Oxford Debate LIVE: Will Asia's Rise Lead to a New World Order?

as you're all aware today's motion is Asia's rise will lead to a New World Order while you vote let me outline what we are debating today the world is undeniably going through a time of major change and the rise and development of Asian countries especially China are a key factor this Century has been hailed as the Asian century and there is a widespread sense that the unipolar moment we experience after the fall of the Soviet Union is ending Asian countries are clearly more engaged on the global stage think of China's ambitious belt and Road initiative

aiming to reshaped Global infrastructure or the recently expanded bricks Group which wants to be a platform for the global South and which includes both India and China but we're also seeing intensifying strategic competition between the US and China war in Ukraine and the Middle East as well as expanding conflicts around Taiwan technology and how to address Global issues like climate change the current International System I think we can all agree seems IL equipped to deal with any of these so will the system inevitably have to change will we see a more complex multi-polar order or

even a new cold war is the era of Western dominance coming to an end or will the Deep Global interlinkages in trade and Technology prevent any fundamental change and keep the current system intact perhaps with some adjustments in short will Asia's rise lead to a new world order thank you for your votes I will close the poll now and I hope you have all had a chance to vote now it's finally time to introduce our teams as is customary I will keep the introductions very very short you have their bias on our website so that

leaves more time for the debate arguing in favor of tonight's motion here to my right are abigil vasel who is the director for policy and European Affairs at Merck The marato Institute of Chinese studies based in Berlin she was previously working for the European external Action Service kind of the foreign Ministry of the EU and the European Council on Foreign Relations joining her to argue in favor of the motion that Asia's rise will lead to a new world order it's John delri he's a professor for modern Chinese history at yans University in Soul currently a

fellow at the American Academy in Rome he's also a senior fellow at the Pacific Century Institute and a senior fellow at the Asia soci you're a fellow in many places on the other side arguing against the motion that Asia's rise will lead to a New World Order Julia Gunter who is the program director for international Affairs at the Berlin based kba Foundation where she also has the emerging middle Powers initiative about which we hopefully can hear some more later and joining her is John Lee director at the consultancy eastwest Futures researcher at the lien Asia

Center previously also working for the aforementioned mer as well as the Australian government thank you all very much for being here tonight without further Ado I will ask the team arguing in favor of the motion and Abigail baselier to deliver her opening remarks which will be timed at exactly five minutes abigel you have the floor thank you ladies and gentlemen good evening and I think no one would have doubt that the new word would be driven by Asia and centered around China think about the clothes you're wearing they're coming from India from Bangladesh maybe from

Pakistan but let's face it this is the old word think about the car you're going to be driving in like 5 years is it going to be a rolling iPad that is made in China because I think so China has technology we don't have China has potential we no longer have and this is the word of tomorrow since the 1980s the word has been talking about the Asian Century as a potential but this is no longer a potential I think we can acknowledge that a the Asian continent has emerged from uh 30 years of political

changes from an incredible economic growth and let's be honest for every one of you having a company today is there a second market like China or like India with Indian potential no there is certainly not and actually in 2021 uh Brookings Institute predicted that the top four consumer markets in 2030 would be China India Indonesia and the us so you have a case for Asia being the next Consumer Market that we are not going to be able to replace so in reality I will argue that Asia's rise is on a speed and on AA trajectory

that no one of you had anticipated and even us as Asia experts and China is going to be the engine of it um the demographics are very clear with an incredible integration in Global Supply chains the large demographic wave that we are seeing coming from the Asian continent is simply going to translate into a big consumer Market which we're all going to benefit and today there is a reason why Europe exchange on a daily basis 2.3 billion EUR per day with China so we can have doubts and we can der risk and we can put

Economic Security as a motor of our economic trajectory but at the end of the day the Asia rise will lead to the New World Order and there is no doubt about that so Asia could account for over half of global output by the middle of the century and I think I've made my case for the global integration then who which country can today claim that it has lifted 800 million out of poverty in less than one generation this is China so we may disagree with the Chinese model but today when African countries or Latin American

countries are looking at China's development this is what they're seeing and this is a big appealing model uh for these countries Asia will become if not already a technological Hub in 2023 the International Federation of robotic declared that 33 of all newly deployed industrial robots were actually installed in Asia so Asia has the capacity and has the demand for becoming a technological leader and this comes with a price and the price is the def the definition of a new geopolitical balance and our future is intertwined every time China's economy is slowing down our economy can

feel it every time the financial Market is shaking in Asia we can feel it this is our new reality and if tomorrow there was to be a crisis in the Taiwan Strait it would cost us um two trillion two billion sorry NO2 trillion dollar in a blockade scenario this gives you a sense that Asia is the place of Crisis and also opportunity so yes China is going to be the inj that is going to reshape the new world with that comes the question of us China tensions with that comes the question of what are our

partners in the global CS going to think whether the Chinese Bel and Road initiative is an attractive model for redefining the rules-based international order or not but I think no one would have doubts that what we are looking at today is a new world order that is going to be reshaped by Asia finally the question for us today is whether we want to acknowledge the trend of Asia's rise recognize it and adapt to it and make sure that we have a space in which we live in this new world or we live in denial thank

you very much Abigail vasel five minutes almost exactly to the clock nicely done I'm moving it right along to the team arguing against the motion Julia Gunter you also have 5 minutes on the clock the floor is yours ladies and gentlemen good evening I want to be provocative and actually claim in the next couple of minutes that today's today's motion that we are arguing is not based on one but two false assumptions first that it's only Asia's rise that we need to look at to understand how the world order is going to develop and second

that we will see a new world order emerge now on the first false assumption there is no way to neglect that Asia is on the rise and we have just heard it however um I want to give you three examples why we really should also consider other countries I call them emerging middle Powers outside of Asia um to understand the changes that will go on in our world order first considering economic indicators in 2024 11 of the 20 fastest growing economies will be based on the African continent second um demographic factors um while China South

Korea and also Japan they really CH they're really challenged by an aging population and all the economic problems that this brings with we see that in on the African continent 60% of the population is under the age of 25 this brings an enormous demographic dividend and a lot of opportunities and chances as we can currently see when we look at the African startup sector that is driven by young Africans and um they have managed to raise funds of 3.3 billions in 2023 and I think that's a good example the third example that I want to

give you are Global challenges and the biggest challenge that we all face is climate change um we have to tackle that challenge there's no way around it and this will lead to new leadership the Amazon rainforest is a place that is really crucial for tackling the climate change and 60% of the Emison rainforest are based on the Brazilian territory we have already heard from the Brazilian leadership that they want to assume such a leadership Ro globally and they will host the next climate conference cop 30 in 2025 in Belling and they also put in their

G20 presidency sustainability as a centerpiece of their agenda so to sum it up there's much happening outside of Asia and with these countries Rising we will also see new leaders emerge now about those countries and about the second false assumption uh that I want to tackle that we will see a new order emerge Asia and I think Asia itself doesn't want a new order emerge but even if it were so it uh would need others to help it to make this massive change going on and the countries I just talked about these emerging middle Powers

they really have no interest in such a big change they status quo Powers um we have recently um done a survey at Kong that indicates that policy makers in emerging middle powers 61% of them they prefer a reform of the United Nations security Council not a replacement and they also have 40% of them really high hopes that the G20 as an institution will tackle the challenges in the future these are two institutions and groupings that are part of our existing order so there's really no interest in um replacing the key elements of our current order

the UN system the um international globalized trade or also um the also common binding bodies for international law there's also important documents that underline that there is really an interest in reform and Improvement of the international order in these countries an example is the iseni consensus a proposal of the African Union on how the United Nations could be reformed um another example is their last T20 leaders declaration from India that indicates that the World Trade Organization is really crucial for our multilateral Trade Agreement despite all of the problems it has so I think these um

examples show that there these are all no calls for revolution they are calls for reform calls for improvement and um in these countries and in those regions there's even positive examples that even if it takes time Improvement can happen in those reforms one example is the fact that the African Union joined the G20 just last year another example is the African Union itself that um that emerged from a reform process uh within Africa of the organization of um African countries and with that I hand it back to Nico thanks thank you very much Julia for

the opening remarks arguing against the motion it's now time for rebuttal where each team has the chance to add more Arguments for their site but also to rebut some of the arguments that we've already heard uh the first rebuttle goes to the team arguing in favor of the motion John delori the floor is yours for 5 minutes okay thank you Nico and uh welcome everyone so that was an interesting move by by Julia the way I would interpret what you've heard so far is Abigail did such a perfect job proving the motion that uh Julia

redefined the terms of the motion and made a a a very impressive speech uh in ter terms of Africa's rise and Latin America's rise uh leading to a New World Order and and convincing but our proposition is Asia's rise and so the arguments already made by Abigail establishing the rise uh of Asia and the transformation of the old world order I think still stand even if we agree with most or all of uh the points that Julia made uh and and the second uh key point in the other side's opening statement in terms of um

countries around the world again not particularly focused on on Asia but globally uh that there's not really an alternative Vision um to the existing International institutions we're not we're not debating that we don't really have to debate that the question of whether there's Revolution or reform again is sort of to the side of the key question which is is the current the status quo World Order sort of unraveling before our eyes and is a new world order uh emerging out of that and is Asia central to that transformation so with with that rebuttal let me

also try to reinforce a little bit um our attempt and and in a way mirror some of the moves that uh that the other side has made in terms of really getting us to think more about the proposition because you know the proposition contains kind of these three premises that Asia is rising which we've which we've I think Abigail's convincing ly established that some kind of New World Order uh will emerge it's a future tense it's not has emerged that it's that it's will emerge and that Asia's rise is in the middle of that in

some way leading it um I I want to maybe even question the premise that Nico gave us in terms of what do we mean when we talk about these World orders you know what's the status quo World Order and and what might the future uh this new world order look like and in particular here for forgive me since I'm trained as a historian I have to try my best to bring some dates into the discussion and some historical background uh into the debate and I would argue uh against some of the framing and against certainly

a lot of the language that policy makers and diplomats would use for example in Washington that the world order is not you'll often hear the term again in the US discourse the international rules-based order which has apparently existed since 1945 uh as a historian that's hard for me to accept it's hard for me to buy there was maybe a a brief moment from 1944 to 1947 where there was such a thing as an international rules-based order and that did Lay certain foundations that still exist some of those uh the other side mentioned in their opening

in terms of basic International institutions most obviously the United Nations but already by 1947 and certainly when you get to 1950 the Korean War you know I come to you from the Korean peninsula where you can forget about about the importance of the Korean War but throughout the entire Cold War period really the world order was not premised on International cooperation and internationalism it was premised on superpower rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union so there are almost kind of two orders already a very brief internationalist order and then a long period of

bipolarity in the Cold War which ends obviously with the fall of the Soviet Union ushering in this moment of American unipolarity I think this question of you know and and I think we may try to come back to this throughout the discussion the question of us hegemony and US power is really what we're talking about when we say the current the status quo world order that that unipolar dominance and hegemony that the United States enjoyed in the wake of its victory over the Soviet Union in the Cold War that's really what we saw it the

United States sustain through certainly the Heights in the 1990s but also then the depths of the global war on terror and it's kind of then through the economic crisis of uh 2008 and the global financial crisis and at this point we're living I think in historical terms in this transitional moment where it's kind of this old man who ran his race and is just staggering to the finish line but the capacity is dwindling meanwhile again as Abigail already established it's not only China but driven by the centrality of the rise of China Asia is creating

some future New World Order none of which we know will you know the exact uh description of okay I'm out of time thank thank you nicely wrapped up just in time thank you for the rebuttle from the team arguing in favor of the motion and that of course brings us to the rebuttle from the team arguing against John Lee who has been taking copious notes I see so we're looking forward to having those condensed in 5 minutes all right thanks Nico and I have to thank John for finishing on that note of confusion as to

the other side's argument as to whether this is about the rise of China or about the rise of Asia because I would accept the proposition that China is indeed an engine but that's only half the picture because it's an engine that works as part of an independent system and china Rose and is still Rising as part of this system which includes not just the other Asian countries but also what we call traditionally the First World um the US aligned Rich economies of which the country we are sitting in is a part in fact Independence still

rules and that goes from both ends of this order not just from the developing country side but also from that of the wealthy countries which for their part still hold the commanding Heights in technology um that the Asian World China included still relies on to drive that economic growth which is said to be cre ating this new world order for that matter China itself um everyone knows now um is facing D rats as a result of being potentially cut off from these core Technologies chips Etc by action from Washington and its Advanced allies and indeed

all the argument overc capacity you read about shows how the rich country markets are still important not just to China but to developing countries because of course even if we talk about the developing world as a whole we are talking not about replacement but about reform of a common International order and despite what the other side has tried to argue this is exactly the difference that matters we are not talking about a new order but a rebalanced one one in which um developing countries are still wanting to hold to fundamental concepts like West failan sovereignty

a global Collective system in the UN what they want and this goes for China as much as any of the others is simply a re shifting of power that allows them to pursue their interests and is more Equitable from their Viewpoint whether it's in terms of the application of international law um between Ukraine and Gaza or when it comes to the rebalancing of the global trade system no one is arguing for a return to pre westphalian concepts of organization whether we're talking about the Roman Empire or about a sinocentric tributary system finally I think we

need to look again when we talk about the rise of a new order um at what forces um might push back against it and I think it's important to understand that one reason you will not see a decisive different order is that the rich countries which control the key Technologies still in many respects um are not incentivized to align against China as we have seen from the practice or rather the lack of it of decoupling or drisking the reality is that and we must talk about what's possible in reality not in theory the political costs

of building an alternative block that would be the mirror to this so-called new order that is supposedly arising around China um the costs are so high as to be unsustainable in political terms in Europe the United States the other advanced economies I mean think about it would you go out and convince those Farmers striking in Berlin or in Amsterdam um that they should subsidize hundreds of billions of Euros um to reshore supply chains that can be more cheaply located in Asia um over the next few decades what we are seeing instead is a push from

all sides to redefine the existing system on terms that will be more advantageous whether it's in terms of the risk drisking and reassuring on the advanced economies or of a greater slice of the pie on the part of the developing world yet all of that is fundamentally taking place within the rules of the road which go back not just in 1945 but indeed to the rise of the Western countries and the way that they completely redefined um the international order as I said um West faan sovereignty and a collective system of international law that no

country whether it's China or the United States um is seeking to replace with something else and again this is what we see reflected in the actual practice of our world today thank you very much and again also job incredibly well done and sticking to your time those were the opening remarks and rebuttal from both teams we're now moving into discussion and Q&A where again we welcome your questions thank you to all of you who've already submitted questions there's plenty if you do want to submit a question you can scan this QR code you can also

see questions already submitted and you can upvote them and that will tell me that that's a question that many people want to have answered and on that note I usually start these Q&A by asking questions of my own but there's one that came in that I really like and that I think is a really good starting point so I'm turning to the team arguing in favor of the motion Abigail your argument really centered around the economic development and increasing economic attractiveness of Asian countries again especially China but not just and the question here is that

attractive economies do attract immigrants from abroad and if you know the Chinese economy the Asian economy economies are so attractive as you claim they are why are we not seeing stronger immigration to those countries but still seeing immigration flows towards the us and towards Europe I think what I made a case for is the fact that um the size of um the consumer Market in China and in the years to come that's one point plus the integration of the global Supply chains are extremely appealing and these are going to redefine the world order as We

Know know it and if you look at behaviors of companies who is the international staff that has in its Good Will and its good mind the interest to relocate in China today with all the questions it would raise on your data on your quality of life um on the question of having party cells integrated to your companies so I think we need to think about the question of the Chinese economy not in terms of how much is going to be appealing to um International workers to migrate there but think about your company's Behavior are they

living China no I don't think so I think they're rather rethinking their supply chains but they're staying in China because there is no second China and today the Chinese market is the biggest and they're ready to take the cost of some difficulties for staying there and I think when what we are also trying to point at is the fact that yes it's going to be China centered but look at Japan look at South Korea look at Indonesia and if you take Asia as a whole and China is not the whole of Asia then you have

a driving power that is attracting talents in Japan you have migrants and you have talents going you have a compelling case for your companies to relocate either for the market or for the technology es and today you have also companies going to Taiwan because when it comes to semiconductors this is the appealing place you also have to think about India in terms of the size of the market or Indonesia for the potential it represents so China is going to be the center but we are talking Asia here thank you very much Julia you made I

think John has already said there a very convincing case about a lot of these in Middle Powers many of whom of course are Asian actually being status quo Powers none of them want to change the global system yet and again John thank you for bringing in the historical argument here I would argue that that may not necessarily be the question here right so history is full of unintended consequences and we could probably argue that the US and the Soviet Union didn't aim to have a bipolar Cold War system it's just the inevitable result of historical

action so even if none of these countries actively are aiming to WS reshaping the New World Order isn't it kind of inevitable that just through their economic and political rise this will be what happens whether they want to or not so excuse me um I think it's not only about aiming something and then something else happens I think it's also about something else happens and you you try to oppose it because I think an uh an argument that we didn't none of us brought up is that there is something something else uh not only order

there can also be chaos and that's definitely a factor that comes into play when you think about the future and these countries they definitely want to avoid chaos so um I think what we currently see in all the actions is that they're strongly try to improve what we have because of that reason because chaos is could be a factor into play um if we despite whatever we aim and all the actions that we're currently seeing is um trying to improve something to prevent that this um incident happens so what you're saying if I understand you

correctly is that it's not so much that these countries maybe wouldn't accept the new world order if it just kind of happened to come around but that's unlikely and if the alternative is chaos it will stick to the status quo um I wouldn't say they stick to the status quo I think it's not only a black and wide story here there is uh gray zones and a gray zone is Improvement so um they would still try of course um I mean um talking to leaders um in the African Union or talking to um the president

of Brazil they wouldn't say ah we just give up this idea to have a a a permanent seat in the United Nations security Council or to uh be more better represented in other institutions so they wouldn't never give up this idea but um there is something in between status quo and and and Chaos John I want to ask you something which I think is been somewhat implicit in the argumentation from the team arguing against the motion but I don't think it's been sort of put to the front very explicitly so I have to ask this

question again your team focused strongly on the economic part of the dimension I think there the data and the picture is somewhat clear but then that doesn't really go hand in hand right and I think Asia's economic rise sometimes belies or hides the political fragmentation that the region has so the question is how can a region influence or even shape or leads to New World Order if it cannot even and I think again that seems pretty obvious to me if it cannot even establish an Asian order yeah well picking up on on Julia's response to

your last question I mean our our contention on this side of of the table is that um Asia is not necessarily leading the New World Order and indeed it could be a version of chaos like that's a very like you could use a different word like fragmentation which is what many uh analysts do use to anticipate where we're heading we're not arguing Asia uh is going to lead the New World Order it's that Asia's right rise is leading to a New World Order and the key Point here is again how do we understand the current

uh world order as it exists and our argument at least my half of our argument is that it's really from a security perspective from a geopolitical and diplomatic perspective it's American power it's American hegemony since the end of the Cold War that has Define sort of the order that we live in and we're watching I mean you can look around the world which is kind of feels pretty chaotic to me right now if we look at the major conflicts in Europe in the Middle East where is US leadership if you if you contrast it with

the real pure unipolar moment in the 1990s it was the United States that hosted the day Dayton Accords right that brought an end to a war uh in Europe in yug Yugoslavia it was the United States that backed the Oslo Accords and then hosted the Camp David uh Summit the United States was out in front diplomatically now not that it fixed all those problems but it was American leadership and we can see now in the ongoing Russian invasion occupation of Ukraine in the worsening situation in Israel and Gaza that that vacuum of us leadership so

our our contention is that's just going to get worse and worse Abigail made the sort of economic side of the argument that Asia is moving in terms of the uh economic growth but the security side of the argument is simply that us hgem is sort of falling apart before our eyes thank you so I think that's a good distinction right and what you're saying is that and you're absolutely right the motion does not claim that the New World Order will be led by Asia um in fact there's probably even some wiggle room as to how

much order there is in the New World Order we can talk about that at a later point so John the other John um if we pick up John the's point and sort of the vacuum that is increasing being left you by the US receding from its hegemonic position even if we don't see another country replacing the US TI for Tat and that again that seems like a reasonable conclusion wouldn't already that vacuum mean that a new order is emerging how can the vacuum be the status quo well first I think we need to question that

whole premise because when I say that developing countries today want reform of the existing system they wanted that all through the period of USA Germany I mean that's why we called it the third world because it wasn't just a us-led block and a non- US block it was a whole bunch of countries in between which for decades actually well before the obvious erosion of us hard power which John's alluded to were dissatisfied in many ways with the existing system but not to the point of wanting to overthrow it I mean I'm not aware of any

country China included which wants to go back to a pre westfalian world where international power relations are structured in a fundamentally different way because when we talk about order I think it needs to be at a basic level and as your ad for this event um elaborated on the motion uh will Asia's development lead to a completely new way of structuring international relations what I think we see instead as I said is a rebalancing where countries around the world which have wanted um a different distribution of the benefits of international trade etc for a long

time are simply more able to pursue that um and have accumulated some means to do so um and that's what looks to us like the rise of a new order but actually it is still a very interdependent system where as I pointed out um the very economic statistics which are cited by the other team um are a result of trade which fundamentally involves Europe the United States other countries relies on Technologies from the advanced economies and that is not going to change it may again the balance may shift but the fundamental interdependence of the system

will persist thank you um let me follow up briefly on something because you've made the point in an earlier statement already and you can of came back to this that this distinction between reform and Revolution that Julia earlier made actually does matter and I agree and I think now we've heard many terms you know from vacuum to fragmentation to rebalancing and I think it's worth asking at which point which criteria for you would have to be fulfilled so that you would be satisi satisfied that we're that we've gone beyond the rebalancing so which criteria would

have to be satisfied they say well actually now now I agree it's a new world order that you're not seeing yet and don't see on the horizon let's take the other team's premise right China is at the center of this I think that to genuinely see the rise of a new order you would not only have to see a China that credibly could build this itself without Reliance on export markets and other countries on Technologies from the advanced economies um but which also wanted to Institute a completely different normative set in place again of the

international body of law which has been inherited I mean the really big change in order I would suggest was what happened in the 19th century when the Industrial Revolution and the rise of modern Technologies um enabled the European countries and their offshoots in the new world to effectively really restructure again to use your words niik um the international order now the reverse of that is not going to happen I would suggest you are not going to see it flip to the point where now Western countries depend on China for all of the critical techn I

mean it's not that simple of course China is not dependent on the US for all the critical Tech but certainly you will not see a flip where the asymmetry is now on the other foot and the same goes for Norms where to the extent that you see other countries voting in the same pattern as China in the UN you know articulating the same Norms whether it's for you know data sovereignty or whatever example you choose that is all done within the the existing framework I mean even in the South China Sea the Chinese talk about

their position as being consistent with international law even though most other countries I would suggest don't see it that way they don't claim that they have a right to do what they want in the South China Sea because the whole body of international law is a European imposition and that really what the rule framework that governs this should be is the Heavenly authority of the Chinese emperor I mean that World Is Gone Forever um and what you see is the Chinese working within the existing Frameworks and this goes for the technical standardization bodies you know

whatever example you choose um saying that this is the system we will work within we will simply make it fairer and you have aligned preferences with other countries which are not necessarily following a Chinese you know normative lead they simply happen to agree that the existing balance of power if you like is not fair and again you can see that um being articulated in relation to for example why a different attitude is taken by certain Western governments towards the laws of war and how they're applied in Gaza as opposed to Ukraine just to use a

very pointed example of that thank you John Lee makes a very good point and I think we've been kind of skirting around these questions but I want to address them headon obviously China is a huge Factor even though we're talking about all of Asia but China if there's going to be any new world order driven by Asia's rise China will be at the front of this so team arguing in favor if China had its way what kind of word orderer would it pick I think the Chinese leadership is pretty clear and let me quote siden

ping at the doorstep of the Kremlin a year ago saying to Putin the wind has shifted and it is now our time and it is time for China to basically shape um the global World Order in a way where China is going to be at the center and this is why China has two strategy when it comes to reshaping the new world order one is to integrate um un International bodies and inject a degree of ideology and this is why we talk about the belt and Road initiative uh washing of for instance undp uh and

this is the gentle way to push people at the top of the UN agencies to integrate ideology into un resolutions um and to work with in the existing body to reshape them to ensure that China's is going to be reshaping the norm that it SE does not fit its rise and does not respond to where it stands today and then you have a second strategy which is called building alternative structures um and here we have a series you have all heard about bricks enlargement but we can talk about the Shanghai coroporation organization as a security

architecture which is an alternative for Asia and you have a number of organizations that are being set up to respond to security to respond to the question of uh finance and this is the aib and uh the efforts of internationalization of the ji so I think China has a very clear and very well defined strategy to ensure that the new world order that is emerging is going to respond to one need which is to ensure that China's rise works in the global system and with that it does mean that geopolitical competition with the US is

just going to get worse um and this is going to lead to further fragmentation and while I have a point with Julia which is Chaos versus stability if you ask um the Chinese there is no doubt that stability is going to Prevail but CH stability with China at the center thank you very much and just to be sure I understand because I think you're making a very clever argument there is that what you're saying is that part of what China does which is know influencing the current system within the framework and this may look to

the team arguing against like reform but it's actually not they're trying to not reform the system they're trying to change it fundamentally from within can I can I just add to that I I think a fundamental difference between our two approaches is we we didn't lead with this argument about what China wants it's interesting to discuss but our analysis is more about what is actually happening out there in the world as opposed to what do various people want you know so China has a vision as described by Abigail but we don't think it's actually going

to be able to materialize that Vision because certainly the United States while I've described its relative power weakening is not going to accept these conditions it's not going to accept if China says look we'll run things exactly as you did we'll keep the UN exactly exactly as it is we'll keep all the the international financial institutions exactly as they are just let us now have the majority share just let us decide uh is that okay of course the United States would not accept that right so United States alone and indeed most of Asia is not

comfortable with Chinese emony so the the difference is what do various countries want versus what is actually happening whether it's the Chinese case of their vision of replacing us of gmany with their own or many countries in the world including in Asia who would prefer to just kind of Reform the system as it is who would prefer not to have to choose not to have to face this very Rocky period of Confrontation between the US and China uh would not have to face chaos and fragmentation in the world order just because they don't want that

to happen doesn't mean it's not going to happen thank you I want to briefly turn our attention also to India we've talked a lot about China that's clearly uh the key factor here but you've brought in India which is part also of the the research that your foundation has done a few months ago I spoke to somebody about the question whether India is revisionist power and I think right now probably would all agree India is not a revisionist power it doesn't necessarily want to fundamentally reform the way the world works because also a lot of

these things are working out in India's favor right now but it clearly is a dissatisfied power it feels that it does not have the level of influence globally that befits its current status as the largest country on the planet as a fast rising economy Asad of this country that can have good relationships with anyone and I think this is a feeling that you get quickly when you when you speak to to Indian analysts now my question is they're not going to be a dissatisfied country forever they're either going to be satisfied or they're going to

become revisionist and want to you introduce a new world order so how can we think about of Indian dissatisfaction and what would we have to do to keep India involved in the status quo so I wouldn't disagree that India is uh dissatisfied um I mean it's really a a rising another Rising power in Asia I wouldn't excuse me neglect it but um uh the the thing is that and when you go to Asia actually just to add that you feel that the spirit that it's really a country where people feel that something is going going

to change that they are on the rise so they've really Incorporated that feeling so I don't disagree with your point I just think that what they are currently doing is um not something that is opposing again um what we are seeing they're not outside of this order they don't want to be outside of the current order um Asia is doing a pretty um India excuse me is doing a pretty good job in balancing all different actors that are relevant in our current order um they they are part of the bricks um they they are also

part of the Quad their relationship with the US is improving and our survey actually uh to quote that again um they were they had a pretty hard time to decide um or they didn't have a pretty hard time to decide in contrast to South Africa and Brazil with which country they would site in uh in a a moment of us China rivalry so they're pretty much uh sure that they would rather lean with the US than with China so I wouldn't use them as an example of the power and that's what I kind of understood

from your question that might mix it all up and create chaos or be a factor that we may be a blind spot that we don't see and that we should take into consideration so I think they as well uh and I think John described that in his previous remarks uh perfectly um there as well part of that what we are currently seeing that are not an a blind spot that will mix up everything and create chaos or change I'm going to quickly follow up um with a question from the audience so one thing India is

dissatisfied about it's that it's not represented on the UN Security Council again it believes I would say would argue with some right that as the world's largest country it would have a right to be represented there will it ever get added to the security Council and if not wouldn't that mean that that it can't actually live with the current system for the long time I mean the security Council reform is complicated but there is actually there is actually some ideas um to to make this change happen uh you can actually get to a review process

of the UN Charter with a two3 minority majority in the United Nations General Assembly you just need one of the nine members of the United Nations security Council to vote for it to make that happen so I think it's not like the impossible thing that everyone always talks about um and I think there is some possibility it's not completely impossible of course it's a process that is dragging on for a very long time but I don't think that this would in again make India become a power that uh would really uh lead this revolution that

that I was talking about before they also interested and G20 declaration shows it in many ways they're interested in maintaining the current system thank you we're slowly getting to the end of the the Q&A session but I do want to address again a question that came in from the audience that I think is interesting so one part of the motion that I think none of you have fundamentally disputed is Asia's rise you have said it's not just Asia's rise but I think we've all kind of up here agreed that however we Define Rising that Asia

is indeed doing that and of course a lot of this is uh defined economically but then if you look a little bit more closely is Asia's economy or the Asian economies actually Rising that much we're seeing China's struggle uh the Japanese economy is not you know growth engine per se the Indian economy has been an eternal disappointment so team arguing in favor of the motion Would we not want to expect to see actually decline in economic growth in Asia and wouldn't that s of negatively impact the outlook on a new world order as driven by

Asia yeah and I'm going to revert back the question how is the state of our economy so I think we are all facing a pretty difficult moment in economic terms um having said that I think the Asian economies are actually much better placed than ourselves uh they're building self um sufficient and resilient mechanisms and if you take the case of china there was um very recently um the two session of the parliament and uh if you look at the work report and what the prime minister is saying is that um China is going to invest

in technology and science through different means to address the question of economic slowdown so it may not be the response that we are expecting um because in our terms we think more in terms of okay let's have a stimulus package to make the demand goes back but for the Chinese they basically make the assessment that by investing in science and technology they will not care about having the US and the European cutting them from fundament foundational um Technologies and this is going to ensure um their resilience and this is going to ensure the fact that

their economy is not going to be affected when they're going to take the heat further down the line um from us having said that I'm going to come back to part of the argument which was um Asia's rise yes is based on an economic model and on an economic growth that is not comparable it's based on a consumer Market that is not comparable and in reality this translates into Political terms and recently there was the belt and Road um initiative forum and I'm pretty sure you have seen the pictures of siden ping walking into the

Great Hall with the word behind him and this must mean something this must mean that we may disagree here about the attractiveness of the Chinese model but there are many countries that do agree and in the um survey that um Julia worked on on emerging Powers actually while India had a pretty critical uh view on China actually Brazil has a very positive view on China so you have also emerging powers and you have also a part of the global South that do find the Chinese model attractive thank you John Lee the final question is for

you you argued before in your statement that I think you called it a flip is impossible Unthinkable we're not going to see the situation that we had you the position that we had from the US China take over that that's you know the current model of interlinkage and trade and technology is so strong that this would basically prohibit any sort of emergence of he hegemon hegemonic power as we've seen in the past and I have to admit and I don't want to preclude anybody's vote here but I have a lot of sympathy for this argument

it rings true to me but then I also feel historically we've just been really really bad at foreseeing these kind of fundamental changes and we've always assumed you know that the current system will inevitably go on forever because it's so stable and that change is just kind of Unthinkable but historically that's just not been true so what makes you so sure that it's not going to be this way this time around two levels firstly um first principles as I said I would submit that we have seen one really big restructuring of the world order um

in fact in the whole course of human history and that was basically the Industrial Revolution and the way that that revolutionized the relations of production to use a good Marxist term so some of you may have seen those charts by Angus medicine which show that you know over the past 2,000 years or whatever 80% of world GDP was China in India up until the early 1800s what happened the Industrial Revolution and the technological forces it Unleashed flipped that and that flip is not going to re occur at least in the foreseeable future I would argue

whatever efficiencies the China model can squeeze out are not the same as first applying steam power and then electricity and all of the other things that have happened subsequently to produce the international distribution of power we see today yes people talk about AI as the new electricity I personally think that's wrong but I don't think it's hard to see how moving from several thousand years of peasants tilling the land as 99% of the global population to the world we have today is a fundamental break and that is not being flipped by Asia's rise the second

level is that even if we focus on the short term and the economic indicators that the other side again has uced many times let's look at some of them so for example the Brooking survey um a very respectable think tank but when we talk about Indonesia for example being the third or fourth largest economy in the world so replacing Germany just to put this in perspective within the decade I would argue that is probably based on a straight line projection which puts a lot more weight on the population of the country which of course in

the pre-industrial world was very important but which could be destabilized by all kinds of things like large parts of Indonesia going under the ocean from climate change in the next couple of decades including the capital city there are many uncertainties as you pointed out yourself Nico as to the rise of the Asian countries even within the foreseeable future which I don't think are disputable that at least they present risk factors I mean I won't talk more about China people will have read about the overcapacity issues the economic slowdown the question about whether the recentralization under

sea is going to kill you know the dynamism that has got China where it is over the past quarter Century but just to close in with one more example again from the opposite side yes it may be the case that third of the world's industrial robotss have been installed in China over the last few years where are they made or who owns the core technology and even where the underlying Tech has been produced by Chinese companies which European companies I can say from personal knowledge um entirely public space I should add um were involved in

co-developing that it is still the case that the advanced economies so let's say the western side of the legeda over simplifi or the US side hold a lot of cards in this interdependent world and I would personally want to see a lot more evidence of that fundamentally changing um these very deep-seated structural factors before we can talk about Asia's rise which is of course very impressive um restructuring the International System and giving rise to a new world order thank you very much and that concludes the discussion and Q&A part of the debate and it's now

time for closing remarks which will be delivered in the same order than the opening remarks and rebuttal which mean that the first closing remarks are for Abigail vasel arguing in favor of today's motion that Asia's rise will lead to a New World Order Abigail you have two minutes thanks I think we have all agreed by now that um there is no doubt about Asia's rise the question is what is going to be this uh New World Order looking like and I think John explained that we not here to think about how much chaos this can

bring how much fragmentation this is going to bring and I have a very glooming picture um for me we have failed to reform the UN system for decades now and this is not going to change I think further fragmentation is simply going to mean that our International institutions are failing having said that we are here to debate whether um Asia's rise will lead to a new world order and I think you have a case about the demographics I think I've made a case about um the economic and financial driver that are going to reshape the

New World Order and I think I've made a case about how much appealing um the Asian model can be and the China model and we may disagree but let's face it actually most of the global South do agree that um there is a case about um the Chinese Economic Development model so yes we as European may have to adapt and adjust to these new realities whether we like them or not that's not what we are debating to today but for what we have to acknowledge is that the challenges and opportunities that Asia rise is going

to present will bring us together to this new world thank you very much and we're moving it right along for closing statements from the team arguing against the motion Julia gter two minutes for you as well thank you so um I made a couple of examples in EX in the beginning where we shouldn't be too Asia Centric and my colleagues even have been very China Centric I have to say and I want to stick to that point because um there's really a couple of countries on the rise too outside of Asia um and we would

really make big Miss big time if we just ignore that they are on the rise that they have a say that they are going to assume leadership leadership roles as well and that with all of that with their increasing um self confidence in so many countries I've given you the numbers in the beginning that this will also have an impact on the kind of world order that we will um see and and the changes but as I've said reforms not Revolution and I'm going to stick to that point and I don't want to be so

pessimistic about the options that we have for reform I uh don't want to make a point that we will see a United Nations security Council reform happening soon of course I mean but there are so many other initiatives there's a bridg toown initiative on climate financing a leaders met last year in Paris um president macron invited them to discuss the financial International architecture they came up with an agreement so there's things happening and we have to consider also that these countries really have a new self-confidence it's not the same debate that we are uh having

at the moment and a couple of years ago because these countries have changed as well so um there is also the pack for the future in the UN so there's several things happening and we really have to um consider that and not be too pessimistic about reform and I want to make one last point because um this was said by the other group a couple of times um the China model is really not attractive U so it's even if they are um if they see China as an opportunity they send their kids to universities in

other countries not to China because it's not a model that is attractive for them and I think this is a really relevant point that we must consider they won't follow the Chinese model they have their own opinions and they will vocalize them loudly thanks thank you very much Julia gter closing remarks from the team arguing in favor of the motion John dely two minutes for you as well okay thanks Nico I mean just asn't as side I'm an American but I hope my kids don't go to school in the United States and in fact now

they're not so um you know I think the other side had a very tough tough uh tough job ahead of them and so in order to um you know get you to be skeptical about the proposition they had to sort of fall back on other arguments and no one seemed to dispute that Asia is rising we don't dispute other parts of the world are rising that Africa and other parts of the world are rising and those are very important developments but again that wasn't really the question that that we were brought here to debate uh

I worried that I was going to be doing too much history when I went back to 1945 little did I know they'd go back to West FIA and the Industrial Revolution but there's a serious point there which is I think they had to define the world World Order in in in those terms of a matter of centuries because if we take the meaning of World Order uh if you agree more with our I think more common sense definition of world order as the world that we've lived in the geopolitics also the economic interdependence the globalization

that was the case since the end of the Cold War our contention is we are watching that unravel I mean here's the short list the global financial crisis the Eurozone crisis brexit we didn't even talk about Trump we didn't even talk about Trump maybe coming back we didn't talk about Co Ukraine Gaza and that list is not done there will be more to that list right uh and again our contention is what was holding back a lot of those forces was US predominance the US was Peerless the United States by its own admission if you

read the last National Security uh statement says we now have peer competitors Russia and China so economically and in security terms we're watching it fall apart a new order even if it's chaos will emerge thank you very much and last but not least the closing statement from John Lee arguing against today's motion so firstly there must be a high Bar for a new order the other side have tried to convince us um heroically that it can be about a redistribution of power for which I think there is no argument um or about a shift in

the distribution of trade I would submit if we talk about order it must be about structuring principles the way that academics often discuss International order and that at the very least we would have to see to argue for the rise of a new order um some evidence that let's say developing countries on mass are following Chinese leadership even if we cannot see the outlines there has to be the spirit there or the tendency and what I see um what our team has argued that this is again about very wellestablished interests and preferences which are being

pursued in ways which are much more confrontational for we who live fortunately in the rich countries than we have been confronted with in the past um the other reason that um I'm optimistic that the existing order will um last is that there is no time for a fundamental New Order to develop if we did not face a climate crisis um which is going to affect all countries drastically within the next one or two decades if we had longer then we could talk about the potential space for a new international order to develop but the reality

is that today however hawkish they are on China us and European politicians still always caveat by saying and yet we need to work with them on climate change and from the developing countries and I've already talked about many of these states literally facing being underwater I mean we even talk about um India Bangladesh big developing countries for whom this is an existential threat that leaves no time or headp space to worry about fundamental new orders thank you very much Sean Lee and that concludes the arguments heard in today's Oxford debate which means it's now time

for the most important event of all which are your second votes you know by now how this works you scan please the slido code that you see or you just go back to slido the same poll then you have seen before asa's rise will lead to a new world order do you agree or disagree with this motion and now I'm told enough stalling the results are ready which I have not seen and we're just going to throw up on the screen for all of us to see at the same time please okay so before the

debate 71% agreed with the motion and only 22% disagreed with with the motion this is changed to after the debate to 45% agreeing and 44% disagreeing which is a minus of 26% in favor and a plus of 22% against the motion which means the team arguing the the motion Julia Gunter and John Lee has won a huge congratulation and Applause for you but of course but of course also congratulations and thank you to John delri and Abigail baselier it's always harder to argue the majority position and you did so wonderfully I should note which is

unusual that there's been an increase in people who are not sure which I think just goes back to my point before that we have more questions than answers this really doesn't happen very often thank you all very very much for being here tonight it's been a pleasure debating with you a big round of applause for our speakers please