Networked Governance: Multilateral Institutions of the Future with discussants Sec. Madeleine Albright, Ashraf Ghani, Amb. John Bruton, Amb. Harriet Babbitt and Ian Lord at the 2007 Aspen Ideas Festival. Joan Dempsey moderates.
Some of the most inspired and provocative thinkers, writers, artists, business people, teachers and other leaders drawn from myriad fields and from across the country and around the world all gathered in a single place - to teach, speak, lead, question, and answer at the 2006 Aspen Ideas Festival. Throughout the week, they all interacted with an audience of thoughtful people who stepped back from their day-to-day routines to delve deeply into a world of ideas, thought, and discussion.
Madeleine K. Albright
Madeleine Albright is the first woman to become a United States Secretary of State. She was appointed by U.S. President Bill Clinton on December 5, 1996, and was unanimously confirmed by a U.S. Senate vote of 99-0. She was sworn in on January 23, 1997.
Albright now serves as a Professor of International Relations at Georgetown University's Walsh School of Foreign Service. In addition to her PhD from Columbia University, she also holds Honorary Doctors of Laws from the University of Washington in 2002, Smith College in 2003, University of Winnipeg in 2005, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2007 and Knox College in 2008. Secretary Albright also serves as a Director on the Board of the Council on Foreign Relations
Harriet Babbitt served as Deputy Administrator of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) from 1997 to 2001 and as US Permanent Representative to the Organization of American States from 1993 to 1997. Ambassador Babbitt was a senior public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and is an attorney. She serves on numerous boards, including those of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, Population Action International, and the World Resources Institute.
John Bruton is European Union Ambassador to the United States and a former Irish Prime Minister. As the EU Commission's head of delegation in the US, Ambassador Bruton explains major EU developments and discusses the importance of the EU-US relationship in matters of trade, counterterrorism, public health, energy, the environment, and the promotion of peace, democracy, and human rights around the world.
He has served as a member of the Irish Parliament as well as Ireland's Minister of Finance, Minister for Industry and Energy, Minister for Trade, Commerce and Tourism, and Parliamentary Secretary. He was as a member of the convention that drafted the first European Constitution, and from 1999 to 2005 he was vice president of the European People's Party.
Joan Dempsey was elected Vice President at Booz Allen and Hamilton in 2005. Previously, she served two years as the Executive Director of the Presidentâ€™s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) having been appointed to that position by President Bush in July 2003. In May 1998, Joan was confirmed by the Senate to serve as the first Deputy Director of Central Intelligence for Community Management, a position she held until her appointment to the PFIAB.
Admiral Sir Ian Forbes joined the Royal Navy in 1965. He has spent much of his career at sea, including tours in HM Yacht Brittania and on American Exchange with the USS W.H. Standley.
Ashraf Ghani is chairman of the Institute for State Effectiveness, established in 2005 to promote the ability of states to serve their citizens. He is the former finance minister of Afghanistan and chancellor of Kabul University, and he served as a UN adviser to the process that led to the Bonn Agreement for Afghanistan in 2001.
He became chief adviser to Afghan President Karzai during the interim administration and then served as finance minister for the duration of the transitional administration. He is credited with the design of Afghanistan's integrated political, economic, and security strategy between 2001 and 2005. He is a member of the Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor, an initiative of the UN Development Program, and co-author of the forthcoming book The Framework: Fixing Failed States.
Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright discusses difficulties faced by women in positions of political power. This excerpt is taken from a roundtable discussion entitled Women and American Politics, and was recorded at the 2007 Aspen Ideas Festival.
Only our nation but the world is facing and we have heard about many of theseproblems and we have discussed over and over how difficult they are to deal with. This after noon I amhoping that we can start to talk about solutions to some of these problems and specifically we are goingto talk about network governance and the need for modernizing our ways of thinking aboutinternational institutions leadership in a global globally dynamic environment where our ourcommand and control sort of hierarchical structures may not be the best approach to dealing with someof these intractable problems. I have a truly extra ordinary panel of leaders on the stage this afternoonto start us on our discussion, of course in the center, we have former secretary of state MadelineAlbright who is here to talk about the need for reemergence of American leadership on many of theseissues. I also have to her right Harriet Babbitt former permanent representative of the US to theorganization of American states and also she served as deputy administrator of the US agency forinternational development and can talk at length about how our NGOs are now playing a role inleadership and then defining issues. We also have Ambassador John Bruton, former Irish primeminister and currently the European union ambassador to the united states, Ian Forbes on my far rightwho is a retired admiral of the royal navy and also was representative in many internationalorganizations and will be able to talk to us this afternoon about NATO and security issues of the futureand finally last but not least on my right, Ashraf Ghani who is currently chancellor of Kabul universityand chairman of the institute of state effectiveness and formerly was finance minister in Afghanistanbetween July 2002 and December 2004. I am going to ask the panelists to make brief opening remarksand then we will turn the discussion over to you all for questions on the topics that they address, sowith that introduction, Madeline would you start us off please.Well thank you very much and I am delighted to be here and to be on this panel, there are so manythings to talk about because I think that the international system is out of kilter and while I was knownas multi lateral Madeline, I think in fact that many of the multi lateral institutions that exist are notworking as they should, I was ambassador of the united nations for four years and feel very stronglyabout the importance of that institution but it needs very serious reform, the security council being thefirst issue, it just I generally talk about it as a Rubik's cube problem. When we were in office, webelieved that Germany and Japan should be made permanent members of the security council by virtueof their size and economic contributions and so what happened, the first country that came to me toobject to that was Italy and the Italian ambassador said, this is totally unfair, we need to be permanentmembers of the security council because we lost the war two which is a rather peculiar campaign slot.The other part of the Rubik's cube aspect is represented by ambassador Bruton which is that at anygiven time, I would go to a European ambassador and at any given time five out of the 15 members areEuropeans and most of them at that stage some were in the EU, some wanted to be in the EU, so I go toan EU ambassador and I would ask for his thought and they would say I am so sorry I can't help youbecause the EU does not yet have a common position and then two days later I go back to the sameperson, I say can you help me now, he said I am so sorry, I can't help you, the EU does have a commonposition which means the EU should have one permanent seat but I can't visualize either great Britainor France giving up its VITO so that is a part of the Rubik's cube aspect and its only one small part ofwhat needs to be reformed at UN.I also think that we have the wrong stack holders with in the international system and I hope that wetalk about this more because the truth is that a multi national corporation of major size has moreinfluence over the international system than and to pick a country where I hope nobody is from at themoment than Uruguay. And so the question is how an international system would have representativesfrom business as well as non governmental organizations as well as non as states and non-stateactives but part of what I did want to talk about was the US role, I believe in the goodness of Americanpower and I also was the person that was most identified with a phrase which actually president Clintonused first which is the indispensable nation and I continue to believe that with in the futureinternational system that the US has to continue to be the indispensable nation but how everindispensable always the way I define it does not mean along, indispensable actually means activelyengaged in solving international issues and so I would hope that what can happen as part of the solutionis that the united states sees itself one as a contributor to the re-organization of the international system,we after all were the progenitors of the UN and then a lot of the Britain was organizations and a lot ofwhat [0:06:14] ____ talked about when he wrote presented the creation and we I think need to be apart of the recreation because no matter what I think we will continue to be the indispensable powerwhat makes it difficult however is the numbers that just came out of the spew survey. I am the coacherof the senator Dan ford. I was I have to tell you first the chair, but the first time that the results cameout from 38,000 questioners and it just came out that the US numbers were bad in fact that peopledidn't like us, the Wall street journal wrote we are not bad on a ad that said, of course this was bad,Madeline Albright was the chair of the pew survey, so we decided that it had to be bipartisan andthis time we questioned 45,000 people in 47 countries and out of that the US unfavorable ratings areworst than they have ever been.And I just returned from Turkey and this is a sign, Turkey a NATO ally and one of the most importantto me strategic friends that we can have, our unfavorably ratings now are 83 percent, nine percent likeus there. That is very serious in the Ivory coast or Ivory our unfavorably ratings are only 11 but itsnot quite the same position as Turkey. I do think that the issue here is how as my colleagues here talkabout what an international system looks like, what role will the united states take and I personallybelieve that even after the Iraq war, because it will end, believe me at some point, the united states isgoing to have to be an active part which means that our leaders are going to have to make the case verystrongly that in American national interest, we are better off as partners and the indispensable nationwith in some kind of a newly functioning international system.I just want to make one other point which is that the rest of the world is also going through a number ofdifferent organizational changes and a lot of questions about how the Europeans work with each otherand I was just showing this chart to to ambassador Bruton, when I first came to the becamesecretary I hated to admit that I did not know every European organization so I asked our intelligenceand research part of the department to create for me a chart that would show the European organizations.I think you can see this a little bit, it is such a combination of things that we started calling at the euromess because of the duplication and the difficulties of creating a lot of ad hoc systems in order to dealwith whatever the immediate problem was, so as we deal with these issues, I think we have to thinkmore a long term than well certain ad hoc correlations are important that we can't just go ad hoc.Thank you Madeline. Harriet, one of the lessons learnt that we are already coming out of this aspenideas festival is that we have not spend much time on Latin America or Latin American issues andcertainly you may be able to speak to that in your formal role of the organization of the Americanstates, but I also know you have great knowledge of the involvement with NGOs and so I would bevery interested your perspective on how multilateral institutions can incorporate NGOs into theirdecision in governance processes.What you all ask as to think about the multilateral organizations or multi lateral approaches to the 21stcentury and the the best way for me to think about that is to sort of think what's the stage and whowere the actors and the diplomats were used to sit around the department of state and lament that theurgent always took the place of the important, that we are always putting out fires and never getting theimportant issues, the good news this is we were looking for good news, is that there is really a growingglobal consensus that these large multi lateral issues, these large global issues, are both urgent andimportant, and we have got climate change, we have terrorism, we have always these issues.I thought, I would talk a little bit about climate change, because it's been a big issue at aspen it'scertainly one of the issues that multilateral organizations have, and the world is going to have to faceand you know here is were we think big, start small and act now, you may think big eventually we needto have a 192 nations members of the United Nations as part of one global organization dealing withclimate change. It's hard to imagine that you can sit down with a 192 nations and negotiate a complexset of issues like that and although you certainly construct a situation where would have that - say thereare 15 most capable and most effective nations sit down and work at then pitched into the UnitedNations, they are starting small, I am going to disagree a little bit with Madeline in a sense that I am alittle bit of a proponent of the starting small venue, at least to identify regional organizations orSectoral issues, were you can get consensus or convergence more quickly, so for example the UnitedStates where this the administration has had a worse and a total failure of leadership on climatechanges has been denying the science and inhibiting the progress of others on the issue.The New England states got and put together a process for a Cap and trade system and Cap on themissions, Governor Schwarzenegger in California has done the same, many number of the westernstates have are eager to to become part of that, on the business and NGO side and I think this isreally a very interesting way of example Jeff Immelt at GE and Allen Belda at Alcoa and the folks atDuke energy have joined with, you know the world resources institute and the NRDC, the nationalresource of defense council to put together some thing called the United States climate actionpartnership, saying global climate changes real it's caused by people, it's an urgent problem, thesolution is a Cap and Trade system, those kinds of things feed into building consensus, and FT had awonderful piece yesterday on the advancing number and importance of correlations between businessand NGO's, where the businesses say we can't wait for multilateral organizations to catch up, we can'teven wait for our government to catch up, we have to do some thing now and push the process, so Ithink that's an important element, I wish the United States were in a leadership position, but we can'twait, we have got to move ahead on these issues, and these sectoral solutions are pretty good much.The another thought I would I wouldn't even and I have a lots of thoughts but I leave them for thequestion and answer period and that is that the institutional answers of these questions, it seems to mehave worked the best when they were the most focused and worked incrementally. We are all talkingnow about how the post called world war two institutions aren't really serving a very well the Bretonorganizations to UN and others, but if you look at the EU and I am not going to talk much about theEU because we have the worlds main expert on the panel, but the EU started off as a coal and steelcommunity, and have moved into a series of trade agreements, you know moved into a customs unionand moved into a currency area, and it grew as people became more comfortable with the laws ofsovereignty as the issues changed and needed to be addressed and now we and the world to look at theEU with NR as invested in the success of the EU in dealing with some of these issues, because it's asuccessful model with for how to put together even if not in the UN context in multilateralorganizations, or you look at the WTO, the WTO started off dealing with trade and tariff issues in1945, yet in 1995 it turned in the general agreement on trade and tariffs, it turned into the WTO, it hada, enforcement mechanism and had a much broader range of issues to deal with, so as we look atmultilateral institutions for the 21st century, I think we really have to pay attention to these sort ofsuccessful model of incremental growth and focusing really on the on who the actors are bringinghow to bring in the NGOs and what the state is, and the state is eventually global, but may be it's not initially global.Thank you Harriet, John as representative from the European Union, and certainly an organization thathas reinvented itself repeatedly over the decades as Harriet noted. What's your perspective on howmultilateral institutions can govern in some of these intractable problems?Well I think the strength of the European Union is that its multifunction, it has you know an energydimension it has a dimension to do with internal mark as it is a dimension of foreign policy, it is adimension of transferring money from richer to poorer parts of the European Union, and the factor hasthose multitude functions, means that it is actually able to have trade offs, somebody who may have togive some ground for the sake of an overall agreement in one area, may implicitly be compensated onanother or there may be understanding that, you know a consideration will be given when we come toconsider, all the topic, all the fact that you have addressed through on this.I think the problem with multilateral organizations for other countries that are not part of a group likethat is that there are each treaties individual, the United States I think is partially to 600 multilateralagreements, but each one of those are free standing, so the US count if it makes a concession in onemultinational organization which goes beyond what is in the US interest to do, what is good for theworld as a whole, it can't be compensated within that because there isn't a sort of a networking or asort of a mechanism, an agreed mechanism for trade offs, which the European Union is effectively.And I think that that's one of the - may be one of the contributions to thinking that EU could make atleast that held in our security strategy which you adopted in 2003, which I am sure, and happening inparticularly familiar with we said our goal was effective multi nationalism and this was heard as something very brilliant and I am not so sure whether it was or not, it was only a phrase, but I think what itprobably meant is some thing like what I am saying, creating a building a series of building blocks inthe world of which the EU would be one, which internally can do trade offs, who can then do trade offsin a manageable negotiation with five or six other blocks in the world, and there by create some thing that works.I think the difficulty would continue - is with continuing with a system of free standing individualmultilateral agreements, where such trade offs are impossible, and were each country is negotiatingindividually, I think it was some thing of American that the last Eurogear congress concluded, at all Iknow Peter Zoller then plays well, then basically he banks with the gavel and said this isagreed, now in fact there were several people in the room who didn't agree, but they were intimidatedby his personality and by the sound of the gavel and they shut up and they then ratify the thing.The same happened at the convention draft at European Union constitution that I said, history of it'sown afterwards but if it wasn't for got the stamp being some times a benevolentdespotism, some times just a test pass, we never have got the thing through, and I mean I all credit to Imean he drove it through and when it went through, all the governments signed up towards and did thebest of the very best to get through but you know this is the trouble with a very large numbers for yourequire every one to agree that you know it's just going to be very very difficult to be sort again andsee us in Europe all the time dealing with things has to be unanimous decision. So we need I think tomove to a system of blocks based on the capacity for internal trade offs.Thank you John, Ian you have come from multilateral institutions from a security perspective, joy tocomment on some of the challenges going forward from that angle?Well, I am delighted to be here in Aspen, and thank you for your generous introduction, I am a retiredroyal navy four star admiral and I freely admit I am a long way from the sea but I am feeling prettycomfortable and also I think one of the few bricks who has been wondering around so if I can just sortof open with the personal bridge statement before I would like a few remarks, I did 39 years in themilitary, I worked very closely with the American military from the rank of lieutenant right the way upto four star, I think that experience apart from being very enjoyable made me a committed atlanticist,just let me give you a two vivid personal experiences, the first was the falklands any of us whowould down there on the front line and I was, were absolutely convinced that we wouldn't to beprevailed on that with out US support in a shape of weapon rate and a shade of intelligence.Example one, secondly Yugoslavia when I was involved for one reason or another in the policy end onthe ground in Seriove and then running the battle group of Kosovo when Miss Albright was Secretary of State. And Iexperienced I think first hand through out that process, the strength and the influence of what I wouldcall the American power, and so I am just start off with a great believer in affective, and I think I amgoing to play their as Madeline's goodness of American leadership, and the necessity always intackling global problems, I left Hethrow three days ago, and it's been raining in UK for about two anda half weeks, and we had unprecedented flooding for a summer in the North of England, and we havealso had a bomb in well it didn't go off so we had a bomb in Glasgow and we also had a bomb inLondon, and when I go to terminal four, every thing stopped because we have another bomb scare andevery ones was off the plane and so we came a grinding halt day light in arriving, one of these eventshad had a chaotic effect on travel, and the economy, tourism, public confidence etcetera.So when I was reflecting all these in the plan, this you know a little bit of climate change in fact, a littlebit of domestic terrorism, conferencing a government machinery at some stretch, a new governmentincidentally in tend and it really struck me the network governance an interesting term and our abilityto coordinate collective efforts domestically and internationally was a very much one of the significantchallenges at the moment. My field is clearly security in defense, my particular experience is as Johnsaid NATO, and its this organization, I just want to make a few brief comments about and they just hada very lively, 15 years and it's I sort of capture it in the term which has been chasing a rationale in avery fast moving security setting, until we slightly lagging it, when he has done rather well, fromarticle five and operations that standard defense to peace keeping in Bosnia, we had a peaceenforcement in course of it. To peace enforcement and support and stabilization operations inAfghanistan, and it's moved very rapidly and changing it self to adopt to cop with all these newexternal geo political drivers who have taken it really beyond its original comfort zone which was nicestatic operations with static forces and a robust static culture.But in reality it probably hasn't been able to move as far as it wanted to, internally not withstandingnew missions, new capabilities, and new members it is I think it is probably fair to say being tested tothe limit, because the decision to go out of area, a significant decision, make it in made in Icelandwhen I was in the room, when it was made, as I believe general Powel was as well. To move beyondNATO's previous borders was absolutely an amend decision, and the consequences were significant,you know if you were in a commercial business, it was like taking a domestic business suddenlyoffshore and international, and we did it in a stroke, we didn't do it with any pre prior preparation, sowhat is playing on the back of that? The Afghan mission is a real test, and NATO feruled a goodreasons Afghanistan really cannot afford afford to full shot on this test, because failure there, Ibelieve would have very profound consequences obviously not only for Afghanistan but for NATO aswell, probably more profound than un profound and for the United Nations. So this has been a learningprocess for NATO and we are trying hard to catch up, and I wouldn't I am trying to give you anyfalse impressions just not quite a struggle. And there was some big lessons, there has been a gap I thinkbetween what I will call the rhetoric of nations, signing up to missions and the reality as being preparedto resource them, there has been a failure on occasion of fourth generation providing the right numbersto get on the right mission and we have in areas full ensured, I have seen the secretary general goingfrom nation to nation and his various delegations looking for one and two helicopters from nations,now this is this is strictly not you know effective fourth generation, and there has been a tendencyonce forces are in theatre, in terms of rules of engagement to place cheviots on respective nationalcontingence and what this means is that the the nation will sign up to providing a contingence to goon the deployment but then it limits it to the missions that it might be able to undertake, now clearlythis is extra ordinarily difficult for force cohesion, it's extra ordinarily difficult for force commandersto have configure his force and it really isn't particularly intelligent for missions success. There are lotsof others, but I went to one of them, there is a internal problems that I think and the alliance is havingto deal with and progress is being made, and there is a bigger issue, and I think we have sewed to touchon it for the other panelists so that's an external one, but in today's complexity in the failing statescenario or in security issues generally and the problems are not solved by the use of military forcealone a general Powel I think might have mentioned this yesterday, it is a tool, but it is a relatively blunt one.In Afghanistan for instance the collective leavers of international power I think probably and I am surewe talked to Powel this morning and I went I went to a state of thunder but the military track underNATO is going one speed and the other tracks political, diplomatic, economic reconstruction, are goingat another and clearly from a strategic overview point of view, this is not intelligent and the words,strategic failure, you know it's sort of walked around the out field, and that that's sense relativelywell. So that's really one element associated with this this is the fact that the coordination betweenglobal institutions in the security context, the UN, NATO the EU, the world bank etcetera, and what Iwould term strategic level it's patchy, I were go any further and that's pretty patchy.In some cases I mean as [0:25:40] ____ non existent and the upshot is that we then got a less sensibledivision of labor, when we go into these particular scenarios, and a less sensible common approach,and looking at the threats in the security field that we touched on, here are the last two to three days,and it's it's we have to really make progress here and it's a big issue, and we don't appear to have aglobal security form of market rendering our intervention models some two decades after we first wentin terms of Bosnia rending them as any thing less than inefficient, perhaps we need some thing,representatives seems that with all of that lessons of intervention over last 15 years, which many ofthese in this room have learnt, we remain less in capable of forging institutional relationships betweenour primary security providers with the speed that we should, we have to find ways for improving this,and I think may be this is an area where the private sector, looking at this very critically may well be able to help.I am very conscious about my five minutes this picture has been some more gloomy, it wasn't meant tobe but we are here to look at the problems after all. How ever let me finish on a hind note, whendespairing a little bit about the road ahead, a glance in the rear view mirror to see how NATO, how farits come as it was rather heartening just let me give you three, we will know them but there it wasrehearsing in a forum like this, stability in Bosnia, the most successful post complete mission of themodern era, and NATO was in the heart of that, the politics state in NATO unthinkable a decade ago,and NATO was at the heart of that and last I name it these German military force on the ground inAfghanistan [0:27:16] ____ did, so that is much that we have to do, we are doing a lot and but that doesremain an often lot more to do thank you very much.Ian thank you, Ashraf you come with this from slightly different perspective and you have beeninvolved obviously over the last five or six years in rebuilding a country and in dealing withmultilateral institutions from a different perspective. Could you please share with us some of thechallenges you see and what you think the way ahead could be?Thank you, it's a pleasure to be here, the first thing is about governance, in 1965 was the first use of theterm, to mark the shift from administration as a hierarchical phenomenon and for management, as ahierarchical phenomenon within the corporation because it was top down to lateral, so the key issuereally here is about shift to share decision making processes, not hierarchical domination, and notsurprisingly the word came from the university, the word governance was first used in relationship withuniversities, now if we look into globalization, what is it done to us? It's a simultaneous it's aspontaneous process, that is of human making but not of human design, so it's out stripping ourinstitutions, it's posing challenges for which the institutions that we know were not prepared.That the problem is that we approach the problems from the mental models of the past, not inrelationship to the challenges that our present and are going to confront this in the future, because ourmental perspectives are defined from the perspective of interests with which we have been raised, notthe realities or that are going to forces us to confront the nature of our interests in different ways, one ofthe most difficult things for dominant powers has been the question of succession, will they think inorderly ways about succession? What were that - their dominant position is different than the worldthat they began with, Great Britain at enormous difficulty making that transition during the first waveof globalization and hence we got the crisis, the second point to be made about we don't have globalinstitutions today, we only have international institutions, nations as nation states are the operatingmembers of these and again as secretarial so eloquently said, the corporation is not present in thesedecisions and the reason is very simple. The economy, the world of 1945 was national in economicterms, was national in political terms, national in cultural terms, hence a lot of restrictions on flow ofmoney, money was tightly controlled, this world that we live in is a world of flows, and thoseorganizations have great deal of difficulty. Now to frame the point both about in two way, one, theseorganizations UN, the world bank IMF the whole is listen at some of the points, because they operatein silos, those silos may have been justified particularly prior to 2001, up to yes, 9/11, but after theworld of 9/11, you cannot have compartmentalization into security development and monetary policy,then the organizational culture of each has become distinct, the UN is never been needed more, that isleast capability to govern it self, and least resource to do the task that the international community requires of it.It's chapter is a major asset, today I don't think we would be able to secure in agreement on a chapterof that breath of vision but the organizational management day to day is really a problem, DeanAtchison again secretary Albright mentioned make sure that the world bank had a mandatethat its management could do, and has what - what ever they pleased. But the problem is that the flowof financial resources has made money to the least of the problems, that is not this world is not facingshortage of money, it is facing the institutional agenda for management of that money, and the bank has a problem doing this.The IMF lost its credibility in 1998, again an organization that is very much like a priesthoodincredibly competent that they may have much been trained by just words and their approach rationalcardigan but when that medicine did not fit the world of 1998, now they face a crisis, because of this, Ithink we need for reform becomes fundamental, under one hand to built on the capabilities that exist,but on the other hand to bring them to under poor governments, and this network governance today incases like Afghanistan cannot be done with out the corporation in the civil societies, we need tounderstand that international organizations on the one link in that chain, until the reform, this reform isnot going to be radical under the current context. Each organization presents different possibilities, but- and the discussion is not taking place, except and for us like the Aspen festival.Why because most of those other discussions are about hierarchies, people, governments take positionsthat are about their interests rather than about a project of collective imagination and what we need tobe I think is a project of collective imagination of the same magnitude, as the 1945 project, and 1945 asDean [0:32:38] ____ again said, he felt present in creation because half how to make the half theword, free and democratic with out blowing the horn, today our task surely is to how to think, about theentire process of the world, the reason is very simple two fold, one threats of global as as how DissoBrightly said second the criminalized networks are the most efficient in today's world, networkgovernance is best demonstrated among criminalized networks, and in places like Afghanistan, securityis most threatened by those criminalized networks, because they have flexibility, they have resources,and they have precision, and to move NATO or the world bank or the UN to cope with the challenge ofthat time, really requires imagination and leadership, and that what we need.That's a great conclusion, I think what we would like to do now is open the panel up to questions fromthe audience, if you have questions please go to the mikes on either side and as you do that I would liketo ask a general question of the panel, how do we began that necessary reform?, how do we bring intonetwork governance all of the players who have a stake in the issues? How do we reassert a certainleadership at all levels as part of this process and after you finish answering that that may be we cango on to atomic fusion or fission or whatever secretary Albright, would you like to start?