no specific discourse to address their fear their hope and that is something we have to look at where I would like to end is can we find a way to connect really connect the global with capital development etc. what we have discussed so far and the local and the local can be very specific in many places like access to basic health access to basic education access to participation for women and young people so that has to be factor within the discussion of the macro so we can link both and so far what we are seeing is a disconnect that translate into violent action in many places thank you I think that was a very important statement and I hope we can continue to pick up elements of what you have said in our conversations today and throughout the conference over here I would like to talk about the exorbitant privilege of the dollar your panel addresses the problem of the relationship between America and the world you did not talk about American hegemony in terms of financial and legal, that is American which works very well in Europe of the extraterritoriality of American law I would like to have your opinion and of course the opinion of Mr. Panov on knowing if this hegemony this force of American law and this privilege of the dollar will continue in the next 5 or 10 years or do you think there will be breaches on this hegemony of the dollar and of the American law in the world? the sanctions law that was originally focused on Iran but then somebody at the last minute decided that we have so many sanctions against Russia let's add a few more because we don't trust the Trump administration so more sanctions were imposed and they were built into that law were a number of secondary sanctions that is extraterritorial application of those sanctions so if anybody was doing business transactions through American banks or somehow any of those transactions were converted into dollars the United States could then influence whether or not those transactions went forward first thing that happened is Jean-Claude Junker made a very strong statement in Brussels saying if those sanctions are invoked we will respond secondly and I think more importantly to give the Trump administration some credit in August and September there's some consultations were undertaken by the administration and the EU and European governments and the guidance for those sanctions that were imposed have now been produced and the secondary sanctions element has essentially gone away so what I'm saying is that I think Washington is becoming sensitive to how our friends and trading partners are reacting and responding to what you might call kind of dollar imperialism and I think there's a certain sort of rationality in terms of our sanctions policy in trying to impose them in a way that our friends and allies are not are not given a secondary status or not given a voice in how those sanctions are implemented but John I thought I had addressed some of the issues that you raised about the drive by China and other countries including Russia and maybe India as well to separate themselves from the dollarization of the global economy and I think what we've seen is United States has had that leadership role in 1945 and has exercised it by and large responsibly there have been times for example in the 1990s when under Clinton when the US tried to exert extraterritorial sanctions on Europe and other countries relating to Iran and I can't remember where the other country was but there were several countries involved and there was some pushback against that but the US has maintained its position by being guardian of the international financial stability what we're now seeing is the United States at one level perhaps over using its position in the global system and secondly because of the rebalancing of the global economy I mean it's only in 1990 the G7 countries represented 70% of the global economy now they now represent about 43% of the global economy the China is now in purchasing power terms purchasing power terms is a bigger economy than the United States and so countries are looking to free themselves from the exposure and vulnerability that being dependent upon the United States brings because of exactly as you say Rick your exposure to sanctions and I think this will be a major weakening of the Western system and well actually whether there's irritation in France and other European countries about some of the ways America exercises this power by and large it'll be a net loss for the West when we find ourselves competing in a world where the dollar does not have the dominant situation it's had for the last 75 years thank you very much I'm now before getting the evil eye from Thierry I'm now going to bring this session to an end I want to do two things before I do I first of all want to congratulate you the audience you've asked some very very good and interesting questions but perhaps more importantly I want you to join me in thanking our excellent panel which has been very fascinating good job