The World Economic Forum is an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas. Incorporated as a not-for-profit foundation in 1971, and headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the Forum is tied to no political, partisan or national interests.
At Davos’s Open Forum on “Staying Grounded in an Age of Uncertainty,” panelists argued that instability is no longer a passing phase but a structural condition requiring institutional redesign, not “a strategy of nostalgia,” as Romania’s Foreign Minister Oana-Silvia Toiu put it. She described a shift toward faster, more public diplomacy and “coalitions of the willing” when legacy multilateral forums stall, while warning that societal anxieties and declining trust are being “weaponized” through hybrid interference.
Ukraine’s Oksana Havryliv emphasized grounding through “values,” personal networks, and pragmatic partnerships, arguing the private sector “not even able, but should must” play a central role in Ukraine’s $500B+ reconstruction because it is faster and controls supply chains. Roland Berger’s Stefan Schaible said Europe must accept “there is no going back” to old transatlantic assumptions and build defense, technology, and currency capacity—though businesses still have incentives to pursue climate and open markets.
NATO Defense College’s Florence Gaub urged realism: uncertainty is perennial, and cooperation is shifting rather than collapsing; the existential gap is peace and security, where diplomacy and “strategic empathy” need reinvestment. Human Rights Watch’s Philippe Bolopion warned the world is “more dangerous and more hostile to human rights,” with enforcement mechanisms like the ICC under acute pressure, demanding renewed democratic alliances to prevent a slide from rules to raw power.
My name is Mina. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome. My name is Mina. I'm the editor in chief of the National, based in Abu Dhabi, and it is a delight to be moderating this session at the Open Forum. The open Forum is one of my favorite parts of Davos, because it allows us to meet so many different people and have really expanded conversations here, staying grounded in an age of uncertainty. I think this can apply to every single person. At a time when we face so much uncertainty, geopolitical upheaval, questions about the impact of AI on our lives, tariffs, visas being questioned, but also uncertainty when it comes to climate shocks, natural disasters that are accelerating. So an accelerated time of uncertainty and how do you stay grounded, but also importantly, how we can work better together at a time when many of the challenges we face require collective action? I think it's one of the things that the World Economic Forum has always spoken about. It's been tested in various ways, and I think we're seeing it tested in a whole new way, with changes, frankly, coming predominantly from the United States. So with that, we think about the Global Risks Perception survey, which is really the the Foundation for the Global Risks report that was just released last week from the World Economic Forum. And it was two thirds of people expect a turbulent outlook in the next ten years. Only 1% expect things to become for the next ten years. And I'm really keen it's anonymous. I would have loved to meet the person or the people who think it will become in the 1%, but and every you know and the rest of the respondents basically expect some sort of quite turbulent times. So with that, we have an amazing panel. We also have those who are watching us. This is being live streamed. If you want to join the conversation, please use hashtag wecf 26 and also Open Forum 26. And for those of you in the room, we will come to you to ask questions. Please not comments, please questions later on in the conversation. So you can also engage with our amazing panel. So with that, I'd like to introduce our panels. Immediately to my left is Oksana Harvey who is a global shaper, World Economic Forum Global Shaper, and also advisor on investment and business engagement to the Ukrainian Ministry of Economy. Right next to her is Her Excellency, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Romania, Juana Silva. Very nice to have you here. And then we also have Philippe Bolopion, who is the executive director of Human Rights Watch. And next to him is Florence Gaub, who is director of research at the NATO Defense College. And last but not least is Stefan Scheibel, who is global managing partner at Roland Berger. And he's also at the Alliance of CEO Climate Leaders. So with that, we will have this conversation also under the wider theme of visions of 2050. Tomorrow Starts Now, which is the main theme for the Open forum. So we'll try to also look at our crystal ball of how cooperation can be improved and how we can have better frameworks. So, with that, I want to turn to you First Minister, please. You know, international governance is being frayed. Agreements are being questioned. The UN Security Council is divided, has been divided for quite a few years, of course, in no small part due to the Ukraine war and invasion. But also the reality is it was divided over many other issues. And from the Iraq War through to Afghanistan, through to Libya and so forth. We've had this division at the at the center point of how political, collaboration works globally. So we are here today in 2026. First, how do you see the system of international governance and how can it be improved?
So thank you for the question. And it's also very nice to be here back at at Davos. And actually the core thing that we need is portrayed in the key message of this year's conference, which is an increased dialogue in an age of uncertainty. But that seems too easy in a way, when all of our citizens and you've mentioned the two thirds that expect turmoil in the future are seeing directly that it's very complicated, where at the moment in time, where international institutions are most needed and most challenged in the same time, and I think some things are needed in 2026 and beyond. That, first of all, is to accept that uncertainty is here to stay. It's not necessarily a phase that we can organize to go fastly through, but rather a moment in time where we need to redesign the institutions that we're having rather than trying to protect them based on a strategy of nostalgia. So that's one thing that I think is very important. We have in Romania this experience of having our diplomats, that had led the League of Nations that now has transferred and transformed into the United Nations. So we know if we look into history, that even multilateral institutions have a moment where their mandate ends or transforms, and we need to be very aware of the fact that that is an actual possibility. So that is one thing. Something that is, again, very different is in diplomacy, you typically have the planning, you typically have the assessment, the analysis, the teams working, and then you would have a public decision. Now we're facing a very different 2026 where we have a public announcement that triggers the diplomatic conversations as a reaction to those type of announcements. So what does that mean? It means that we need better engagement with citizens and the private sphere. It also means that the frequency of our dialogue at the diplomatic level is significantly increased. We typically talk almost daily to each other in different formats. So we need to acknowledge, that in parallel and in synchronicity with the institutions and the formats that we have. There are also a lot of many multilateral formats, a lot of coalitions between countries that have a specific goal or a specific risk ahead, for example, the Black Sea. I've just come from, a meeting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey. We're working together with him and Bulgaria on the way. We protect the Black Sea, and we want to take that into an EU framework on a security hub. And obviously we're having NATO conversations on that. So it starts from different formats of collaboration. We've done the same on, the solidarity lanes for protecting the exports and imports of goods from Ukraine, for example. And it was the same type of conversation that ended up in a decision for the countries that wanted to be involved. The coalition of the willing is such an example where if you cannot move in the predefined formats, then you create your own format of collaboration, of common decisions, of going forward. And I think we're going to see an increase of these type of formats throughout 2026 and into the future. But also beyond my role as a minister of Foreign Affairs, I think we can share a bit as Romania, some of the the things that we learn from our own history. We have been for a long time in an age of uncertainty, I would say, and we've managed to have what I consider to be an extraordinary transformation within a generation. When we had, in the 90s, when we started being a democracy, after the revolution, we had 10% of the average income of the European Union. Now we're at 80%. We have increased our GDP ten times in this decades. And why do I mention that is because I think even in continuous uncertainty, what creates resilience is actually the proactive, entrepreneurial spirit of those that work in the direction of their countries objectives. In our case, it was very much based on citizen driven resilience, on business driven resilience. And that is what created through time, the pressure that institutions adapt themselves, try to keep pace. And this is an effort. We're still, it's still an ongoing effort for us. But but I think we have learned through the uncertainties we've had in the region through our history, that resilience is possible, that not only that you can protect what you have, but you can move forward at extraordinary speed. And then that also means pressure back to the institutions to to adapt to that.
But the idea of the of the extraordinary speed and being able to be agile and move quickly, what does that rely on? Does that rely on political will? Does that rely on, you know, structures that are quite flexible?
So so for us, in Romania's case, it was more the case of always having in society a need for a better standard, for a better standard of living, for a better standard of public service. It meant the openness of entrepreneurs to work in an international environment and bring in investments, and then the public will or the institutions to try to keep pace. So it wasn't the other way around. It wasn't a growth triggered by the institutions. Of course, you had the big political decisions to join the European Union or NATO that have created the base, for the future growth. And until now, a level of predictability that we now have to kind of readjust, that we're gradually stepping out of. There's no not the predictability we were used to in the last two decades since we joined.
Thank you. I really like your reference of also this idea of, you know, that aspiration to either join NATO or countries joining the EU and so forth. And I think when that is no longer, benchmark, you have to find other ways that, you know, the aspirations for the society itself.
I have.
One point that I want to make here is that we've invested a lot of effort. And now I speak as a politician, but also as a as a citizen. We've invested in a lot of effort in promoting future objectives, organizations that we want to join. But I think we're now collectively seeing the price of not investing enough effort to share the success stories of the organizations we're part of. And we see not just an intense democratic debate, but also we have to be very clear minded about this and not be naive. We also see the anxiety that this generates in our societies, not just being addressed, which is the right democratic way to do, but also being weaponized sometimes. And we see those hybrid interferences, even in conversations that are sometimes just commercial trade deals or that are purely, have seen, have been seen before purely from an economic or strategic or number wise point of view. Now we see it being way more ideologized and we see the anxieties in society, the diminishing trust in institutions, being partially weaponized. And here I think we need a better coordination in time in terms of how do we answer to these hybrid interferences that are happening in many places of the world, but especially how do we prevent them? By being better in engaging the business environment, society, international diplomats in decisions before they are taken.
Thank you. Well, that's a great way to come to you, Oksana, because again, when you're advising the Ministry of the economy under very difficult circumstances, as the you know, the war continues and Ukraine is under attack and thinking about actually future planning and an uncertainty, but also the importance of the voices outside the political circles. How do you bring that into the the advice that you give?
Yeah. First of all, thank you, Mina, for introducing me in such a way. It's a truly honor to represent not only voice of Ukrainians, but also, voices of such a bright community of young leaders called Global Shapers here, alongside such a high level panelists, of course. Yeah. You know, unfortunately, I'm being here in Davos and I cannot stop thinking about my people in Kyiv. I live now in Kyiv. And you might know, on 9th of January we had very hard missile attack that the day when also hit in Lviv, on the energy infrastructure and the city is today the 11th, 11th day were working under the almost, I don't know, like total blackout. We have on the other hand Venezuela, we have ayatollah regime in Iran, we have Gaza, of course we have Sudan. And it's extremely difficult to talk about trust under such circumstances when the world is going crazy, I would say, why not? Yeah. But, that is difficult. But we should talk about that. And if, I just come back to the World Economic Forum Global Risk report, I was really upset that within the next ten years, this trust will be only decreasing. This will be eroding. And, more or less what Anna said we should, apply another approaches to the same existing institution formats. So actually, the cooperation is not disappearing, more or less. It's it will be modified. It will be changed, of course, but not disappearing 100%. And, Yeah, I have here, Anna, this will be also the cooperation. The partnership will be more interest centric, let's say, and a way more pragmatic, you know, in many more selective if that's bad world is changing. Let's try to adapt. You know, I have been asking me the question, how can we really, as a human, try to stay grounded in this divided world? And I came up with three, like, bullets. They are they are following each other, actually. So the first one is, values. I still believe very much in values. Actually, the interest might be also values. So if people are spreading the values are protecting them at the same time that the first one, the second is about developing the network, the personal connections. Because I like, as our minister once said, you know, be kind every position you there's a human. Yeah. With own story, with own family and that's fine. So building the personal connections network as broad as you even can. And the third to prior mentioned bullets. They will lead actually to the partnership. This will be changed. This will be modified, but more or less we will be partnering again. Coming back to this, global risk report, it's again stating that we are moving away from the multilateral relations. But what's what's bad about bilateral relations? Like nothing. And actually, I like very much we had yesterday meeting with Anna and I have been asking questions, how can we strengthen economic diplomacy within our countries because we are neighboring countries. So if the countries will be working regional based, I guess that's nothing bad about that. Yeah. What I wanted to point out as well. And number four, Ukraine, of course, is now still under the martial law, but already the DNA for by the world Bank, rapid needs and damage assessment done. Everything by the world Bank Group is estimated reconstruction. Reconstruction needs of Ukraine. More than 500 billion USD. That's a huge amount. And actually, what I like the most about this long document is that the private sector, within the general efforts for rebuilding Ukraine, will play a crucial role. One third, even with the capacity to grow, of course. And that's what I was trying to do within the ministry. Also, having my focus on investment and business engagement try to build this trust. Relations between government and private sector. That's not only the problem in Ukraine, definitely. That's also the problem in Europe. Sometimes you know how to build this again, partnering. We have been asking businesses to be integrated in our governmental agenda, not to stay far away from, from from them first thing, can I. Yeah, sure, sure.
So just on this point, I mean, the private sector plays a hugely important role, but there's, you know, you mentioned the point about values and who who's the ultimate benefactor. So for private sector, often it is the shareholder. It is about, you know, driven by shareholders and what what they value and what they are also looking at when it comes to profits. Of course, governments different in principle should be the public sector serving the public. So do you think that the private sector is able to to play that role, to fill in those gaps?
Yes, absolutely. Not even able, but should must I don't know. You can use all the verbs you can because like state is not capable, government is not capable to work, let's say very properly. So you know, you are going back and forth having many questions from the president from from all over the world and businesses. They are very organic with what they do. And again, with the with the risk report, there's a stated that the private sector will play this crucial role because first, I mean, actually there was state like nonprofit but including private sector because business is non-profit. Yeah, non-profit, but private sector was included more or less. And you know why? Because like they are controlling the supply chains. It's a business first and second. Second because they are just faster, faster.
I'm going to turn to you, Stefan, on this point, the the idea of the role of the private sector at this time of uncertainty, if we talk about climate, for example, which you've been involved in, you know, at the moment you've had some changes predominantly, again, with the US pulling out of the, Paris climate accords, but also the same energy that was given by states maybe in the last 5 or 6 years to the climate agenda has eroded. Where does the private sector play a role at this point, and how can it fill a framework, a fill a void not only in terms of, you know, commitments, but also setting up frameworks that are outside of just regular state to state structures?
I think it's it's a very it's a very tricky question, because on the one side, if you take the fundamentals, though, there is an enormous volume of investment money that is looking for business opportunities. And I think everybody in the private sector would say to have trust based relationship, to have open markets, to have something like a certain level of certainty for investments is really, really helpful. On the other side, as a business leader, if there are tariffs in the world, you cannot deny them and somehow you have to react and you can diversify your supply chains. You can go for different sourcing whatever. But, Private sector should and quite of the private sector people do. And so the forum here is something where you see that, to go for fair trade and open market, what, in my opinion, is also related to certain human standards. This has made the world wealthier. And, it was a period of time where it went into the right direction. But the whole thing cannot be fixed only by the private sector. So there is a tremendous responsibility, with a political sector. And it's also very clear we were believing in a world when we would have been really honest to us that there was a relative stability in that bipolar world. And with breaking up, that we believe that the transatlantic friendship is something that is stable forever. So NATO is is a documentation for that, and it's not the case. And our institution believed we regulate and regulate and regulate and somehow we can put regulation on global trade and market developing. And this is proven to be wrong. So and international organizations, if we want to go for multilateral standards, have to be less bureaucratic quicker and so on. And this is an open race. And I come from Germany. So twice a war had to redefine the world. And with these military things we are in a very critical situation. I hope we are mature enough. But if the world does not understand that the redefinition of country borders and to go for attacks, whatever is, and this is my full conviction from a from a business perspective is hindering growth and destabilizing the world. So that is the job to make that clear from, from the private sector. But the political sector has will be in a multilateral Europe, has to increase his capability to defend, strengthen its currency, has to strengthen its intelligence services, has to be much better in AI, although things and the other blocks in the world will respect. And if we go for that, it will be a very shaky time. So I fully agree and that's bad for business, but hopefully we get through with that. But it's also the the classical multinational organizations also have to transform dramatically to be more flexible, more open. And so that is really for the mankind, a big challenge to come back to your climate thing. You know, we, we behave sometimes like climate change would have been gone. I don't see that it it has gone. But we were also arguing in that attitude. We are good human beings and for the well-being, and I share of that. Otherwise I wouldn't be a member of the climate leaders topic. But we have to translate it in how to get that implemented in business and and so on. And so and you know, if you have as a company leader, the perspective for sure there will be the impact of climate change in ten years. So you will not give up that goal. Perhaps you are two years later or you go for a different market and whatever. And just to be a little positive, we had that Mercosur agreement for free trade with from the European side. It's implemented over 20 years, so it's not changing radically. But we should go for Thailand. We are talking to we should go for Malaysia. We should go for Australia and make clear that free markets and common standards are something that is valid. And then let's see, I think there is a fundamental tendency in the US and the reorientation away from Europe to go more to the Pacific is not an invention of Donald Trump. And it might be really robust, but if the different blocks and also Europe takes a clear stance, I hope, and I'm convinced that we can avoid even worse military aggressions than the Ukrainians have to suffer. Yeah.
I want to follow up on this.
Transatlantic relationship part, because the way you speak is that it seems that there's no going back, that Europe has to be adjusting to a world where it can no longer take for granted, for example, that military, you know, strength and developments in America don't mean that those are guarantees for Europe or that the European security architecture can continue to rely robustly on the US and will come to NATO and what that means for NATO. But do you believe this is not there's no going back from here. Europe really has to stand on its own.
No, there is no going back. The Bretton Woods agreement, the Americans defend Europe and the liberated US from fascism. What we should never forget. And in exchange, they are on the currency side. The leading world power is not existing in that dimension anymore. So and the Europeans have to learn to defend themselves. And I'm a fan of NATO, but the balancing in NATO will be a completely different one. And we see it in these hours. And, and so this is really doing your homework and just my country for right reasons. Perhaps we shouldn't have too many arms because we fundamentally misbehaved as Germans. But to go for European, stronger role in defense is key. And then you need a certain independency on technology side. If you are only depending on US technology and this is a midterm step, but we can go through it. So for currency, for example, to strengthen the euro, to go for Eurobonds and if necessary, only with the countries that are willing to have budget discipline to go for a swift equivalent in Europe, to have strong sanctions authorities to go for more rating, we will all have to do those things. And my hope is, you know, political process don't go in a linear thing. So in one moment there are tipping points and then it goes pretty quick. And let's see if the Europeans will be quick enough. But that singing in a group of 27 where everybody sings a different song will not be the recipe for the future. And if they're only singing 21, so it's only 21.
I.
Have many follow ups to that, but I want to turn to you, Florence. Because because I think the technology you point point you make is is really important actually, because again, we see in the world where the US is innovating going forward, we see the Chinese have their own model. And Europe, you know, just on AI we talk about the need for money, energy and, and the political will to really get behind us. And those are both money and energy are not easy for, for Europe to, to address at the moment. Florence, do you agree with this thesis?
No, but also but, not just because I work for NATO. I think those of you who know me, you know, I have a stoic side to this, but I also have a deep understanding of history. So first, I want to debunk the myth that we've had ever a moment in history where we were hugely optimistic about the future. When it comes to international relations, you have these little blips. So it's a bit like watching a comet. Maybe in summer 1990, there was a moment. But to say that the 90s was a decade where we were all running around having a good time, the data does not support that. There was a lot of, fear of an economic downturn. We had the Balkan Wars, etc.. I mean, just, just I think, to bear that in mind, that doesn't make your life easier to realize that, but that makes it a little less exceptional and understand that uncertainty. You know, there's a book, a bestseller called The Age of Uncertainty. It dates to the 70s. So I think it's in the nature of the beast that uncertainty is part of the game. And while you were talking, I wrote down, I think uncertainty is the result of lack of data and distrust in your own capabilities. And that's what we're seeing when we're looking, especially at Europe and, and NATO, how Europeans feel about the US. Well, you know, there is a military dependency here, and that is what this is all about. So if Europeans felt more confident, you know, Germany in particular, but others as well, then they would also feel less dependent on the US and felt more emboldened. So I think uncertainty, we have to be comfortable with it because it's not going to go away. And also, even if I would like the world to be different, I think that's a very important thing. And then also another thing, you know, NATO, we say NATO is always in crises. We've had crises since basically the 1950s. NATO was created in 49. You know, we had the French, withdrawal from the command structure. We had a lot of moments that were really difficult. And the Nixon Doctrine, you probably not a lot of people here remember this, but the Nixon Doctrine said, okay, allies, from now on, when you have a problem, we'll send you equipment, but we will not help you militarily. Imagine that in the 70s. So again, that doesn't make the current crisis, more comfortable, but at least it takes away a little bit this feeling that, oh, my God, nobody's managed this before. We can manage it. So I just want to give you one, aspect of data that I heard earlier from the Global Cooperation Barometer from McKinsey. And so across five spectrums, global cooperation. I know this is going to be unpopular, but it's actually going up. It's not going up in peace and security. That's the field I'm in. And there's no there's no there's no causality. But so cooperation is like water. It goes where it can go. So cooperation has shifted but it's still there. We have an increase in trade by 3%. We have cooperation on technology. We have cooperation on climate. We have cooperation on health. So, but of course, why are we focusing on peace and security? Because it's bloody existential, right. So when we're when we're dying and I think obviously Oksana knows this best, unfortunately then everything else doesn't matter. And that brings me to the question. How can you make cooperation, come back to the field of peace and security? And I think, as much as I, you know, working for NATO defense is obviously hugely important. But what about diplomacy? A lot of the funds that are going to defense are being taken from diplomacy. When you look at the statistics we once compared, where do European leaders go when they visit other when they visit other heads of state, when they go to other Europeans? When you look at where the Chinese foreign minister goes, he goes literally everywhere to Africa, to Latin America, to Asia, what have you. So I think this is obviously a European perspective, but I think diplomacy. So diplomacy means, of course, investing in diplomats, but it also means building understanding of the other side. Strategic empathy doesn't mean that you like what the others are doing, but it means thinking hard and long about why are they doing what they're doing and how can we respond to that. And, you know, on Russia, our expertise is decaying. We haven't had access to Russia in almost five years. We need to invest, I think, a lot more in that direction. And then one last piece. There's one tiny piece of good news from peace and security. It's true. We have more numbers of conflicts, but lethality is going down, so we have less people dying overall in conflicts at the moment than we used to. And we don't know why that is. And so one hypothesis is, okay, maybe actually we have more conflicts precisely because less people are dying. Are people more trigger happy because less people are dying? This is a very cynical conversation, but I think it's important. Conflict research, unfortunately, is a lot like psychology. We don't have a lot of data we don't really understand. Still, in the 21st century why states go to war and how to untangle it. But we have to just keep trying to understand to to resolve it.
Your point about this is not new. And if we just look at NATO, yes, there have been moments of crises, but I mean, the Stefan's remarks were but there's no going back. I mean, Europe really does have to now stand on its own. And and that interoperability that NATO is very proud of might not necessarily be a reality. If Europe says, okay, we have to stand up on our own and build our own and it will take time. But if there's that shift in mindset, what does that mean for NATO? Does NATO carry on? And I'll let you answer that. I have my second question.
I think. So again, this is probably difficult to hear. But yeah, I think if we had a military takeover of Greenland by the United States, it would probably be the end of NATO in a way, one way or the other. Right? So either because it just becomes defunct internally or because some leave or it doesn't it doesn't matter really. Why, but I think we have to be candid about that. And that's why you have behind the scenes a lot of diplomatic activity. And I will tell you that behind the scenes, the mood is not quite as catastrophic as outside. It's still catastrophic, but not quite as catastrophic. So there's still a lot of people still seeing options on how we can resolve that. But to the other point, and I think I'll take my hat off for that, maybe that's my French side talking 100%. Europeans have to be reliable, have to be standing on their own military feet. And we've been saying that for the last ten years, and they just didn't want to hear it. And they were not listening to to to people that were clearly giving warnings about this. So in a way, this could eventually become a blessing in disguise, because we understand that we have to buckle up and we have to keep going. Now, you asked about can Europe stand on its own? There are some wargames that show that if it came to a war now between us and Russia without the US, we would probably win eventually. But it would take a long time. A lot of life, a lot of cost. The experience that Ukraine is making, that's not a scenario anybody wants. Our dependence on the US as Europeans is long range missiles. It's a lot of intelligence. So it's actually not so much the troops. I know that Europeans are really hung up on American troops in Europe from a logistical point of view, from a military point of view, that's not the main issue. It's all these other things. But again, here, you know, we're working on a European missile defense system. All of these things take time. So I just want to let you go home with a thought that, okay, if the worst thing happens, we have a plan, but you have to buckle up. It's going to take a while to be good again.
And my final question, and actually, I'd like all of you to answer this, even though, Felipe, we haven't asked you directly your direct question, but I want you all to answer this because I'm a journalist and we wonder if sometimes things feel more catastrophic because everyone's getting everything live on their phones all the time. So is it the immediacy of information, or is this a different time that we live in so quick? Yes or no answers without too much hypothesis? Stefan, what do you think? Yes or no? Is it more catastrophic because we know about it immediately, or is it really different?
I think we had much more catastrophic times in history, but, we are really at a tipping point now, so it's it's international organizations. Will they play a role or not?
So I think that the data is very clear that if you measure information in bytes, we absorb in one day more new information than a peasant in the Middle Ages. In his entire life, you know, the coup in Iraq in the 50s, news of that arrived in, I think, in a French newspaper two weeks later. So I think it is the immediacy and it's not evening and morning getting some news, but it's like all the time and everything at all the time. So I think we need to get better at information hygiene. Okay.
I would say I think the world is becoming more dangerous and more hostile to human rights in the last probably 20 years. So I think they are, you know, they are perception issues. But there is also a reality of 20 years of democratic decline in the world. The world is less democratic today than it was 20 years ago. The number of conflicts has been rising. They last longer, they are more violent. And some of the norms that the world has built over the last few years, the prohibition on our international crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, it's fraying very quickly. So I think it's not, sadly, just a perception issue. I think we are living in a in a dangerous time in history.
Minister.
At the core of all of our mandates as politicians, you would have the need of citizens to feel safe and to know they have and they can plan for a good future. Now, a lot of what we do in most of the countries in the world has a strong international component to it, in security, in economy. So I don't think there's any more the option of standing on your own fully as a country or even as a European Union, because too much of what we do is integrated. It's rather having more power within the international formats that we are part of, to be assertive in our objectives and to connect to your question, I think because a lot of it is a public debate, because a lot of it is immediately on the phones of citizens. It also means that they do not just connect in who they choose democratically in their governments, but rather how are their individual interests reflected in the larger bodies that we've constructed. And I think, therefore, that creates the pressure for current formats. And Romania is a strong supporter of multilateralism, but future formats that we're going to create as well to engage the citizen level. It's not enough to engage diplomats or decision making bodies, those international.
Reformats need to stand their own ground and legitimacy at the citizen level as well.
Very briefly, I guess that actually we are living in very dangerous times, as Florence said. And I guess that the at the bloody war in Europe will be the turning point for the international law if the territories are occupied by aggressor will be legitimized first thing. And second, I'm afraid we are moving from the institutions to, to the theory of, of, political realism again, to national states.
Thank you. So, Philippe, I'm going to turn back to you because you're right. We do have more conflicts. They are more bloody. I am originally from Iraq, and I would say that the Iraq war and the way that it was executed and everything that happened, especially with the US as an occupying power and the countries and coalition that did not take responsibility for people and country being so many of the laws that were supposed to all abide by that this quarter of a century of this new century meant started off on a bad foot. And it's really hard to argue in other conflicts that actually you should abide. But there have been other conflicts where international law was broken and most people were not held to account. So I want to ask you, these international laws, are they still fit for purpose? Is it about people just breaking them? And we need to force a pliability? Or do we need new laws?
So it's a complex question, but I would say that not only do we need to protect them, but we need to enforce them. And first, I want to recognize your right there. There have been a lot of double standards. And, you know, the US has never really accounted for using torture in in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Guantanamo. There has been, you know, the US or many European countries are these days very vigorously denouncing the war crimes of the Russian government in Ukraine, and rightly so. They are much less vocal when it comes to acts of genocide or ethnic cleansing in Gaza, for example. So that's part of international life, and it's been part for a long time. This being said, I think the world has made a lot of progress in the last few decades when it comes to these norms. You know, when I started my career in initially in journalism in the early 2000, it was maybe not a golden era for human rights, but there was hope. You know, people were developing the responsibility to protect. The idea that we would not tolerate genocides anymore. The peacekeeping missions were being deployed all over the world. The International Criminal Court was being created. It didn't stop all crimes. It didn't stop all atrocities. But it set new norms and new expectations. And suddenly even heads of states had to worry about ending up in The Hague in in front of a court one day. And, you know, in the last couple of years, the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin, for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the former president of the Philippines in Duterte is in jail in The Hague. A Janjaweed leader from Sudan was was condemned only a couple of months ago. So a very imperfect system. But yet, you know, something that's that's setting new rules and new expectations. And that took decades to build. And it took many countries in the international community to arrive there. Now, in the last few years, I think the this movement has been almost going backward. It's certainly under attack and under threat. It's been under attack and under threat for many years now from countries like Russia and China, who are becoming more powerful and have a more aggressive global agenda of undermining human rights. Because because fundamentally, human rights are a threat to their system. But we now have a US administration that's almost, you know, almost switching sides in some ways and is now openly withdrawing from the system. You know, the US has defended the UN, withdrew from the Human Rights Council, sanctioned the International Criminal Court in ways that are very dangerous for the judges and the prosecutors. And so, you know, as the US is more openly undermining the rules based order, it's threatening the entire ecosystem on which the human rights movement has relied to make progress, because these institutions are needed to make this progress. So I think we are living in a really dangerous time. The question is, you know what to do about it. You were you were rightly encouraging us to be forward looking and offer solutions. And, you know, if you have a new world order dominated by a US government that's asserting a zone of influence, the Don doctrine, it's in its area and the Russian government doing the same and the Chinese government doing the same. Where does that leave, you know, human rights and where does that leave democratic countries that still believe in the human rights system and the rules based order? And to me, I'm really you know, it's an interesting time to be in Davos and interesting time to talk to diplomats and ministers, because I'm wondering how democratic countries and democratic countries that that still care about human rights and still want to rely on the rules based order. How how do they see the future in this new world? What's their place? Are they going to join forces and form new alliances to protect this system? If they don't, I think we are really in trouble.
I want to pick up on a point that at the beginning of your remarks you spoke of norms. So it's not just about laws, it's not just about courts, it is about norms. And I think there were certain norms that perhaps again, in the last half a century, we took for granted that are now eroded. So how important is it to try to find norms that people sign up to a more opt in type of system as we try to navigate the next period?
Well, you know, when it comes to international crimes, for example, if we are trying to to stop atrocity crimes and these days, you know, you have you have, mass rape and, you know, mass killings in, in Darfur, for example, in Sudan, the situation in Gaza over the last two years has reached unprecedented levels, war crimes in Russia. So I think you can't just rely on on norms and opt in, but you need to build a system where you have actually laws that are binding and that are enforceable. I think the best example of trying to do that is the International Criminal Court, which was created 20 years ago, a very powerful idea at the time. You know, a real ideal. And many, many countries like, you know, 130 countries became part of it. Never the US, never, you know, the Russian government or the Chinese government. Not perfect, but yet, you know, the world was was going in the right direction. Now the ICC is, is really under threat. You know, the very existence of the ICC is under threat. So when I'm talking about, you know, a coalition of countries that will rally in support of enforcing these norms and making sure that these type of crimes that the world has had really promised would never happen again, you know, in 2005, it would be almost inconceivable today. In 2005, at the UN General Assembly, all the countries of the world, you know, rallied around the responsibility to protect. And today it's being violated in probably a dozen crises around the world. So I think we need to one, you know, acknowledge that, that we are going backward and to propose solutions for how we stop the slide back.
I mean, with the responsibility to protect. I think the ethos of it was so important, and yet it was used in part in Libya where, you know, Russia signed up to the UN Security Council taking action to protect and then, you know, said that it was tricked into allowing and not vetoing Security Council approval for military action that removed Moammar Gadhafi. So I think it's also what lessons we learned from the past in order to make a different future, right. I want to open the floor to questions. We will get a microphone to you. If you indicate to me that you'd like to ask a question, if you can kindly, just briefly introduce yourself and then ask your question if it's for somebody specific on the panel, please say so. Otherwise we'll send them over. Okay. Could you indicate if you have a question, please?
Thank you. My name is Nemanja Dimitrijevic. I'm the president of Federation of Young Serbs in Europe. My question is for Madam Minister. As you know, there is a lot of interference, in the world, in, in Romania also, for the last presidential elections, also in Moldova. And now we can see also the interference, with President Trump in Venezuela, in Taiwan, with China. And I would like to know how Europe will, fight against all this interference in world, in the world. Thank you.
Thank you for your question, please.
Yeah. I wouldn't necessarily treat them all as the same thing, but thank you so much for for the question on Venezuela, for example, Romania's position. And I've made that public as well, is that we weren't against the action that has been taken because we didn't recognize the presidency. And therefore, we consider now that elections need to be organized as soon as possible, that that is the way forward for a better life for the people of Venezuela. And they should be the decision makers of their future. In respect with the others, I'm going to go back to the question of what do I see in the future in the European Union going forward? There's a way to answer those. First of all, when it comes to hybrid interference, I think it's way more widely spread than it is perceived in the public space, even at a diplomatic, formal level. That has been a common statement at the United Nations level that Romania was part of the European Commission level. In a rare occasion when we've synchronized to do it in the same day, that acknowledges that hybrid interference is something quite common in a lot of democracies, in the European Union, but especially in the countries that want to join and are on the path of joining the European Union as well. And here I think we need better coordination, more actually aggressive, assertive, instruments to be able to prevent and counter that, because I think that's also going to increase through time. And it's also something that's happening with these hybrid interferences is that, especially when they are in the online space or this, attacks on infrastructure is that they do not face the reputational risk of clear failure. So that means they can be continuously tried throughout time and increased in frequency, because if they fail, that doesn't have a reputational cost to the ones that have tried, because they are. So we're going to see those ongoing. We need to have better, better instruments for our own resilience. And because there are a few countries in the world, that are aggressors in that direction, it means that the countries that face this type of interference need to collaborate better in sharing the information that we're having in sharing the feedback loops, that we have to have better instruments on that. And we're working closely with Moldova. We're working closely with Ukraine as well. We're going to have a meeting in Romania soon by summer, in our trilateral format, it's called the Odessa Triangle. And one of the topics is how is it through the lessons that we have learned in our own democracies, are we able to help others, to support others on their path, to protect their democracies?
Thank you. There's a lady here, sir.
So good afternoon. My name is Ekaterina Serban, founder and CEO of Skills and tech company. I have a question to Oksana. Nowadays, what we see and you talk a lot about the topic of fragmentation and trust and the world which is led today by many leaders. And let's be honest, and ten, 15 years, most of them will be there just physically because they will be dead. Simple as it is, a new generation of leaders comes. And today when we look all these conflicts which is happening there, mostly the interest of certain group of people and what I see when I talk to the new generation the way they think, they want to see the world totally different. Oksana, I want to ask you, as a future leader and a presenting the new generation of leaders, what is your view? Which kind of global leaders should be on the political area in ten maximum 15 years? And what exactly government of countries that we see today need to change in order to come to that?
Thank you.
Oh thank you. That's a simple question for me because I have been talking very much about values. So even living in this world of interest, when big guys are doing some businesses, sacrificing people's lives, I still very believe in values. And I have been also talking that Australian government, under which program I have been part of the ministry. And I told them, you know, systems must be just simply public systems. They must be human oriented and not system oriented. If you include youth perfect. I don't like when people are especially politicians. They are like declaring people. Young people should join, of course. Very welcome. But then if you approach them, nothing happens. They look at you from above. And of course, not always the case. But I would like to see us more, you know, like hard working, being able to present your your country, being able to boost the cooperation, regional or international and individuals which are having values. That's the thing.
Thank you, thank you. Okay. More questions. Gentleman here at the front and then we'll go at the back.
Thank you. Alexander du Bois, secretary general of the European Alliance of News Agencies. I have a question for Mr. Shoigu. It's related to the concept of the world going to a through a downward spiral. And I think that this is partly because this information is is plaguing the information environment. How do you think governments should react to that? How do you think governments could protect their people from disinformation, especially in Romania, frontline country, but also in the rest of Europe, because none of us are, in the end, immune to that? Thank you.
Yeah. Thank you for the for the question. I have one confession to make. When I wake up in the morning and I start working at what we're doing, or in the conversations I'm having with other ministers of foreign affairs, I don't start from the assumption that the world is going on a downward spiral. I rather start from a different assumption, which is that we've managed to collectively create together, economic prosperity and security, not perfect, a lot of work to be done. So that is shared by everyone. But still, we've advanced in our common objectives to the level where they are threatening to others and therefore they are challenged. That is the the assumption that I start my work from. I'm not saying those challenges are not real, real scary, risky that we don't need to organize. But but I'm saying that they come not because we're weak or not because we have failed in the years in which we collectively organized our security, our economic prosperity, but rather that we are succeeding, that this has generated an intensity on the challenge, on how we do that. So so that's one one difference that I see in terms of how do we, reply to that? I think here the truth, the honest truth is that we are still learning. If I would have, a solution that is immediately applicable that can be immediately put into force, we would have done it already. Right? And so we're still learning. And there is an increased level of threat by the fact that AI can take a message and instantly have a huge, volume of how that is spread in a specific nation and throughout the world. It can also have an incredible speed of adaptation. And for the common citizen, it is almost impossible to make the difference between real opinions and fake AI generated campaigns. It is becoming almost, almost impossible. And here I don't think we can only use diplomacy, or we can only use better communication or better citizens engagement. I really think, we have no way of doing this unless we find a way with the online platforms, with technology companies, a way. That is a common deployment of instruments. Now. It's quite different. But I was just recently, recently on my flight here, reading the biography of Jacinda Ardern that I've met at Davos last time I've been here, and she has a point in her biography after the Christchurch attack where, starting from New Zealand tragedy, leaders across the world with the big tech companies have organized and created instruments where terrorist attacks that were livestreamed or that were put online had an international frame that allowed countries to take them out, for example, so that they do not spread fear so that they do not become copycats. And this has been, generated by a tragedy, but it has led to an international cooperation that has not just only been governments or countries, but also the big companies that joined that effort join that rule system. And that's why I think now it's very important how the future of the conversations we're having between the United States and the European Union on the Digital Service Act, on how we work with platforms, is going to play out not just in from a business perspective, how it is typically seen from the United States, but also from a security resilience societal perspective, which is where I see it most.
Thank you. There's a lady at the back there. Yes, that she's got her hand up. If we can get to her, please.
Hi, I'm Isabelle. Good. And I come from a political background, and so I wanted to ask you this question. Lately, more and more people got elected to represent a country and that have had power already and have been given more power. And then they represent only those societies they surround themselves with, not the country in itself. Should it not be okay to assume the opposite, the people get elected. Who can represent the biggest part of the country's society and the biggest part of the people. ?
Is that question somebody in particular, or should I ask Philippe to answer it since he he spoke about democracies and, you know, this is one of the issues of elections, or did you have somebody in mind to answer it specifically? Okay. Go ahead.
Thank you.
Good luck. Yeah, yeah.
No, I hear what you're saying. And I think once, you know, in a democratic system, once you become the elected leader of a country, you're there to represent the entire population of the country and the best interest of the population. How that plays out in different countries, you know, all over the world wide is widely varies widely. So, you know, it's hard to, to answer this question in general, except to say that, you know, that's the very idea of democracy. There is a basic human right to being governed by, by a form of government in which you participate, in which you have a voice, and that's a universal human rights. And sadly, you know, as democracy has been receding around the world and again, it's 20 years of democratic decline, meaning that, you know, the world is, according to the best academic expert, back to the democracy level of the mid 1980s. So democracy progressed a lot for a few years after the fall of the, the, the Soviet Union and then democracy. Somewhere in the middle of the year 2000 started going down. Every year has been a bit worse, worse than the year before. So that's a global trend. That to me is sort of an existential threat. You know, certainly for for democracies that very few people are aware of that two, two, few people in my view, are studying. We see now this democratic decline playing out in a country like the US, with profound effects on the on the rest of the world. So, you know, where does the response come? It always comes from the people in all of these countries, you know, they have to elect leaders who will represent their best interests. And, you know, the minister is coming from a political background and I'm sure can speak to that much more eloquently than I can. But but you're right about the trend is very worrisome.
Stefan, you wanted to come in.
Just to to take your question and to come to a very fundamental point. So the role of Western democracies has changed dramatically. Also, how political and you have described that one, the, the, the internet, we had times when media, mostly on a country level, defined opinion and therefore hopefully many individuals that could oppose whatever. But what we have now is that globally, from an outside attack, you can create opinion and there is less and less right or wrong, because you always find a community where you are in and in many states you find, also political parties that, that just object the fundamental or some fundamental principles of democracies. So that is a challenge. And I think we did not give enough thinking. So that will be a traumatic question how to transform. And finally, to your question, every population has the government is has earned and a democracy still that counts, to a large extent. But to convince people and to get a grip of, of, that you bring through what you do in reforms, whatever will also need some how you handle public opinion, how you sell as politicians, the things you do in a different way, how you can fight in that, in that digital society topics is something really, really fundamental because we are in a hybrid opinion, war in nearly every Western democracy. So we shouldn't lie to ourselves. And that is also to the to the political people. You say to, to go for that transformation with rebuilding Europe, protecting democracy from a managerial point of view, this is one of the most demanding things you can do. It's very difficult. So I would say I trust the people that are willing to get that done. And it's really a huge challenge. Yeah.
Okay. I want to take more questions. Wow. Okay. Lots of hands up. Florence, I know you wanted to come back in, but can I go to questions? Okay. So I'm going to try to do this very quickly. I'm going to group them in three. So the lady sitting oh is there somebody at the back that you okay. Michel's already decided okay. So the gentleman there then there's a lady here in white. She's been indicating from the very beginning and then the gentleman there. So this gentleman here and there. So we'll start there at the back. Yeah. But please, very briefly.
Yes. Hello. Anna Carter, founder of Digital Solutions. I have a question. Thank you. Mina, first of all, I have a question for Mr. Stefan. You know, we know that President Trump is being judged as shaking the world trust or the global trust somehow. And institutions, of course. But how do we do you see his influence on the entrepreneurial ecosystem? And is he catalyzing this business, framework that we've got to base our startups and tech companies on for the past, like, three decades?
Thank you so much. Okay. And then the lady here in white at the front.
Thank you very much. I am a local student here. My name is Juan, and I'm also a global shaper. And this question is for the whole panel on. There was a lot of talk about getting back kind of Europe, getting back onto their own feet, being more independently strong. But what about demilitarization and the transition to soft power? Is that an option? Could that be an option especially also since we have somebody from NATO here. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you very much. And then the gentleman there. Yes, please. Just Michel, just over here. Just over here. This gentleman here. Yeah.
My name is, I have a question for the group. And, how would you describe the Canadian prime minister visit in China? And, how potentially impact could it have on NATO relations, security dynamic and China's influence in disinformation and war? Thank you.
Okay. So, Lawrence, do you want to take that question the one before, please.
And then I can perhaps just throw in, about democracy. Just I have an observation of a problem. I don't have the answer. But we do see that people fall out of love with their democratic leaders faster and faster. As in, they're being since the 60s. Right. So I think Kennedy is when we started seeing a fast decline or an acceleration, you know, after somebody elected, everybody loves that person. And then it goes down and it goes faster and faster. That's something we see across all democracies, and we don't necessarily have a good explanation. Could it be the media? The more information available? Could it also be better education? People are less gullible perhaps, than they used to be. But let's say that it's a common phenomenon that we observe in all democratic systems. So your dissatisfaction with leadership is widely shared? I think. So, on demilitarization. So the logic of demilitarization, NATO countries followed that since the 90s. And we were, demilitarizing or lowering defense budgets since the 90s, until 2010, when Obama, you know, the pivot to Asia, turned around and said, okay, guys, maybe we should at least spend 2% on defense. Even then, even though NATO allies committed to it. A lot of them didn't live up to it. So we were living actually in a demilitarized mindset until Ukraine. And I would argue that we're now beginning in 2025 with The Hague summit, to return to a Cold War. Thinking about this, we're not even at Cold War level, by the way, during the Cold War, we spend even more. But what's interesting about this is that Russia started rearming or beefing up its military since 2010. I have a very good colleague, Andrew Monegan, who's a Russia expert, who said to me in 2010, I think the Russians are preparing for war. And while Russia was increasing its defense spending, recruiting more people, etc., Europeans were still demilitarizing. So the problem I see is, is even though I wish we would return to that world of the 90s, at the moment, I don't think I think the threat perception is just too big for anybody in NATO countries to follow that, Canada's visit to China. So I think China is an interesting one, both for NATO as a whole and NATO countries, because, here too, the threat perception is divided, right? So for many Americans and even there, it's kind of subtle or divided. But for Europeans, China might be a challenger militarily, seeing Europeans do not feel threatened by China. I mean, there's, you know, okay, there is disinformation and hybrid and there's but there is still a very good trade relationship. There's also, I think, increasingly the recognition, okay, we don't get along with Russia. What happens with the United States? Oh well thank God there's still China. Maybe we can talk to them. So I think it's in that logic. And also you will note very carefully crafted communication by NATO on China never says China is a threat. It says it's both a partner, as you stated, it's both a partner and a challenger. So I think this is a pretty open, not going to say snubbing, but it's clear messaging towards the United States. You know, if you don't want to be on our side, well, we have other options. And China is one of these other options. The question is what does China do now with that? That I think we'll have to ask a Chinese official.
Stefan, the entrepreneurial Trump question.
Yeah, they were.
The two points just to to come to your point, demilitarization in NATO or whatever. And you were you were telling that very clearly. So you democracy diplomacy and to talk on the one side and to have the power to fight back on a military level are two sides, because a NATO or whatever defense, system cannot go for that. And, to be even more provocative, a group of countries or a country that is not able to defend its values, its democracy, whatever, will have a very difficult role in the future. And being a European, that will be a very and I hope we can do that in NATO. I'm not so sure. But this is so for a demilitarization and a global thing. We are pretty far away from that to be to be realistic and to come to shaking world's economy. So,
Can you hold the world economy because the minister wants to comment on your point about going back. Okay. All right. Please go on, go on.
So.
You know, and I do not want to relativize, but America had Icelandic tendencies after World War One. You refer to the Nixon period. So that is not something really unique. You were intonating. Global cooperation is increasing. That is true, but also strongly driven by bypassing. I could source my my natural, my raw materials from one country before. So I have to diversify in three. And if the global efficiency. I want to challenge the dear global competitor with a with a Scottish name, I'm not so sure, but, let's play the other way around. So if we really manage to have from Asean, Thailand, Malaysia, trade agreements with the European Union following the Mercosur, if Canada, New Zealand, Europe should, get closer together, if what's happening with a weakening dollar because the budget discipline in the US is threatening global currency stability and that is always then an out. So I see a trend that capital flows could diversify more in other parts of the world. So you know what I think for start up business there are even opportunities to go for that. And my strong conviction is in the mid-term to be able to create scale effects by global work split on whatever will be a driving factor. Politicians also in the mid-term have to follow. The question is how strong is, let's say the debate in we have in societies the to take a clear diplomatic stance to avoid those things. And we are on a thin line. You are sitting here as a NATO representative and you do not know if it will exist technically in the same way in four weeks. So that is something that is pretty fundamental. And for me, it's pretty fundamental because we relied on your, let's say, protection, pretty successfully on, I think, the longest period in history.
Okay. So I'll just take the final round of questions. There's a gentleman who's been waiting at the back there, and there's a lady here in the middle, and I'll take this gentleman. So those are the three. We'll try to get an expanse of the room. Yes, please. Yes. Thank you.
Good afternoon. We would like to thank our speakers for today, for they were able to give us such valuable insights despite the short time. I am Lewis Pangilinan. I am a public servant of the Philippines. From the Civil Service Commission, a constitutional body in our republic. One of the catchwords for today's, for 2026, in the WEF is, realism. And it was discussed and, briefly by some of our speakers. So I have this question is directed to, our dear Minister of Foreign Affairs of Romania, Madam Minister, and our dear director from NATO, director of Florence. I agree that many literalism.
Please make the question as short.
As possible. But, it is, it doesn't address long term problems like, the dangers of AI. The, food problem, the, global hunger and, climate change. It requires permanent alliances. I don't think mini literalism can address these problems. We're entering the second quarter of the 21st century. Your comments, please. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Thanks for the question. Okay. There's a lady here. Just. Michelle. Just right here. Yeah. Perfect.
Thank you.
Can you hear me? Fantastic. My name is Pamela Kellard. I'm the founder of Women Leading in Stem. I have a question for Mr. Shebalin. It's a question related to business leadership, which we haven't touched much upon. As I coach leaders and and work with women leaders, one question that I have is leaders. Normally, business leaders have to focus a lot on on the business making it profitable, developing their employees. Now, we have heard today that the world, brings us so many uncertainties politically, economically and even from a human rights perspective that we need to face. I would like to hear your thoughts. What does how does this change the requirements for leaders in themselves, but also maybe for the composition of the leadership team?
Thank you very much. Okay. And then the final question here for this gentleman here. And then we'll do very quick answers, please, to the questions just here.
All right. Thank you. Since the ancient days and going through the Roman Empire.
Please don't go that far back. We don't.
Always observe that the world is divided into three. The third part, the middle power and the heart. And the heart is always a economically more dynamic. And to exert its power, we put in place a connectivity, infrastructures, military infrastructures, monetary and financial infrastructure and so forth. But now they are being challenged by China, which also putting in place, in order connectivity infrastructures. All right. My my question is to know how long do you think, United States, which now the superpower will remain superpower until China takes over.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, so, let's start with the questions that came to you and also the minister about many naturalism.
So I think the obvious answer is we would all prefer multilateralism. We're not doing many naturalism because we think it's cooler. But I think what it shows. So we have an increase of by 24% increase in bilateral trade agreements in the last year, which shows that the desire to cooperate is alive and kicking. And I think that is the most important thing, because if we don't have that, we don't even have the will to cooperate, then we can forget about it. But of course, I think it goes without saying, and that's why we're talking about this. We all want to go back to multilateral framework, because you are absolutely right that certain of these issues, climate change, etc., there need to be tackled together. But the good news is, it's not like the system is completely broken and nobody's talking to anybody. And then lastly on on the US, so, you know, I have a completely different reading. I think in the future, power will not be one state that controls is big, has the military, etc. I think we're moving into a network network relations. And in this network, because you have many states rising in capabilities. You know, the UAE, for instance, is a tiny state, but it's very influential because of its trade agreements, because of its connectivity. I mean, there's a whole report out there. You can Google it, relational power in the 21st century. And there you power is defined by the relationships you have and how you can influence others. So to me that means it's not a throne where you have one state sitting on it, and then that soon will be China. I think we're moving into a completely different setup, which will be a bit more chaotic to organize. But I think ultimately, more people at the table, I think is a better thing.
Thank you, Mr. Cho.
Yeah.
It's not a question of choosing multilateralism or mini multilateralism. We need everything that moves us ahead. Now, and I don't consider the speed or success of smaller formats as being a challenge to multilateral. It's just one short example with Philippines, actually, we hosted in New York with US and Canada, maritime security, conversation, because that was more important for us that are directly affected. But that wasn't a challenge to any other formats. Rather it fed into, fed into them. And one I know we're out of time, but just 30s on the very essential question of how can we go back from increasing so much the spending on military? I don't think it's now the moment I fully agree. But in the same time, and this is something I've said to the NATO Industry Forum, we hosted NATO Industry Forum hosted in Bucharest. That wasn't a very friendly crowd to say this to, but I hope you're going to be a more friendly crowd for what I'm about to say. I really think if we look on the long term, once we establish peace and this is something that we're working on, 5% of the GDP on defense, allocated in our industries is gonna indirectly create a pressure to continue that allocation and to continue that spending. I think there is a partial way to prevent that, which is invest more in the dual use at this current stage. And we are having here conversations with companies as well. If we build drones in an international format in Romania, can they be drones that also protect the border? Can they be drones that are used, for example, to help firefighters stop wildfires? But this needs to be now, because if we don't insert now that in our design and investments, it's going to be harder to adapt later.
Thank you very much. Final response from you about how do business leaders navigate in this time and what do they have to change very briefly.
So to take your question, I think it's very important to have diverse angles. Being on ethnic background, being on religion, be it on gender. So I think this is an upside. So it's not a coincidence that our firm, Roland Berger, is hosting the World Women's Forum here in in Davos. And it's against the trend. And for American competitors might be more difficult. But I really believe if you don't have that, the huge challenges I have described on the political level cannot be fixed. You need the full talent potential to to to get that managed. And I just stopped now because you are on.
Thank you very much. Thank you all for your questions. And thank you very much to my excellent panel. We could have gone on for much longer, but we've got to wrap up. So with that, please can you show your appreciation for our panel and thank you for being here.