0:00
Welcome for read.
Search this video
0:00
So sitting here today in 2026, it would have been hard in 2016, 10 years ago, to imagine everything that's happened.
0:08
We've had Brexit, the UK has left the EU, we've got Russia invading Ukraine, another war with Iran, we've seen Donald Trump be president two times.
0:16
All would have been hard to predict back in 2016.
0:19
So let love to play a little thought experiment with you, Fared.
0:22
If we're sitting here in 2040, what would the world be like then?
0:26
what would the world be like then? So let me preface it by saying I think there's a mistake that people make when they try to think about the future which is to think that there is a future out there that is going to happen and that the job of you know somebody who's
0:42
supposed to be smart like me is to is to tell you what it is but the future is actually contingent on so many things that we do that it's very hard to say well that is the future but I think what I can do is say to you where are the trends going and what could happen if we were to intervene. There's no question that
1:00
There's no question that the trend line is basically toward a disillusion of the American uh le international order created after 1945.
1:12
And this is a huge uh uh transformation because the system that was put in place in 1945 by the United States largely by the United States and Britain and with other others sort of helping along uh was really unique.
1:27
uh before that we had had hundreds of years of great power rivalry, nationalism, national self-interest, territorial acquisition.
1:37
I mean, if you think about it, a a place like Alsorraine traded hands three times in the in the 40 years before uh 1945.
1:46
You know, it was German, then it was French, then it was German.
1:47
Um, and what 1945 was an effort uh to do was to say we're going to try and do something different.
1:56
So it became a a a international order defined by rules, norms and values, defined very importantly by an open world economy and free trade so that countries could could grow their way into greatness and didn't have to uh you know uh uh aggress their way into they didn't have to invade their way into greatness.
2:20
um in infusion of ideas like human rights and foreign aid which were largely absent in the in the world before that.
2:26
So it's a very unusual and most people I think would be surprised to realize how much of it has stuck.
2:32
Um so territorial acquisition by force which was routine in the the area the era before 1945 um is virtually non-existence after 1945.
2:47
You can count on one hand the number of major cases of territorial acquisition by force that have that have stuck and almost all of them have a kind of shadow of illegitimacy around them.
2:59
Uh that's why Russia's invasion of Ukraine is such a violation of of international order.
3:04
So that world is clearly at risk of eroding perhaps even collapsing.
3:11
And what that would take us to is, you know, back to the future, to a world of great power rivalry, uh, freewheeling, freelancing, everyone just doing what's in their in his or her own interests, depending on, uh, whether you want to call nations male or female.
3:28
Um, and a a kind of unwinding of many of these structures of international cooperation that we've talked about.
3:40
You're already seeing it.
3:40
The whole international aid apparatus has is collapsing.
3:44
Uh concerns about human rights are becoming much much uh fainter.
3:48
Uh as the United States, which was in many ways the champion of them, is clearly relegating them to secondary or even tertiary uh status and and using them utterly manipulatively.
4:00
as with the Iran, you know, when when it suited our purposes, we claimed this we were getting involved for the Iranian people who seem to have been forgotten in the process of the res resolving this issue.
4:13
So that's the dominant trend.
4:13
Now I don't want to give up hope because uh for two reasons.
4:19
One, I think that while it is true that the great power that was at the center of this whole uh operation, the United States uh is losing both its dedication uh to this to this uh project, but also its capacity in some ways, not raw economic and technological power, which the United States has, but broader political power.
4:44
Clearly the United States is in some sense losing that that central hegemonic position it had.
4:51
But also you have the rise of countries like China which has a very different conception of world order.
4:59
Russia which is actively trying to uh trying to tear down this world order.
5:03
A Europe that is too weak and disunited to play a meaningful role on the world stage.
5:11
Um but you know the this world order has served so many countries so well.
5:18
Even China, China grew rich and and and powerful for the first time in three centuries under this world order.
5:26
Every Asian country that I go to is terrified at the prospect this that this order is unwinding because whether it's Vietnam or India, they all know that they have grown uh to to a greater level of of per capita income than ever before because of this order.
5:43
So there's a lot of countries there's a large part of the world that wants to see some version of this order continue.
5:50
So is it possible, you know, is it possible with a weakened United States but coalescing with its allies?
6:00
I mean, I've always been of the view that what we needed was for the United States to say, "Okay, we're not going to be the hegemonic power, but we could assemble a coalition of the United States and Europe and Japan and Korea and Singapore and maybe India.
6:13
And now you're up to 70% of global GDP.
6:16
You're up to 85% of global military spending.
6:22
So that's a powerful uh you know freedom caucus in the world as it were.
6:25
Which of these two outcomes [clears throat] you know what happens I think depends on on the on the choices that that we make.
6:36
I mean centrally the United States I do think Europe has an important role to play.
6:40
I think if Europe could get its act together and actually act in, you know, it's actually it's not so hard to imagine because in trade Europe acts in a unified purposeful way and is very powerful on the on the world scene.
6:54
It needs to do the same with foreign policy.
6:56
It needs to do the same with defense policy.
6:58
It needs to do the same in banking.
7:00
It needs to do the same in tech.
7:02
You know, one of the reasons Europe, which is full of incredibly talented people, really punches way below its its its weight in technology is it it you talk to any tech entrepreneur, they're not actually in a European market.
7:17
They're in 27 markets with 27 regulators.
7:19
And so, you can't get to scale.
7:21
I mean, the same is true in banking. You can't get to scale.
7:24
Same is true in defense in a sense.
7:26
If you want to have an alternative militaryindustrial complex to the United States, you need scale.
7:34
>> Freed, when you talk about, you know, the the route back or the route forward perhaps towards, you know, the a brighter version of the future you just described for people who quite like a rules-based order, who quite like the rule of law, quite like, you know, democ liberal democracies as opposed to illiberal democ democracies, which you've written about, what is the path and and and does the offer need to fundamentally change?
7:53
Is the problem for you know centrists people who pursued that kind of third way politics?
7:57
Is the problem one of of fundamental offer?
7:59
Is it about communication and not being charismatic enough in the leadership?
8:05
What's what's the problem with that offer and what needs to change?
8:09
>> Well, that's a great question.
8:09
I and I think honestly if I had the answer to that um I think it would be it would be a rich vein to mine.
8:15
Um because look, you're seeing everywhere this center in in uh in in in in under stress is the way I would put it.
8:27
Um I mean look we're you know in Britain right now you're looking at a situation where it's it's it would been impossible to imagine but the two main parties conservative and labor including the conservative party is basically the most successful political party in the western world are in shambles and it's reform and and the greens who are rising.
8:50
Um I think some of it is because of the success of that centrist neoliberalism.
8:59
In other words, people pocket the success that they have, you know, that that it has produced, all the increases in per capita income, all the increases in convenience, all the technology, all the the fruits of globalization.
9:12
Nobody wants to give any of these up, right?
9:17
Even immigration as Britain saw when it, you know, turned away from the European Union, they realized, oh my god, we do need people to man the NHS.
9:23
And so suddenly they're all coming in from Nigeria.
9:26
Um, you know, there's a reality to globalization.
9:29
Look, why have we survived this oil shock so well?
9:32
Uh, oil prices really haven't gone up as much as most people predicted.
9:38
because the incredible flexibility and suppleness of global global capital and globalization.
9:47
So part of it is success.
9:47
So part of it is success. I think you know it's easy to pocket all the gains and focus on the areas which are which are real problems which is that the growth is uneven that it is is causing or accelerating a certain de-industrialization and that leaves uh certain pock certain groups of people disempowered but I think fundamentally it's because
10:12
liberalism has always had this problem and I'm using liberalism in the very broad you know kind of the classical liberalism, the enlightenment tradition, which is that we tell people, you know, it used to be that the church told you what a good life was and then dictators told you what a good life or the monarchs tell you what a good life is. We're going to tell you that's your
10:33
We're going to tell you that's your private decision.
10:36
We want to construct a society in which nobody tells you what what the meaning of life is, what a good life is, and you get to choose.
10:43
If for you it's Christianity, bravo. It's for you it's Islam.
10:48
For you it's uh whatever it may be. Um it's it's all right.
10:53
Buddhism, yoga, whatever you like.
10:56
>> And I think people find that more disconcerting than we than we have realized >> that most people find the idea of constructing, you know, the meaning of life for themselves very very difficult.
11:08
And you know, unless you're Aristotle, it probably is very difficult.
11:13
And so they'd rather, you know, go to the Bible or go to the Quran or go to the Talmud.
11:20
And and so the idea of being unmed uh by, you know, losing the certainties of faith and tradition and community uh and nation is very unsettling.
11:32
>> And what the right gives you instead is is certainty.
11:34
Often it says we'll go back.
11:36
We're going to take you back to the good old days.
11:38
That's why the most important line in Donald Trump's uh slogan is again.
11:44
>> Yeah, >> it is a it is a promise to return you to some edenic past which probably didn't exist, but it sounds very reassuring.
11:52
>> There's some fantastic ideas in there.
11:53
So, I just want to make sure we articulate them and pull the thread.
11:54
articulate them and pull the thread. So you you you think that globalization and the kind of liberal democratic rule-based order delivered fantastic things and society has become somewhat hydonically habituated I guess to the benefits we've seen and are focusing on
12:11
the negatives but actually you think the diagnosis of the ills is more about potentially not having a a shared culture a shared set of morals a shared narrative because that is part of the promise of the liberal democratic order rather than globalization not necess necessarily delivering on its economic promises. I think absolutely and look
12:27
I think absolutely and look the data bears this out.
12:29
I mean the the you know there are some things John Moir the guy who won the Nobel Prize for economics last year uh talks about this um the progress is so sweeping that you can't even put a price to it.
12:44
So his example is in until the middle of the 19th century all surgery was done without anesthesia.
12:54
So what would happen is you would you would the person would be uh usually uh given some vodka to get him drunk.
13:00
He would then be told to bite the bullet.
13:05
That's where the phrase comes from.
13:05
And the surgeon would go in for a few minutes cuz that's all you had.
13:09
After after that the person would probably die of shock or sepsis or something.
13:16
Today what would you pay not to have? Right.
13:20
Right. There is no price that somebody would be willing to pay to say okay yeah it's okay don't use anesthesia on me while you're so >> or child birth >> right child birth you know I mean I remember reading over and war's memoirs in which he talks about he I think they came from a grand family and and he
13:38
talks about but you know don't don't feel so um so envious because my uncle the earl or whoever it was died when he was 45 of a tooth infection of a you know because in those days that those So there's so many advantages that we don't even think about and nobody wants to turn them back. Look at how how how
13:56
Look at how how how you know we reacted furiously to the rise of a little bit of inflation that took place you know in the last five or six years.
14:06
So so I and it's not even even beyond economic and uh and kind of health benefits.
14:11
There's a very interesting debate in the United States taking place about there's a kind of post uh liberal right uh that David JD Vance represents a kind of saying we we want to we want to go back um and they're very careful about how they phrase what what they what we've created a society in which individual rights are exercised too much in uh you know in favor of at the expense of collective or family values and things like that.
14:41
So then if you press them and say, "So what are you talking about?"
14:46
Well, it's too easy to get divorced.
14:48
So are you saying you want to unwind the no fault divorce assumptions that allow men and women to get well?
14:57
They don't want to say it, but that is what they want and they don't want to say it because it would be wildly unpopular, you know, or say you want you want to restigmatize uh being gay, you know.
15:09
In other words, that when people talk about going back to the age when there was, you know, family and values and certainty, they what they're talking about is the denial of people's individual rights and freedoms, which I think most people in the United States, in Britain, in Europe would recoil that.
15:29
And so, it has to be softpedalled as this we want to go take you back.
15:33
You know, there's something comforting and soothing about it.
15:35
But very often what you're talking about is repression, oppression, denial of rights and nobody would stand for that.
15:44
>> The one thing I would push back on is there has been a big expansion of what's considered rights over the last decade. Right.
15:50
I mean it it's a continually expanding >> concept in the classical liberal sense rights were pretty clear cleanly defined.
15:58
>> So so this is I think that you're a very good interviewer.
16:00
good interviewer. So this gets us to um the problem with liberalism uh is that after achieving a certain amount of success in my this is very much a particular view um I think liberals start saying okay what next what you know because in many ways liberalism achieved so much it defeated the church
16:20
it defeated aristocracy it defeated monarchies if you look at what the liberal project was you know in the 19th and even the liberal democratic project which I would call kind of got revised after a while when people saw the brutality of capitalism, the inventiveness, but so it became a kind of social welfare thing and that also got achieved. You've really created mass
16:38
You've really created mass middle class societies with welfare states.
16:42
So what do we now believe in?
16:44
Now we believe in cultural rights and we believe in more and more individual rights and these individual rights are provided to more and more groups and the groups can define themselves as they want and in many cases in my opinion these are actually illiberal ideas because you're now saying you're not judging people in in Martin Luther King's famous line by the content of their character but rather by the color of their skin.
17:08
If you remember in his famous speech he says I want my children to be judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin.
17:15
But if you have racial quotas for college admission and for employment that is doing the opposite and I understand it came out of well-meaning reasons and you know a desire to recognize the playing field was not equal but it is fundamentally illiberal and there should have been time clocks
17:33
on them and it should have been done much more carefully and most importantly it should not be expanded to mean every everything and everybody and I do think some of the maybe a of the of the move on the right to the right has been a kind of cultural backlash. You know, because you think
17:51
You know, because you think about it, everywhere you look, what is the single issue that that fuels uh the the populist right?
17:58
the populist right? It's immigration and assimilation which are essentially about this whole issue of you know um are we are we supposed to provide special favors for people uh who don't look like us who you know who come in from abroad all that kind of thing and and I and by
18:17
the way you can see the one place that doesn't have much right-wing populism that is an advanced industrial country with all the other problems is Japan and the one thing Japan doesn't have is immigration so in a sense you they the you can see where the problem lies. Um
18:30
you can see where the problem lies. Um and liberalism did go I think it went it went seriously arry and and I I found this when years ago I started to argue very strongly against asylum the way asylum has been expanded and I would get furious responses from people on the left
18:51
>> saying you're being heartless you're and I kept trying to explain to them you will break you know society can only take so much change and you will break the compact you have >> freed let's close this part just by talking a bit more about America and America's place in the world which you've written a lot about. You've
19:06
You've written a lot about the decline of America now where politically speaking it seems so broken, so so polarized or as our mutual friend David Dave Liban would say bulcanized where different sides see [clears throat] each other almost as a threat to their way of life.
19:21
But on the other hand, economically, it does seem to be bouncing back pretty significantly, really riding the wave of AI in a very aggressive way, which the Trump administration has been quite central to.
19:31
Have you revised your view at all about America's, you know, decline when you build in some of the econ economic success stories that are emerging recently?
19:40
No, because you know when I wrote the the book uh the postamerican world I the first line of the book is this is not a book about the decline of America but rather about the rise of the rest and I I really do think you have to be able to understand America um as a very ragged uneven country.
19:59
Um, and what I write about when I talk about American decline is the decline of American political influence, diplomatic influence, the aura of America, the hegemony of America in in kind of agenda setting and things like that.
20:13
I have always felt and continue to believe the United States is the most dynamic large economy in the world by far and that is not going to change anytime soon.
20:22
I think it's way beyond AI.
20:24
Um, it's that fundamentally the United States has found a way to maintain a a a very dynamic sense of creative destruction.
20:34
Even though it is a very rich and very advanced country, there is still this enormous sense of the the opportunity to try and fail to fail and regroup.
20:46
You know, there's no stigma attached to being to failing.
20:51
There is no uh limit to what your ambition can be. Look at Elon Musk.
20:54
All of that remains very strong in America and it remains strong for many reasons though I would say a central one is immigration.
21:04
Um I mean I think the United States has enormous natural advantages.
21:09
People forget that we are incredibly naturally resourcerich country with enormous uh great waterways and ports and things like that.
21:17
We are probably the lo as a large country the you know we have the the most capitalist system the most pro pro market system.
21:29
There are others I think that do better than us like probably on on balance Singapore and Switzerland are probably better run but no no large economy is better run in from a pro market point of view.
21:40
But the third part is we have dynamism and it's very hard for rich countries to have dynamism.
21:45
I sometimes say this to when I'm talking to groups of businessmen to try to make them aware of this point.
21:51
I say now because they're all usually successful, you know, we're in some setting like that and I say now you've all done very well.
21:58
Let me ask you if you honestly were to look at yourselves and say your children whom I'm sure you love dearly, are any of them as driven as you were?
22:10
And I very rarely got a single hand going up because you know the children are in a sense rationally reacting to their circumstances which are wealth compared to the the businessmen who grew up in probably much you know different different circumstances.
22:25
And that's what immigration does.
22:27
It brings you those people with real drive, real determination to succeed.
22:31
And you look at somebody like Elon Musk and of course he's he's brilliant. He's a great engineer.
22:39
But behind all of that also is a kid who grew up in South Africa trying to get out and say I want to make it on the biggest canvas in the world.
22:48
And that is so much part of what keeps the American economy going.
22:52
So much more we could go into there for we could keep going for hours talking about geopolitics with you.
22:58
We have to leave it there for part one.
23:00
We're going to be back next week for part two talking more about your career as a broadcaster and what you've learned about the art of the interview.