Learn how trust is built and maintained across sectors in the World Economic Forum 2026 session ‘Who Brokers Trust Now?’ with perspectives from international experts.
At Davos, leaders argued that trust now depends less on nostalgia for a fading order and more on defending “truth and rules” while upgrading institutions to match a volatile, multipolar reality. UN General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock warned that misinformation is “a deliberate attempt to weaponize” doubt, insisting “we do not negotiate truth and facts.” She framed the UN Charter and trade rules as “common life insurance,” calling for a “cross-regional alliance” of governments and business to uphold them.
UNDP Administrator Alexander De Croo described a multipolar world as broadly positive but “in flux,” with fragility and slower growth hitting the vulnerable first. He argued the UN must improve “delivery…quality, speed,” streamline overlapping mandates, and become a “partnership machine” open to private sector and academia. Singapore President Tharman Shanmugaratnam cautioned against waiting for collapse to prompt renewal: disorder can become “self-reinforcing decline.” His “plan B” is plurilateral coalitions that act as pathfinders while reforming “plan A” institutions, including fixing consensus paralysis. International Crisis Group’s Comfort Ero stressed equity: conflicts must be treated evenly or legitimacy erodes; “international law is reduced to international niceties.” Cisco CEO Chuck Robbins said US business influence is often quiet but active, urging lessons from social media and joint governance of fast-moving AI.
Greetings and good morning from a snowy Davos on a busy Wednesday here at the World Economic Forum. It's a pleasure to see you and pleasure to be moderating what is a very high powered and exciting panel. My name is Ishaan Tharoor. I'm a global affairs columnist at the Washington Post, and we are here today this morning to discuss who brokers trust. Now, trust is an essential element of our international system, of alliances, of international business, of the functioning of our democracies. But of course, we are living in a moment, as we heard yesterday, in many speeches from world leaders, a profound rupture and transition. You you heard the Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney, talk about the fiction of the international order. Both he and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen spoke about the uselessness of nostalgia for the past. So since we are in Davos and I'm sure all of you know your Gramsci, if the old world is dying and the new one is struggling to be born, we are here today to discuss the struggle. Before I introduce the full panel, we are honored to have a special address from the president of the from the president of the UN General Assembly, Ambassador Annalena Baerbock, who, of course, was also most recently the former foreign minister of Germany. So we will begin with Miss Baerbock's remarks, and then we will have a panel presentation thereafter. Miss Baerbock, off to you.
Good morning, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, who broke his trust. A simple question. And actually, in ordinary times, there would be a simple, very short answer. Multilateral institutions like the United Nations. The General Assembly is, after all, the world's most representative body, with 193 member states, one seat, one vote, no matter how rich or strong, giving it unparalleled moral authority. We see this every September, when world leaders from all around the world come together for the so-called High-Level week. They come together no matter how much they disagree. But they know this is a place where you broker trust. But as we all know, these are unfortunately not ordinary times already. When opening the eighth session of the General Assembly in September and the high level week, there was a feeling that we were at a make or break moment at a crossroads, facing more conflicts than ever before, including the almost four year long aggression by a permanent member of the Security Council against its neighbor, a grave violation of the United Nations Charter. Yet since the beginning of this year, 2026, it has become even more clear that we are not all singing from the same songbook anymore. And due to this, more and more member states hesitate when circumstances demand principled conviction. Voices that were once outspoken in their support for all the three pillars of the United Nations Charter peace and security, sustainable development and human rights for more and more silent in the face of their erosion, the UN is not only under pressure but under outright attack. So before we kick off the debate on who broke his trust, we need to address in these times the deeper fundamental principles that are required for trust to be built and maintained. Truth and rules. So let us start with truth. As Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Ressa put it, I quote without facts, you can't have trust. Without truth, you can't have trust either. Again, in ordinary times, this would not even be worth discussing yet. Today we live in a world where fake news, falsities, mis and disinformation is kind of all over, rarely an oversight due to ignorance, but a deliberate attempt to weaponize mis and disinformation. Just at the all too often tepid response of ignoring what we know to be patently false in order to stay diplomatic is not a pure success strategy. So let me be clear. The truth is the truth. We do not negotiate truth and facts. We use them to negotiate, to broker trust. So when speaking, for example, about the High North, yes, there are different geopolitical interests and security concerns, but in no way does this make an argument that Greenlanders do not belong to Greenland and that they are not part of citizens of the Kingdom of Denmark. By this, citizens of the EU and members of NATO, they enjoying the same sovereign rights as anybody else on earth. So in these times, to uphold the truth, the basis for trust, it is even more important, as we are seeing also the developments in the digital world on artificial intelligence, especially as we all know and discuss here in Davos in many, many different forums. There are great benefits of AI from healthcare and finance, agriculture to cyber security. But we also know these tools are being used to blur lines between truth and lies, to strategically turn doubt into distrust. Many are biased and speaking as a woman and also mother of two daughters, I would like to underline that when it comes to deepfakes, they are not only gender biased, but systematically attacking women, as for example, 96%. So almost all of deepfakes are pornographic, targeting only women. Second, trust is impossible without common rules and principles, be it in politics, business or sports. As we are just having the Winter Olympic Games just around the corner, you cannot be the fastest racer and win a gold medal. If you're not playing to the rules, then you will be disqualified. Same as an investor. Why would you put your money into a business if the competition rules are totally unpredictable? Trust is built on rules. Our forbearers learned the hard way how chaotic a world without trust is. A world in which everyone pursues their interest. Rules be damned. This world ended in complete disaster. I just came from London, where we celebrated the first meeting of the General Assembly 80 years ago, back then, also in snowy London, but in ruined streets there was not even a meeting place. This is why the church had to move out of a church building to let the world in, so that 51 heads of states from the US to India, from Brazil to Saudi Arabia came together. They were acknowledging that after they had learned painfully what a lawless international order, relying on the hope of appeasement could lead to, they took a risk to trust dozens of other countries eventually, even including fauna enemies like my own country who started the Second World War not because it was easy, but because the alternative was unthinkable. They built trust, brick by brick, debate by debate, resolution by resolution. So if there is now this persistent myth again, that standing up for this international order they built 80 years ago, the rules based order system would be naive that only real politics is power. I want to be crystal clear, standing up for the rules based international order is not only the right thing to do, it is a clear act of self-interest. The founders of the United Nations understood that because they had seen what the alternative would mean in a world where might makes right, there can be only one outcome chaos and war. The UN charter is a world's common life insurance. In the same way, the International Trade and Economic order is a life insurance for businesses. UN Westminster your growth. So the answer to the question who is brokering trust is simple. Trust is brokered by those who hold up the common rules and principles, even when it's hard. Trust is brokered by those who act when action is required, even when it costs are high. Trust is brokered by those who speak the truth when silence or distortion would be easier. So the final question to our debate today, in the coming days here in Davos, is can we act in the same spirit and take similar steps together, like 80 years ago, because there won't be a magic wand for someone to fix this. So my call is the same as it was last week when addressing the UN member States too. We need a cross-regional alliance of heads of governments, but also of business leaders and economic officials to stand up for the international order, to stand up and give a positive sign that we can form this alliance. And to end on a good note, this alliance is still incredibly huge. 193 UN member states minus a handful does not equal. You don't have to be at a finance expert for that zero. It does not even equal 87. It's still a big, big majority. And also having with some of the colleagues here a very early breakfast this morning. Today we could see that multilateralism is indeed way awake. We were discussing with the largest group of the United Nations, the African countries, their African Continental Free Trade Agreement. And just imagine if you combine this with the trade agreements mentioned yesterday by the president of the EU Commission. How powerful. Joining forces on international trade and joining forces on multilateralism can be, I thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you. Ambassador Baerbock. I think you've given us a lot to chew on and think about and really set the table for this conversation wonderfully. If I could invite our panelists to come join me on the stage, and I'll introduce you all when we're seated. Thank you. So, as I said in the beginning, we have a tremendous high powered panel, to hopefully start restoring some of that trust that needs to be brokered now. Before before we begin, I'd like to remind our audience that you can join the conversation online on social media with the hashtag Wfdf 26. Please, please, start giving us your feedback and input. To my immediate left is the administration administrator of the UN Development Program, UNDP, and former Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo. To his left is the president of the Republic of Singapore, President Tharman Ratnam. We have, comfort ero, the head of the International Crisis Group and Chuck Robbins presidency is chair and CEO of Cisco. Alexander, I'd like to start with you. You. Of course, I suppose not long ago, you were prime minister of Belgium. Now you're leading a key agency within the UN system. What has the past year been like for you, given all the disruptions we've seen? And I suppose you can begin with your reflections about your own particular experience of the past year, and then tell us what you're seeing now from inside the UN system at a moment of profound transition.
Yes. I've been out of office almost a year now. It feels like it's a decade. I mean, so much has happened since, since then. Now, how I look at it is that we are finally moving into a real multi-polar world. And I think that's a good thing. We are moving into a world where, the power and the influence is very distributed, that today is in flux. It's not stabilized. It's not clear, how that should, that should function. And I agree with, with with with the president of the GA, I mean, having rules and sticking to rules is one of the key elements of building of building trust. Next to that, you have the behavior, I mean, who is influencing who. And you see that some are trying to create pools of influence, pools of, of, of of power. But in general, we should be happy with the fact that we're moving to a multipolar world. We see that innovation is happening all over the world. It's not led by the Western world the way it used to be used to be before. But what we also see, so that's the positive side. What you also see is today, more fragility, more unpredictability. And that costs. I mean, if you look at the projections of worldwide economic growth, it's estimated to be now at 2.6 2.7%. That's the lowest it has been since the 60s. And that costs especially to the vulnerable in the world when economic growth is slower. And the vulnerable in the world is a big, big group. I mean, that's at least one quarter of the population. That is a situation of vulnerability, the impact of having less economic growth. You can feel it immediately, immediately there. So it is in flux for the moment. But there are positive signs. I mean, yes, there is open criticism to multilateralism by few countries. There is many more countries that still believe that the big endeavors in the world are better off doing it together. The issue is that the ones who have their doubts are very loud. The ones who still believe in it are actually a bit too quiet, and we should be rallying much more in making clear that the big endeavors such as fighting climate change, managing migration, curbing or fighting illegal drug trade, extremism in all those big endeavors, there's no country in the world that can do it on their own. And I believe that United Nations is a very strong platform to tackle this now and then to finalize. How do we, as United Nations, help in building trust? One of them is, is is the rule based, rule based order. The second one is on delivery is on the quality, the speed, and the fact that our delivery should be should be on point. And there I think we can do better.
Terrific. And we will come back to that to talk a bit more about what how the UN can deliver in this moment. But Mr. President, on the on the rules based order, of course, Singapore, the success of Singapore is in a certain way, contingent on the functioning of the rules based order. This is a country among much larger countries in your neighborhood. You're at the you're the hub of regional trade. And the rules based order is essential for Singapore's success at a moment. Now, when much is in question, when there is flux, as the former prime minister just said, what does that mean for Singapore when we're seeing people suggest that maybe we do live in a might makes right world, what does that mean for Singapore?
Well, let me start with what's in plain sight. We are seeing the disregard for the UN charter. We are seeing equally profoundly an erosion of the norms, the conventions and the trust that has been built up over 80 years. But in many ways, our challenge now is more complex and daunting than it was in 1945. In 1945, a large part of the world was emerging from devastation, from wars that killed millions and millions of people, a breakdown of the system. And in 1945, there was a dominant power with an expansive sense of enlightened self-interest, to want to oversee the building of a new order. Bretton Woods, the United Nations, and so on. We don't have either of those conditions in place. It will be tempting to think, therefore, that things have to get worse before they can get better, before we can rebuild. But unfortunately, the danger with that is that things may not just get worse, but you might have self-reinforcing decline, a self-reinforcing decline into disorder. In other words, path dependence. And it's easy to see how that can happen, how polarization domestically can beget polarization and even become violent, how global rifts can widen and harden, and you have rivalry over whole stacks of industry and whole AI stacks. It's easy to see how financial fragility can lead to a gradual and then sudden loss of trust in reserve currencies, with instability globally. As a result, it's easy to see how AI agents can go rogue, how runaway misinformation and deepfakes can undermine trust in democracy itself. And it's very easy to see how climate change, once we cross the tipping points that are coming, takes us into completely uncharted territory. So that is too dangerous a path. We have to bend the trajectory and not see how things play out, in the hope that when things get. More damaging, the world wakes up and we start building a new world order. That is a tempting thought, but it is a false prospect. So what we have to do now is to start with what we have. And if you take a global perspective, we don't start with we don't start with complete disadvantage, the old world order or the world order we knew has left us with gains that will not be lost. The vast majority of countries believe in the international rule of law. The vast majority of countries believe that collective problems require collective solutions, and everyone has to pitch in with the right burden sharing to solve them. The vast majority do. Not everyone knows, understands the science of climate change, but the vast majority know that the planet is closing in on us. Everyone can see it. The droughts, the floods, the hurricanes, the warming. So that's an advantage. The best surveys also show that the vast majority of people, citizens in different countries, including in the United States, by the way, believe in the importance of global cooperation and even compromise between nations in order to serve national interests. The vast majority have not lost faith in global cooperation. And very interestingly and importantly, the surveys also show that in societies where people trust each other domestically, there's also a higher degree of faith in international cooperation and international organizations. So we're starting with the gains that were accumulated over 80 years and have not been lost. And that's not a bad starting point. And what we have to do now, therefore, is to build a plan B, not in a wide eyed fashion, not with just with the idealism of of wanting to do good for the world, although it's important that we should have that idealism. But plan B that recognizes that national interests will prevail. And there's enough of an intersection between national interests and the global good that we all depend on. And that means building up the plurilateral alliances that are already now gaining momentum. And one of the reasons they're gaining momentum this may be a blessing in disguise, is that April the 2nd, 2025, and a whole host of other events has prompted greater momentum, greater urgency for Mercosur to tie up with the EU in an FTA after 30 years of negotiation. Was was was not just an accident of history. It was a response for the EU to start talking now to the to create what will potentially be a very large alliance of countries around free trade and investment, around the norms that allow for growth and innovation to be spread is a real achievement. So build up the plurilateral but do not repudiate plan A, do not repudiate plan A the system still has to have a center of gravity in international institutions and the rules and the norms that have governed us rather well, not perfectly, but rather well for 80 years. Do not undermine the rule of law, do not undermine the most favoured nation. Principle and national treatment in the WTO do not undermine the Paris Agreement, which, even if not everyone agrees, and even if it's not very effective because it doesn't have a system of enforcement, has led us to a much better place ten years on than we were in 2015, we are still short of action. We still need to do a lot more with much greater urgency, but we are in a better place. So strengthen and reform the international institutions and it may need significant reform, including to the whole system of consensus based decision making, that several international organizations have been beset by and has prevented them from moving forward on critical new areas of cooperation. So build up the Plurilateral alliances and use them as pathfinders to to strengthen plan A to strengthen multilateralism. Multilateralism itself. Let's not be too tempted by the idea that Multi-polarity will suddenly appear and sort out the problems of the world. It can just as well be a more unstable world. Be careful what we wish for. I think we now have to build up alliances of countries small, medium sized and very often the large powers as well around areas of common interest. We do have a common interest in AI safety, in safety from a climate that is getting less liveable with each decade. We do have a common interest in open trade and investment to provide for growth and prosperity in the developed world, as well as for the large proportion of people in the advanced countries. There's so much common ground, so build on it and move forward amongst a solid core of countries with enough motivation to want to go beyond what we've already agreed on in the multilateral institutions, the plurilateral alliances, but never lose sight of the need to reform the key international institutions and the United Nations.
Thank you. That's a tremendously helpful and clear eyed vision into this. And we'll come back to some of the questions, reforms that you talked about. But comfort as somebody, your organization, the International Crisis Group, works with the collapse, with the failures of plan A, right. You know, a year ago on stage here at Davos, we talked about you mentioned to me, that we're in a crisis of peacemaking, that that the international system, as such as it is, has failed to end wars in so many different contexts. Now, I don't know if President Trump has made your life easier this past year or not, but. From your perspective, could you give a sense of you operate in areas where trust is fully collapsed and you think about conflicts and scenarios where there is no trust? How is how does the current order, offer Guideposts or guide to to managing this and where is it? Completely failed.
Thank you. And I want to thank the president for outlining, an alternative sort of vision, of what the future could look like. And I think it's a nice sort of, addition bookmark to what we heard also from Prime Minister Carney yesterday. So thank you for, reinforcing plan A, but there is a plan B, which is which I think is always sort of intersected with, with with plan A. Anyway, so that was a very good, good narrative and an important one that needs to be heard more often. And you do need more countries, particularly in the so-called global north, to be defending the idea of cooperation. And I think, to be frank, that's often been lacking. I mean, you said it yourself, Madam President, also, you know, and Prime Minister Carney, I was struck by his line. We've been living in living in a lie, and it's quite jarring when you hear it coming from what you see as a country that belongs in the Western, in the northern hemisphere, to admit something that, by the way, 183 of those countries have long believed that they've always sensed that. Well, might is right. You know, that we have to play along to get along, that our survival hinges on being on the right side of the more powerful countries for us to survive. So to hear a country from the North recognize the illusion, recognize that there is a rupture and there is no pretense, that something has been factoring in. Plan A was a very reassuring, truthful message as well. The question now is how you do that, how that has been outlined in what you're talking about and what Prime Minister Carney said and what you said yourself, madam. Madam president, so to your point, I think there are a number of things that are actually troubling at the at the at the moment, we are talking at a time where, since you and I spoke last year, we are talking about a rise in in wars and 60 conflicts. Live conflicts beyond your Ukraine's, beyond your Gaza. And I'd even say beyond, Sudan as well. That are, that are bubbling away and a number of them are off the radar as well. So if you're trying to build a trustworthy world, you've got to also make sure that you're dealing with the same, hand, with the same urgency, with the same capacity that you're using to bear on those more conflicts that are at the attention of the world. You've got to use them evenly with all the other conflicts as well. If you're going to begin to restore trust, if you're going to restore legitimacy, if you're going to restore honesty, then people need to know that my conflict, my issue, counts in the same way as the other ones that concern, the more powerful countries. That's that's one lesson that has come out from Ukraine and Gaza and, and Sudan as well, that if you don't deal evenly with human suffering and human pain, then you're going to get this trust deficit. You're going to get questions about the legitimacy of multilateralism, not just by the United Nations, but even within the European Union and other multilateral entities. I would even add, you know, even the African multilateral entities are question marks about its missing in action is absent as well. The other issue that I think is worrying is that there's there's this normalization of war as though there's a there's an expectation that war is inevitable. It's not inevitable as well, that you can have a very cavalier approach, that you can decide with a stroke that a country that you can, that you can go into a country and declare your own sovereign right over another country. One of the very basic principles of the United Nations Charter, in which a number of countries that were coming out of colonization ascribed to was a principle of non-aggression. And there's this tendency today to assume that, oh, I can expand into another territory on the basis of what we don't know. So I think we've got to be very clear about complacency and don't think, think this is normal. You both talked in your in your different ways about as well. Again, this is cavalier talk. That because we are powerful therefore we can we can do you know and I can control my my backyard the Western hemisphere with the assumption that another will control our backyard as well if we normalize this tie to rhetoric, if we normalize this kind of narrative, I struggle to see how we get to plan B. So I hope there are a number of people who will accompany you in outlining this vision, because you're right when you're both saying you're different ways that 183 countries do not necessarily ascribe to this way of of living, there is a crisis of, of of peacemaking. But there is also new energy in the, in, in the room. The question is how you convert a number of these truces, a number of these deals, a number of these ceasefires into a more comprehensive peace agreement. So we need a cast of characters that are going to step in, to fill the vacuum, to do the hard work of making sure you stay the day after. Beyond the the glamour of the theatrics, beyond signing the peace agreement, there is hard work to be done, and there's a tendency to sign the peace and walk away. So if you want to build the trust deficit, if you want to create the sense that we're all in it together, that humanity is equal, that one person suffering is everybody's suffering, that you're not be left behind, that I will get the same treatment in my war, whether it's in the DRC, whether it's in the Sahel, whether it's in Sudan, whether it's in Myanmar, that you will equally treat me in the same way. That is the only way you can get to plan B. There has to be an understanding of equity in everybody's suffering as well. So I think the future of the multilateralism that we're trying to build has been fractured, because there's a sense that we were not in it together. There was a sense that we didn't care about other people's communities. So I want to endorse your plan B, but the plan B must be there must be a clear understanding about cooperation, not naivete, because I think you're right that there has to be enlightened self-interest. And we do believe in national interest. It's not narcissism, it's not altruistic. You have to care about it. But there has to be equality. And that's got to be the vision that accompanies your plan B. So thank you very much. I want to endorse and back what you've just what you've just articulated with with the president as well. Thank you.
Thank you. That idea of equity and suffering and understanding that it's very powerful. I fear we're very far away from a fully a full appreciation of that. Chuck, thank you for your patience. You're a representative from the American business world. The international business world. So I'd love to ask you. We've seen a lot of disruption this year. We've seen the launching of trade wars, in the United States, the attacks on the integrity of the fed. Questions about the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the kind of pillars of how we used to think about the economy and, and its functioning. So in this context, is there a new normal that's emerging that you're trying to navigate in from the business sector? What does it look like for you?
Well, first of all, thanks for having me. And, we'll comment more about what you all were talking about with multilateralism, but I'll answer your question first. It is a new normal. I mean, all all of the business community in the United States. And we have relationships all around the world. We have relationships in countries represented here. And and for the most part, we have great relationships. And we're working hard to to be a part of this multilateralism where it makes sense. I think that for us, it's a it's an interesting, dynamic relative to the pace of change and the and the uncertainty that we're all facing. And, and so I joke with my team, it's like every morning you wake up and you look at your phone immediately to see how is my day going to be completely changed because of something that happened overnight. And more often than not, these days, that's actually the case. And so, I think that, you know, the other thing I would comment on is there's there's a lot of people who, have expressed concerns over the U.S. business community not being vocal. And, I want to just I want to clarify that because I think it's it's it's not, it's not entirely as it may be viewed. When we think about our interactions with governments around the world, we have to start with what's what's the best way to achieve the outcome that we want to achieve and to help influence these decisions and hopefully, ways that are constructive for everything that we're all talking about here today, with this administration publicly doing that is actually not the way to be effective. And that's just the reality. And it may or may not feel good, but that's the reality. But I think everyone here should know that there are there's a massive contingent of U.S. CEOs who are spending a ton of time in Washington, D.C., trying to influence and trying to actually help get to positive outcomes that maintain some of the norms that we've all talked about and you all have been talking about here today. So first of all, I want you to know that's occurring. The most effective way for us to have an impact is in small groups, in with certain members of the administration, in private rooms. That's how that's how it's going to happen. So the the final thing I'd say is when you start thinking about multilateralism, it's been discussed in the context of country to country. And what I would suggest is that you you include other stakeholders, and and companies who have been around. We're 40 years old. I think this is our 29th World Economic Forum. So we've been here a long time. And we have tried to operate on a global basis, very much under the pretense of trust. It's just and there are a lot of companies that have done that. An example is we we trained we have we have educational programs that we run around the world. And in our last fiscal year, we trained 5.4 million students around the world. We've gone into areas where there have been tragedies, and we come in and bring education and we help to do. And there's other companies doing the same thing. And so what I would want to make sure we leave here with is that there are lots of U.S. companies who want to be a part of ensuring that we move forward constructively and favorably. We can talk about the work we're doing in Europe. As an example, we went into our portfolio and we created a whole set of sovereign offers within our tech stack to achieve the needs and the desires of the countries. That said, hey, look, I need to be able to control this a little more, I need to, I need to be able to control my technology destiny a little more. And I think there's a way to do that where we actually provide our technology in a way that is different than how we have in the past. And we we launched an entire portfolio of sovereign offers in Europe in response to countries desire to have more control over their tech stack. So those are the kinds of things that I think we can all work on together. And, and I can't speak for every other company in the U.S., but I know there are a lot who feel the same way. And, we look forward to working with everybody on it.
Thank you. Thank you. Chuck, I think you're putting on the table some interesting transformations of the idea of sovereignty, and especially at a moment when sovereignty is paramount in the international conversation. That's that's great to have on board. Alex, if I can come back to you, you've heard some comments about the UN system. And I have a two pronged question. First, of course, we've seen the Trump administration withdraw from dozens of international agencies and organizations, some of them affiliated with the UN. The UN has gone through a major budget transformation and cuts and restrictions. Why should we not imagine that the UN system is fundamentally weakened by these developments? And then the second question, which is slightly different, but the president gestured to this, how essential is Security Council reform? And without it, what can we what does it mean for the UN?
Well, maybe start with that. Is that for many people, UN Security Council is the first thing they know, the first thing they see when they think about the UN. Today the Security Council is weakened, could even say even say blocked very, very often. And so that basically permeates over the rest of the organization. The fact that that it that it is blocked and that there is let's be clear, there's no trust for the moment between the permanent between the permanent five. I think the secretary general and many others have been have been very clear about the fact that UN Security Council reform is necessary. And I think many of you talked about how the UN was built out of out of the Second World War. The world has changed quite a bit since then. In where the balance of power is and where the economic power is and where the issues are today. So also from my perspective, that's paramount to move, to move, to move forward, forward there. And you will need some people who take the leadership and saying, look, I have the power, but also the moral authority to move forward in, in, in this. So, so to me.
Would expansion be enough or would you have to reconsider the veto as well?
I think both, yeah, sure. Both. In in can you veto and for which reasons then how often can you, can you, can you veto. My feeling is that the pieces of the puzzle are on the table, and that it's ready to move, to move forward, but it can only move forward with some people with moral authority who say, you know, this is the right thing to do, and even the most powerful.
Countries in the world. I don't believe that being isolated is a good position to be in in the world that we are, and I'm convinced that in the next months that will become clear, and that might be the trigger in moving, moving forward. Now, the first part of your question, is the UN in general weakened by the, the fact that, for example, the United States withdraw out of tens of different, organizations? Yes, I think so. But the answer of the United Nations can only be let's get better. Let's and we have to be clear, I mean, over the past decades, it has grown and very often at the demand of the member states, but it has grown into many, many, many organizations with overlapping mandates, who are not adapted to the world of today, where speed is the key thing. It's all about how fast can you, how fast can we be? And for the moment, that's for many of the programs, agencies and others. Not, not not the case. Now, what's the way forward? There is a reform program, Unnati, which, is and I think for the next General Assembly high level meeting, General Assembly Week, many things will be, will be will be an implementation from my perspective. That's the first step. And I think a big second step will have to, will have to come, to further streamline it, to make it more cost effective and to make it an organization that in a world of today where the the issues we deal with are so interlinked is even more than today, I would say a partnership machine. I mean, it's not fair to say, well, you know, for all these, all these, these issues, the United Nations have to have to solve it. I don't believe in the fact that that would be the answer. The answer will be an organization that is very open to working with the private sector, very open to work with academics, with others. And it's a bit the philosophy of the World Economic Forum. It's a multi-stakeholder approach, and I think the United Nations will have to reform into that direction.
Thank you for that, Mr. President. I'd be curious if any reactions or thoughts about the UN reform as being discussed. But beyond that, in your earlier remarks, you talked about this kind of emerging flexible multilateralism or plurilateral ism, as you said. And I see that especially for Singapore, which is in such a crowded neighborhood. But if we accept that perhaps there are some great powers that see the world differently now, they see spheres of influence. Singapore is also at the heart of a US-China competition. And how do you pair your desire for a flexible multilateralism with the obvious geopolitical pressures that Singapore faces caught between the U.S. and China?
Well, let me, you made several points there, so let me address them in turn quickly. I think, the US and China, will have to recognize that it's in their own interests, their own national interests, to accommodate each other. They will compete, furiously in new technologies and for economic supremacy. That will not be without benefit for the rest of the world, because the innovations that are coming out of this competition, if distributed well globally, will lead to mass flourishing at a global level. But they will need to exercise more restraint, in some areas, and particularly where things can get out of control, AI being an example and of course, nuclear war being the other. So competition with restraint, isn't there interest? I don't think it's beyond current leadership and any future leadership of these two superpowers to recognize that and to want that. On flexible multilateralism, on the way the Plurilateral can act as pathfinders to strengthen the multilateral organizations. I would say we've got to go about this with some conviction. It's not just a defensive move. It's not just because we've got our backs against the wall. We're actually trying to build something which is needed and doesn't yet exist, because there are whole new areas of the economy, e-commerce and everything digital, virtually everything that has to do with cross-border and digital, for which the rules are not yet in place, the standards are not yet in place. And achieving complete international consensus is going to take time. But groups of countries, if you look at the WTO, 72 countries have already agreed on what's called a little cumbersome way joint statement initiative on e-commerce. But it basically means we're smoothening out the rules to allow for digital trade and for e-commerce. In economic relations generally, 72 countries quite quickly large, small, large, medium size and small with a common mind. And there's a very good chance that eventually you get a fuller consensus at the WTO, which is 166 countries. But let me come back to something fundamental. It is significant that people who trust each other at home, in their own countries, have greater interest and faith in cooperation internationally. So we want to build a positive and resilient international order, positive and resilient. If you want to build a decent world order, it has to start at home. It has to start with strengthening relations at home between people from different in different socioeconomic status circumstances and people who provide different contributions to prosperity. Start with where people are. Start with their hopes and their fears, and what most people want is a secure job, a good job, and one where they have the dignity of knowing that they're contributing. And that is still has to be the center of public policy in all our economies and societies, providing good jobs in an era where technology can be a very powerful enabler. But it can also be a displacer, and we don't want to wait and see how it plays out. We've got to act preemptively through more effective skilling, more real time feedback to ensure that skilling is effective and in demand by companies and the economy, and more ways in which we give everyone the sense that they're not on their own once they leave school and they enter a workforce, and there they are for 40 years, having to fend for themselves, give them the sense that there's this continuous infusion or investment in their human capital and the dignity of them, knowing that they'll be able to contribute in new ways in future. I think that has to be central. Second, we have to pay more attention to those who lose out, not just paying attention to the aggregates. And overall prosperity is extremely important. It's important for everyone to be to see that sort of ladder of progress. But there will be people who lose out because that's in the nature of creative destruction. Pay more attention to them. Don't let problems fester if someone is displaced and if a community is displaced, address it quickly. Find new solutions. Find new industrial policies. Develop opportunities for public private sector cooperation, to even bring in new economic activities, but don't allow problems to fester. Because that, too is a lesson of the last 20 to 30 years of globalization. Globalization worked. It led to a remarkable increase in living standards everywhere, including in the most advanced nations. But it left pockets of those who were dispossessed or dislocated. And that was the real lesson domestic policy failure. So if we can address that and rebuild trust, rebuild trust in national economic strategies with everyone knowing that they are going to have something in it for themselves and they can contribute it themselves, contribute to national prosperity themselves. I think we then have a better chance at building resilient international alliances for the global good.
Thank you. I mean, I think this is a great transition to you comfort. You know, when we talk about, given the emphasis on national interest, in the global conversation now, how much in your work and in, in, in the conflicts that you're hoping can be, you know, can no longer be festering or can be resolved? Do you feel beholden simply to national governments getting their act together? And you made a very strong moral appeal earlier, but what are some of the more substantive international political legal mechanisms that you want to see? More, more robustly working in this current moment?
I mean, just to be clear, you know, politics matters. And it's even more glaring than it was before. And those international instruments, the laws, the treaties, the norms, their their ability to continue to matter, and to be effective does reside in how different states are willing to ensure that they're employed and used effectively. And you talked about it the last 20 years. We don't even have to go that far. We are seeing the norms, the laws, the treaties, sort of effectively, being broken, you know, when international law is reduced to international niceties, you know, you're in a new, completely different, era when you're told that if you don't comply or if you don't comply, then the result is coercion, then you know, you're in a, you're moving to a different, period as well. And when the architect, you know, of the international sort of framing of multilateralism is clearly now having buyer's remorse or buyer's architectural remorse, then you know that you're also heading towards, or wrong direction. So we've got a lot of work to do. But I do fundamentally believe we're watching a number of actors that we often depended upon are all going through their own domestic crises and in various different ways as well. So that is a reality check in itself, that the countries you're often depended on to help be the drivers and the engine, to help, you know, ensure that the governance that the collective security system itself holds, even if in practice, oftentimes it's in breach. When there is a crisis in those centers, then it becomes difficult to make sure that you underpin the system going forward. And I think that's what is also different this time. The last time I think we we saw this was in in the 60s and the Vietnam War. But since then you've had, nine over 11, you've had Iraq, you've had 2007, and then the globalization. And then you began to see the reality of some of those domestic issues. So I think that's one factor to to remember. Look, the theme of this session, is about who brokers trust as well. And you talked about Security Council, reform. The one thing that will bind the P-5 will be the veto. They're going to guard it with their lives. And this is the one thing that they'll be unified upon, which is why there is a trust deficit as well. People do not a number of the states that are interested or have made the case to be members of a new type of Security Council do not necessarily believe that that reform initiative will take place, that there's lip service paid to it, and that the P5 themselves will cling on in various ways to, to the veto. So how else do you get to the to that more sort of systematic, honest, reform that you're talking about. So it does matter who's at the table. It does matter. And there's some innovations that are taking place at the UN about the pen holder who shares that, who's at the table making sure that all the key, all the right actors are at the table. But I also want to make it clear that although the UN is the pivotal multilateral body, there are other places where multilateralism is taking place near your in your region. President as well.
What about President Trump's Board of Peace?
I was going to actually come to that and say that it's a it's a challenge. You asked the question about, you know, his version of peace, and I'm not about to do a scorecard, but this is what I meant, that when when the chief architect of this body, now begins to question what they bought into. And it raises questions about how you restore even trust in that, in that community in the United States as well. I mean, there are some things that I think he's put on the table that do require, serious debate around the imbalance, around the inefficiencies, around the effectiveness. But we've been talking about this for a long time. But it is a challenge. And especially when you have a 100, one, $1 million bill, I think, attached to that. That's not the Security Council. That's a whole different ball game altogether.
Maybe there's a ballroom ballroom of peace as well.
A ballroom of peace with glitz and everything. Yeah.
Chuck, I would like to, in the last few minutes, give you the last word here. You know, I think there are some who may be watching this conversation, where we're talking a lot about the international system and may think that we're sort of talking about deck chairs on the Titanic when there's this big wave coming of AI and technological transformation that, really presents, with a presents us with a huge scale of, I mean, kind of vast scale of questions and, and, and challenges from what are we missing here in this conversation about trust that you, as a tech company CEO, are more focused on?
Well, I'll make a couple of comments. Number one, I'm going to connect back to Mr. President's comments about, these communities. And it's exactly right. That's exactly what occurred during globalization in the United States. There are communities of people who have felt left behind, and that's part of what has led to where we are today as a country. And and they're just pure desire for something different than what we've had in the past, because it hasn't worked. And so and I'll get back to the fact that I think companies can actually be a part of that solution. We've been very involved in issues like homelessness in the United States. We have as part of our 40 year anniversary, we we chose 40 communities around the world where we wanted to go invest and help rebuild and build them up. And I think, again, it's not just about us. There's other companies that are doing the same thing. So I think that's a that's another area where these stakeholders, I think can work in this multilateral way. On the AI front, we we don't have much time left. I think it fits into this category, though, whether you're talking about cybersecurity, sovereign solutions, AI, I think countries and all of us need to find companies and and organizations that we trust, because there are lots of organizations that you can trust. The trust still exists and and work together to actually think about regulation, think about the moral hazards, think about and then have the companies actually take ownership to some extent in having, ensuring that we are not utilizing the technology, utilizing AI in a way that is improper. You got to have the moral high ground, you got to be transparent. You have to be open and interact with governments. This thing is moving so fast. And we learned we should have learned a lot from what we saw happen with social media. We should have learned a lot, and we should not make those same mistakes with AI as we're going. And it's going to it's moving at a much faster pace. But we realize things that are completely unchecked can have super negative outcomes. And so I just think it's another great example of where we should be working more closely together. And I'm going to shut up since we're out of time.
Well, I appreciate it. This is a conversation we could have for another hour for sure. Thank you so much to our wonderful panel. And hopefully this is the beginning of a conversation that will lead to positive outcomes here in Davos. Thank you very much.
Thank you.