and starts to think of the collective action requirements of big global economies whether it is global problems, whether it's -- you know, policy coordination for macro level, whether it is climate change, quite frankly. and i would argue there probably will be -- a lot of the rhetoric of the elections, the idea of global governance is just not something that sits well with one -- one of the political parties. and, you know, one could say -- well they have a very clear vision that one doesn't need and one shouldn't want global governance -- so i am not necessarily commenting on -- on, you know which is -- which is right in their vision, but certainly it seems to me that they have very different approaches as to the

desirability for global governance and the kind of leadership that they would give to global collective action. so at the end of the day. comes down to a question about, do we believe that the world's problems can be usefully solved through collective action or do we think that the world's problems will more or less be solved by each country individually solving their own problems and as they do so the world as a whole will -- will recover. regardless of which of these you -- you believe, i think that -- that -- it's -- it's more likely to be the case that there will be a substantial difference in approach between, you know, those two extremes the caricatures th s that i have lat rather than saying it is all going to be pretty much indistinguishable regardless of who comes in. >> maybe let's start with you on this question.

when you look at what mitt romney and what barack obama have been saying -- so far -- and bruce, talked about how -- we can start to discern some of what mitt romney's foreign policy is even though he hasn't spoke any bout n about it a hugo far. are there statements they're making that are particular head scratchers for you that -- that you -- aren't sure make sense and in their understanding of the global situation? i don't know about particular statements. but, in -- what i would say is that -- new alliances really need to be created. one of the things that is happening on the economic front. last year was the first year

since the war, that g-7 economies as a group accounted for less than half of global economic output. at market exchange rates. not at some sort of -- you know, purchasing estimates of economists. at market exchange rates. for the first time less than 50%. and this year will probably be the first year since the war that asia becomes a larger economic block than europe. so the thing that basically held the global economy together is now giving way to different alliances. so how will those alliances actually be nipped together. and will they be nipped together on the basis of economic agreements or on security agreements. my guess is that is going to be

quite different. and i mean broadly speaking when you think about the -- the positions that are being taken on -- on countries like taiwan and the -- the, the relationship with china. it's likely to be quite different. >> are there things -- on that, that you have been hearing, mitt romney and barack obama saying that -- that -- that you are not sure make sense, or are they making sense on, on those u issues. what stand out specifically when they're talking about some of the issues on the trail? >> well they're clearly both for entirely understandable and traditional reasons looking for ways to draw contrast between themselves and each makes sure that he is on the -- on the more -- politically successful end of the comparison. but i guess i see this a little bit differently. i have no better crystal ball

about exactly what the composition and thrust of the romney foreign policy would be. but i really would go back to -- my agreement with -- with bruce on this. i don't think it will be all that different. and let me give you a couple of-dufof of -- of reasons for that. among other things. i don't think that a responsibly led republican administration will have a huge choice of -- of going back to -- to call it whatever you want. isolationism, or for that matter, i think the phrase in your paper is machoism. if those are the two poles. we're going to sail right between the two of them. which means basically following the essential contours of what it has -- has been the obama policy which i said earlier something in common with the late george w. bush. also, remember that -- president romney's challenge and everybody

notably including isaac and his colleagues at politico have been writing about this. he had to go far to right to get the nomination. now has to move to the center. he is clearly doing that. with an exception i will come to in a moment. there are signals out there that it would be -- a -- it would be -- it would be a, foreign policy that would have a lot of continuity with the president. one that being overall disposition of -- of a president romney. remember that governor romney -- presided over -- over the passage into state law in massachusetts. a policy with regard to climate change that was a good deal more enlightened than that of the united states of america. matched only perhaps by the -- by the admission, policy of governor schwarzenegger in california. who knows who his secretary of state might be. there are a lot of names

floating out there. bob zellic, president of the world bank. was one. he believes that -- in dealing with china and other countries that, what's we should ask of countries is to be responsible stake holders in a rule based international economy. that's pretty close to the theme of bruce's paper. here is the one exception which i think will, is both curious in terms of its motivation and -- and affect -- and will probably fade. and that is, a lot of -- sort of cheap, bashing of other countries. john michael and i make the point in our paper that every country on the planet with two exceptions has to hope and pray is never mentioned during american presidential campaign. because if it is mentioned it is going to be bad. two exceptions are israel and great britain. and, of course, china has come up a lot. russia has come up a lot. for some reason has declared that russia is the number one

st strategic threat to the united states. that sound very yesteryear, i will say. we will have other panelists in the room about russia. i don't think anybody is going to lie under that proposition. and as for choiina. we all know china is an easy target in some ways. but we have mentioned the people who are -- you know, the wise heads of the republican party. and i can assure you -- all you have to do is read henry kissing kissinger's latist boest book. candidate romney is going to get a lot of advice to go easy on china bashing. the one reason i am puzzled by it, that's not what is going to win an election. it is the economy. >> bruce, did you want to pick up on this? >> i think just -- there are a lot of things that he said that i agree with about nate chthe nf the challenge. our economy is much more depend

en ent on the global economy. i look back at successive administrations. a clear pattern, republicans run as if american power, unfettered, is going to be wait you run the world. they enter office. try it out. it fails. they work in the mainstream. democrats run against that experience, say they're going to work within the mainstream of multilateralism, try that, it fails and they pursue unilateralism. what is the biggest foreign policy success of obama, multilateral killing of a terrorist, under violation of international law, not that anybody cares. bush administration came into office there were 20,000 u.n. peacekeepers in the world. they left office, there were 100,000 peacekeepers in the world. the agreement on proliferation. all things that expanded under the bush administration. i think this issue of the tension between the unilateral use of power in one hant hand

a -- on one hand and the multilateral use of power, it shifts. he used a phrase, nip together new alliances. i think one of the things interesting in watching obama, if you go back to 2008, it was absolutely evident he was going to be the much better president compared to mccain, to nip together the new alliances with indonesia, turkey, brazil, india, china. et cetera. that has proven harder than we thought it would be. these are independent powers. they have their own interests. they're not going to simply follow american, there are places where their interests align with ours. it has proven harder than the obama administration anticipated to knit together the alliances. weave avenue seen a shift back towards europe. a shift back towards the g-8. a shift back towards hard power in the obama, in the obama foreign policy of late.

but that challenge will be there. i think it is -- a real question to skchlt which administration is likely to have the better team, the better rules, the better orientation to continue that work of knitting together the new alliances in economic and security world. that i think the defining challenge for american foreign policy. >> you bring up a point. one of the frustrating things perhaps of covering politics is often what people say on the campaign trail is not what happens, what they do, when they get into office. so i am wondering, do you think, and, who ever wants to jump in on this, what can we say -- for sure -- that, that president romney would do or second term president obama would do in the four years starting on january 20th, 2013. when it comes to foreign policy based on what they have said. are there other tea leaves we should be reading and essentially ignoring a lot of the rhetoric that they're, using out on the trail. >> i will give you one example. i was talking to one of, of mitt

romney's big donors about iran. and this is one of the issues where romney is trying to portray obama as too soft. too willing to pursue, sanctions, diplomacy, versus force. i asked this chap. won't name him. what will be romney any first step on iran if he was elected. he said he will go to israel and say that guy was your worst enemy. i am your best friend. and as your best friend. i am going to ask you for a couple of more years for dip low make it, sanctions track before we look at the military option. i do think there is going to be a lot more continuity on those things than the rhett rick oric campaign suggests. >> one difference would be the comp compreh. comprehensive test ban treaty.

the refusal of the senate to ratify it in 1999 was a very dark day for the senate, the country, the world and the global nonproliferation regime. i think that's much less likely in a -- in a romney administration. climate, i don't know. for the reasons that i indicated earlier. i think governor romney will have to do -- will need to revert to his precampaign mode in both his attitudes and what he is willing to do -- but the arguments in favor of him picking up on the climate issue are pretty strong. >> i'm any just wondering do you think there is a difference of opinion that will matter when it comes to that issue. because your paper -- lays out there is not really a lot of the substantive differences. >> it's interesting. i think it's possible, by no means certain. it's possible, that romney presidency would -- would treat international institutions and

alliances a little bit like the bush administration did in the first -- phase, in its fishrst term as red meat to throw to the right wing of the party i's not what romney says. if you read his speeches. his talks. it's not what he says. he says he will work within multilateral institutions, exercise leadership and orient them towards, liberty, democracy, human rights. exactly what obama says. it is possible depending on the contours, made the point he will have to pivot to the middle now for the campaign. he has got to protect his flank and protect his base. and there are times when republicans sort of throw the u.n. to the flank as red meat. that is a possibility. george bush jr. did that in the first term. tried to illustrate. quickly discovered it doesn't work. moved back towards becoming multilateral president in contemporary history. i do think there are things like that, could be for political reasons, romney -- doesn't pursue a multilateral agenda in

the first instance. i've don't think that the realities are such that there is no unilateral option now in any real sense of that term. >> guessing you will want to respond to some of this. but also the question of -- of what sort of -- predictor the campaign rhetoric will be once in office? >> i think the difficulty is that ---- the old pattern of we'll try out something and then itch it doesn if it doesn't work we can do something else. to some extent that worked in economic terms when the u.s. was so dominant that it could afford to do that. my worry is right now, a lot of the international, financial institution institutions are in such a

vulnerable position that if in two years they continue without a strong reform -- other institutions will -- will start to crop up. that will be developed, run and managed by people who exclude the united states. you will start to get fragmentation. and it will become very difficult to then go back and say, oh, okay, we have learned. we are going to come back and, you know, strengthen these. so i suspect we might be at a point where the -- where the, you know, the, the space for the kind of experimentation that bruce was talking about -- just may not be there any longer. and without being overly dramatic about it -- one could possibly kill off or severely

damage some of the existing institutions if they're not given the tender, loving care that they actually need at this particular moment. and the only person who can give them that tender loving care is the president of the united states. >> could i ask, isaac, could i ask a question on that institution you know very well, the world bank. we just had an american, currently the president of dartmouth, designated, nominated by the united states, to be the president. there is talk about this perhaps being the last american president of the world bank. and there is also talk about the -- what we will no longer call the major developing countries but emerging powers. india, china, brazil, so forth, so on. creating -- a related, but in some ways, separate facility. could you just say a word about that, what that augers? >> so, a couple of things. you know, one --

i -- i think that the -- jim kim is going to find that he takes over world bank and he is suddenly going to see that he has to -- contract lending by about 1/2. because essentially all of the ammunition has been already shot off by his predecessor in dealing with this current crisis. he has got no budget increase to speak of. so it is going to be a really tough situation and position for him to manage. at the same time, the kind of challenges, that the world bank was set up to deal with are getting bigger. the infrastructure needs of developing countries, especially because of climate change and the need to climate proof, have more adaptation, mostly on

infrastructure, because those are the long, long-lived assets, right now developing countries are spending something like -- $800 billion, $900 billion on this. people are talking about a number which is at least double that as being part of their needs. you know, what agency is going to be able to actually -- do that -- in a -- in a sustainable, generate that kind of financial channels and itch itch -- itch f it is not going to be world bank then for sure there are going to be other institutions developing. now whether that will take the form of the so-called bricks bank or not, i have to say i have my doubts there. because -- the bricks is a really nice acronym, but as a political grouping, in terms of a knitting together of alliances i think the challenges they face

are dwarfed, dwarfs anything that the u.s. faces. in putting together new challenges. i think bruce is right. it is not easy to, to -- have a convergence of interests. and i don't think on this particular issue to be quite honest that they do have that kind of convergence of issue. that doesn't mean -- that the things that they're talking about -- aren't of enormous importance and relevance. what they're talking about is saying, we need a global institution that has a new mandate and, you know, in effect a mandate to actually do something about green growth. about climate proofing investments. we need a global institution that, that reflects the change in membership and partly that's -- the more significance weight of emerging economies.

but it is also partly a function of the fact that we are entering into worlds where nonstate or quasi-state actors are important or the economic front. whether you are talking about sovereign wealth funds. pension funds or other forms of capit capital. they have to be brought into these kinds of -- institutions. and these institutions will only be able to operate if they leverage that kind of capital in a much more -- serious way. and modernization of modalities. the idea that you are literally going to take money from crudely, you know, belgian dentists who save to indian infrastructure investors that's no longer really going to be the, the, the channel. and for all of its-- the problems that it has brought us financial innovation in the world, the way in which risks

are parcelled out. has actually generated a -- a whole range of new modalities. so finance has to be modernized to these new kinds of -- risk factors and a new global institution probably would need to be much more agile in its deployment of those kinds of risk bearing instruments. >> might be headquartered in istanbul. >> could be headquartered in istanbul, south africa. >> it is clear bruce would look to respond. i will let you do that. i would like you to talk as you do how you see a president obama or president romney fitting into that over the force of the next four years. >> yes, part plea whatly what i pick up on. two things i strongly agree with. the first when you look at things like the bricks, i think it is pretty clear that each member of the bricks, for each member of the bricks the

relationship to the united states is more important than relationship of each of the others. >> if feel aren't -- >> it is brazil, india, china, korea. >> odd grouping it includes russia. >> they disagree with each other. >> the new actors on the international stage. they basically agree on one issue is that they would like more power on the international systems. they don't agree on any other issue, strategically. they can agree to poke at us if we don't give them more power. that's about all they can agree with. it does mean there is a huge opportunity for the united states in exactly the terms that he portrayed. a knitting together new alliances, and recasting the core institutions, that manage the global system that we, we rely on on which we still exercise enormous power in which the actors will demand and probably deserve in some sense,

more voice. but i have to say, that it seems to me that obama, as an administration has done less on this than i would have anticipated in 2008. so, again, i point to the -- the difficulties here. it's because it is bloody hard. the collective action are real. they're all playing chicken uh they know they have to participate in global systems and give up something to do it. they want to wait and see what terms they get, and it is a guam of chicken here. that is very risky. the second part that i very much agree with is the two year point up front. we can't wait. shouldn't be waiting now. we don't hatch two years to play with. in terms of do we take an approach of -- trying to tighten up these alliances. trying to tighten up these institution thousands. i would put a little less weight on the formal institutions and more on alliances with newt actors. even there i think the administration has sort of, vacillated between, yeah, we are really going to kind of go all in on the g-20.

now we still like the g-8. neither of the bodies are particularly well crafted right now. so there is still quite a lot of work to be done in forging the architecture of the kind of international arrangements and institutions and alliances that can manage the global world that we find ourselves in. >> do you see a difference in what mitt romney would do on the issues? >> i do worry when -- i have, emfa sized the point that you can't, you can't, judge entirely from campaign rhetoric. it does worry me that the phrase asia doesn't really seem to come up in his vocabulary except when he is bashing china. he will talk about american allies. he appears not to notice that japan, nor south korea, are allies. there is a kind of, cast back to a kind of transatlantic, u.s./europe, kind of picture of the world. that is i think just outdated. and clearly the case that obama's life story and picture of the world is much better suited to a century, period in

which asia is important and cast of characters is changing. as i said, obama has found it very hard to navigate that space i's not as if it is an easy issue. >> i have a few more questions. i want to open it up to the audience. what is going to happen. there is a microphone, some where, there it is in the back. so, if, you could identify yourselves, and speak clearly into the microphone. we have got lots of recording going on. just, please, be aware of that. but i think we have a question up here in the front. the one thing i would ask, we want to keep this focused on the presidential election. so the three gentlemen can talk about many, many things when it comes to the foreign stage. let's keep them focused on mitt romney and barack obama. >> thanks very much. i am garrett mitchell. i write the mitchell report. i want to pose the question in the form of a hypothesis. it has a question mark at the end. it comes, seems to me, directly

from right down the line if you think about bruce's excellent paper some time ago about the u.s. as the -- the majority shareholder in a liberal democratic order. i think the highly important point about the extent to which the -- electoral process itself getting us to the -- to the first tuesday, has, has not only, is not only unseemly, but makes governing more difficult than ever. and to romney's point about the need to form new alliances. then you jump to the question, well, given all of that, which president, romney, or an obama, a, can we predict what they would do, and b which one would have the greatest likelihood of doing the things that need to be done. the hypothesis that i want to offer is this.

very little difference. very little difference because presidents have far less room to maneuver. where the difference will be made -- is in the congressional elections and particularly in the senate. and particularly given the effect of rule 22 in the senate and the unfortunate growing role of minority interference in the governing process which -- depending upon how it comes out on the, on the first tuesday will make it as difficult for a president romney as it would for a president obama, given the cast of character that seems to be taking the place in the most recent example of dick lugar replaced by somebody who has a different definition of how to work. so that's the hypothesis -- which i think comes to the

question of, of -- of -- that's central to this panel. i will leave it at that. >> who would look to go first on the hypothesis? >> i'm not sure i buy it, gary, i mean, but i also -- am absolutely sure i am not going to say which of the two -- i don't -- i think it really matters to the president of the united states. and it will matter in january of next year with the president of the -- who the president of the united states is. of course the composition of the congress will be immensely important. the big question mark about barack obama -- is will he in his second term be able to succeed to a degree that he has the not been able to succeed in his first term to do a lot of thing he's wanted to do in his first term. if you go back to his speeches on the campaign trail in