The international system is radically different from the one ruled by the Europeans in the 19th century. The balance of power was manageable only in a system in which interests could be identified clearly and in a manner that could be divided up without threatening the overall stability of the system as a whole World Wars I and II proved that the world had become sufficiently interdependent that it was no longer possible to talk about a national interest without reference to the national interest of other states, The US tried to set up an international system, which we have called the liberal international system, which was supposed to allow and maximize mutual interests: theoretically, all nations were presumed to benefit from that system

The purpose of that system was to avoid the disarray of the 20th century and to cultivate the interdependence of nations. It is, however, showing signs of wear and tear, perhaps even of disintegration. We do not have an alternative international system in the wings. There are, perhaps, other countries that would be willing to lead the world, but none has articulated an alternative system Which leaves us all in the lurch. I suspect that the world will not have a replacement for the US or the liberal alternative system over the next twenty years. But in twenty years you are all going to move into positions of great responsibility--it will be your world to govern. So I ask you all this question:

Over the next 20 years, do you think the world will become more or less stable? Will the world experience greater or lesser levels of violence? Will the vast bulk of humanity be better off economically and socially?