Sunjoy Joshi
Chairman, Observer Research Foundation, India

Thank you very much for participating in the Tokyo Conference. Do you have any criticisms or other impressions about this year's conference that you would be willing to share?

The Tokyo conference has grown over the years, and though its format remains very similar to the first one, the quality of topics and level of discussion has steadily improved. The key point of the Tokyo conference is that it is very focused on global issues concerned with globalization, the liberal world order, the rules-based order, and it has kept that focus throughout. That lends a lot of value when it builds up to discussions of the G7 or the G20. And that is largely what we focused on: how the most powerful countries in the world are going to be working together to shape the future of the global order at a time when they lack the consensus to do anything of the sort.

That is the purpose of Tokyo conference. Think tanks around the world are engaged in dialogues on various issues, and your think tank is discussing particularly big issues of global importance. Here in Japan, we feel that we need to focus on the liberal world order and on protecting democracy.

We are trying to link the conflict between U.S and China with the issues faced by the liberal order. Do you agree with where we are placing the focus?

Yes, I think it is a good theme to start with. But I think we are also reaching a stage where we need to unpack the idea of what the "liberal" really means. Because "liberal" is being used to pack too many things together, and often many of them are contradictory. For example, you are seeing the rise of a very illiberal brand of liberalism, which actually does not want to engage in debate. This is happening on both sides, and that is precisely what is causing polarization in these societies. There are many liberals who are no longer liberal, who "hold the fort" as liberals, but are not willing to engage in discussions with other groups. We need to start thinking in terms of what we really want. What is it we are discussing with the term "liberal world order," because the word "liberal" has become really corrupted today.

So, I would think in terms of calling for open, transparent ways of thinking, which accommodate counterviews, which accommodate differences, and which allow for a healthy debate and discussion. We are not seen healthy debate and discussion even emanating from many liberal quarters today. That is a problem.

Your point is very important, and I agree. We are talking about the liberal order, but we don't have a definition for the word "liberal". I think you have provided us with a clue. It's about diversity, i.e. being able to understand a variety of opinions. We should accept our differences but remain open to discussion. Whatever the actual reason, it's not enough to simply use the word "liberal". We need to have a solid foundation on which to base discussion.


We're not thinking about next year's conference. We will be making a proposal to the G7, but are rethinking whether the current format is the correct one. The reason for this is that the G7 countries are not the only democratic countries in the world. There are also countries like Brazil and India. But as the G7 are the only representatives of democracy and liberalism who have made clear that there are issues with the system. The U.S. will host the G7 next year, so we are wondering how we should prepare for next year, including in the format the conference takes.

For next year's conference, I think it is too early to decide on the core subject because things will happen. I am quite sure the trade dispute between the U.S. and China will be resolved by next March, but that doesn't mean the larger conflict between them will be resolved - the larger conflict about geo-economics, about technological dominance. That conflict is very much going to stay. So, in that sense, the U.S. and China are the biggest economies, and they will still be center stage of any discussion we have next year, though we may not be talking about a trade war, but something different.

Aside from that, I think one of the most primary things which we need to talk about in conceptual terms is the way domestic politics in every country - in the U.S., in Japan, in China - are overtaking ideas about internationalism, about how countries should be engaging with each other. It is domestic politics which are guiding the flow of foreign policy. Politicians today don't have the space to think in larger terms beyond their immediate boundaries. In democracy, that is particular true and correct, because in democracy, the pressure to be elected every four or five years is that much greater. The democracies are tending to be more and more inward looking today than at any other time in the past. We need to discuss the issues facing democracies, which are issues to do with keeping the population engaged and happy, maintaining social stability under the pressures of migration or adverse demographics. There are different kinds of demographic pressures in different countries. Some are suffering from decreasing populations and negative birthrates. Others are still experiencing the bulge of youth. So, their priorities are very different, and countries may feel that their problems cannot be solved by others and they have to do it alone, in a way which is different from other countries. That is the source of the conflict across many countries. It is impacting foreign policy.

As far as new topics of discussion are concerned, we don't want to waver from framework of Tokyo Conference, which is our mission of discussing issues arising in the world order and democracy We will keep that in mind as we design next year's conference. We hope we have your support next year as well.

Always a pleasure.