I am very grateful for the opportunity to participate in this important event. I would have liked to do so in person, but today I must fulfil my regular teaching duties at Yale University.

The topic of this forum suggests starting by recognising that, when we talk about global challenges, we are talking about those that, practically by definition, cannot be overcome by the action of a single country, however powerful it may be. They affect everyone and must ideally be addressed by everyone. Agreement and collective action are needed; if not always unanimous, at least by a group of countries, especially those with greater resources and capabilities.

To organise this collective action, global and regional multilateral institutions were created. Numerous instruments of international law have also been developed. This is what we know as the rules-based international system, not one stemming from military and economic power as it existed until the two great wars of the 20th century.

The international system created in the post-war era is the one that, thanks to diplomacy, has organised and governed the collective action of nations, pooling the resources that they have contributed for its support; providing norms and policies to address objectives of common interest; agreeing on the distribution of costs among countries; peacefully resolving many disputes and controversies; achieving, in many cases, inclusive solutions for all members of the international community; promoting interdependence among nations without harming their respective sovereignties; fostering treaties and agreements of great value for the prosperity and security of humanity; and advancing international cooperation for the economic and social development of countries still suffering significant gaps.

The indispensability of collective action and adherence to rules is easily understood if we think about the nature of the most serious global challenges, not only those that could hypothetically materialise in the future, but those that have been suffered in the recent past.

Let us think of the COVID-19 pandemic, the natural disasters caused by climate change, the evident deterioration of our planet’s natural capital, the financial crisis the financial crisis just two decades ago, the wars and other conflicts that have caused millions of people to die or be displaced, and the absurd existence of nuclear weapons, which, far from being reduced, has worsened in recent years, to cite just a few of the many examples.

Despite the existence and increase of global risks, some of which have already become existential for humanity and the planet, the multilateral system, far from being strengthened, seems to be very close to collapse.

The threats hanging over the multilateral system are overwhelming: blatant violation of the essential norms of international law by major powers; non-compliance and even repudiation of international agreements and treaties; paralysis in decision-making mechanisms to prevent and resolve armed conflicts, most notably within the UN Security Council; the multiplication of war fronts as has not occurred in many decades; systematic undermining—by omission or commission—of multilateral institutions to the point of paralysis, as is the case with the World Trade Organization; deliberate efforts by some members to erode  the effectiveness and credibility of international institutions by some of their members; failure to adopt and implement strategies and policies—even those recently agreed upon—to address proven risks, such as pandemics; disregard for conventions and norms on human rights; the formation of regional blocs that exacerbate high-risk rivalries; fragmentation of the international trade system; and indifference in addressing emerging risks, such as cyber threats.

Historians debate whether today's geopolitics resembles that of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, leading up to World War I, or that of the 1920s and 1930s, on the way to the Great Depression and World War II, or whether it is something like that experienced during the "Cold War." Others go as far back as the Peloponnesian War and apply Thucydides' classic analysis. My answer when I have been part of that discussion has been: “all of the above.”

Among the circumstances that occurred in the past and are now present again, we should count the following:  multipolarity displacing unipolarity, military rivalries between the alliances that emerged from that multipolarity, open confrontations between the two greatest powers, exacerbated nationalisms - hand in hand with increasing armies, deepening economic disparities – both between nations and within them, isolationism and a resurgence of protectionism, ideological competition,  ‘modernisation' of nuclear weapons instead of their abolition; technological and economic disruption, and repudiation or at least detachment from institutions and international law.

In the disastrous first half of the 20th century, they caused the two great world wars. They may cause the third in our very own time, with one major difference: it would be the last for humanity. Any use of nuclear weapons, however limited it may be at the beginning, would unleash a chain reaction, where the firing of just a fraction of the existing arsenals would lead to the extermination of our species. In a war with nuclear weapons, no one wins, we all lose everything.

What can prevent not only nuclear holocaust, but also open up paths to prosperity, justice, and peace in the world, and on that path successfully face the global challenges -- or as we economists say, provide the global public goods -- that concern this Forum?

To be frank, it is not anything different from what has been used in the past. I make the point, recalling that when my admired friend, Graham Allison of Harvard, populariser a few years ago of the Thucydides trap as a theory of the China-United States rivalry, launched the intellectual challenge of formulating proposals to free ourselves from the consequences of such a dilemma, I allowed myself to tell him that since the years of the great Greek historian, among other things, humans developed such basic and useful tools as politics, diplomacy, and international law, and shown that it is possible to apply them very successfully, whilst  also experiencing the consequences of ignoring them. The real challenge is to make the powerful recognize that it is in their own national interest to resort to these means of civilization and avoid those of barbarism.

I insist, this is not about invoking ethical values, altruism, or justice. It is simply about acknowledging how high the cost has been of not using international institutions and rules to resolve disputes and address common or global problems.

One cannot resist the temptation to refer to at least a couple of calamitous examples from this century, so as not to look too far back in the past.

Consider the human, economic and geopolitical costs of the US invasion of Iraq that began in 2003, costs that would have been avoided if that power had adhered to the process that was already being followed at the UN Security Council to determine the dangerousness of Hussein's regime. Three and a half trillion dollars in direct costs plus that of the destruction caused in the invaded country, as well as more than half a million lives lost, deep regional destabilization, and a dramatic loss of US influence, marking the end of the brief period of unipolarity and benevolent hegemony - as that nation was seen during the years immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

And what about the crime perpetrated by Russia invading Ukraine - without any justification for such brutal use of force and violation of international law - with the human losses and destruction that it has and will continue to cause. To calculate the direct cost of this war, one must also think of trillions of dollars, the human lives sacrificed nearing half a million, the immense value of the destruction caused, and whatever happens, a less secure Russia, converted into a criminal state completely outside international law and less respected than at any previous time in its history. The damage and pain caused to Ukrainians is already immense and simply irreparable. The cost incurred by other countries is also colossal. None of this atrocity was necessary. Beyond President Putin's fanciful imperial ambitions, any controversy, if it really existed at all, could have been resolved peacefully through the means of diplomacy and international law.

The essential question is: where do we start to avoid the disaster looming over the planet’s geopolitics?

One possibility is to pay attention to the Pact for the Future, approved at the UN Summit just last September 22 by all member countries - except seven led by Russia.

The UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, stated that the Summit was to move multilateralism away from the edge of the precipice where it now seems to be. The agreed Pact contains at least an agenda - ambitious under the current circumstances - to first preserve what remains of the system and then strengthen it. It contains critical commitments for many aspects of international cooperation, but those related to international peace and security, as well as the revitalisation of the multilateral system, are particularly important, addressing fundamental issues such as the reform of the Security Council and nuclear disarmament.

Delivering is not the same as promising. It would be serious if the Pact were to join the long list of commitments made by governments at important summits, only to be forgotten as soon as they are over. A special effort is needed to organise the provision of global public goods solemnly agreed on September 22.

The challenge is that, given the absence of a global government with the authority and capacity to regulate, enforce, and impose taxes to finance them, action to initiate the provision of global public goods must be voluntary. But given the resistance of nation states to share their sovereignty and the temptation to let others pay, the voluntarism to unleash that provision does not happen spontaneously. Historically, it has been necessary for a nation or a small group of nations, with an enlightened vision and a clear sense of responsibility, to unleash the processes leading to the solution of the problems that affect all humanity.

Who can play that role in our time?

In the past, the United States has done so, exercising the leadership it built up both through the military and economic might it had after World War II and its feverish activity in promoting the creation of the UN, the Bretton Woods institutions, the GATT and many others during the 1940s and 1950s.

In the past two decades, the United States certainly seems interested in preserving its preeminent power but equally engaged in weakening the multilateral system --that it largely built. Its behaviour fits into a view that purports that during the period in which the hegemon's supremacy is not threatened, it will be in its interest to support the rules-based system, largely of its own construction, in order to preserve and enhance its dominant position. But when this position is threatened by the emergence of a new power—in this case China—the hegemon may turn against the rules-based system and revert to one that is based purely on power, to delay or even prevent the emerging power from taking over the dominant position. This is a short-sighted view because it is actually in the long-term interest of both the hegemon, the United States, and the emerging power, China, to operate within a system with rules that serve to contain the effect, intended or not, of the actions of the adversary country, if that is a valid term. Be that as it may, neither of them seems genuinely interested in effectively leading the defence of the multilateral system in the immediate future; rather, they are concerned with the opposite, most notably the United States.

To put it bluntly, the European Union is the only benign power on the geostrategic horizon up to the task, and one around which a coalition of middle powers could be formed that would join the endeavour --for their own national interest-- such as Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and at some point some developing countries with the possibility of becoming an emerging powers. For the moment, I rule out India.

The EU seems like a suitable candidate to fill the void left by the United States for many reasons. Its economic power should be highlighted --although this obviously needs to be strengthened; its proven normative capacity, starting with its attachment to democratic values, respect for human rights and the rule of law; its solid --by any comparison-- institutional structure that has materialised into an admirable supranational entity that could well be imitated in some of its features to reinforce multilateral governance; and its proven commitment to agreements and policies to address global challenges.

Of course, to assume this role, the EU must overcome multiple challenges, the most important of which is perhaps to achieve a new balance in its relationship with the United States. It could start by not imitating the latter’s trade neo-protectionism and helping to fix the damage done to the World Trade Organization by the United States since the previous American administration and which has not been repaired in any way by the current one; likewise, Europe should not imitate the acute Sinophobia that afflicts the United States, which will prove very costly for all involved. And, of course, it must take the essential components of the Pact for the Future - in whose content it had a great influence - and promote concrete initiatives for the implementation of those components.

I truly hope that this forum will serve to address, among others, these crucial issues.

Thank you very much!

Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de León, former president of Mexico, Yale University.