It is hard not to be distracted by the momentous events unfolding in the Middle East  – especially in Egypt.  But I wanted to turn my attention back to last month and specifically January 14-15th at Princeton University.   On that weekend a number of partners held the second annual Princeton global governance conference.  These Conferences are the partnership of: the Project on the Future of Multilateralism at the Woodrow Wilson School led by John Ikenberry, the International Institutions and Global Governance Program at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) led by Stewart Patrick, the Stanley Foundation led by David Shorr and the Munk School  of Global Affairs led by myself but accompanied by John Kirton.

This Second Princeton Conference was titled “Rivalry and Partnership – The Struggle for a New Global Governance Leadership”.  This Conference was a carry forward from our first Conference, “New Foundations for Global Governance”.  This year’s conference drew together about 30 scholars – principally from the academy in the United States but participants included, as well, experts and officials from Brazil, Canada, Korea, France and Russia.  Our Korean colleagues were invited, especially, to bring to the group a close-in analysis of the Seoul G20 meeting and then our French colleague advanced the debate by describing how the new French host at its President Nicholas Sarkozy would address certain issues in both the G8 and G20 meetings in France.

The Conference reflected a healthy combination of the more theoretic and the close policy discussions on the vital policy issues in the G20.  The organizers put together five panels:

• Panel One – Tensions in the Structure of Global Governance Leadership – US, the BRICs and Europe;
• Panel Two – The Consequences of the Seoul G20 Summit – Uncertain Transition?
• Panel Three – Competing Paradigms – Universality versus Clubs – the Legitimacy Challenge – UN Climate Change, the MEF, IMF and the Bretton Woods System;
• Panel How Big a Tent? – Like-Mindedness and Diversity and the High Table – NATO, IAEA, G8 and G20; and
• From Commitment to Compliance – The Challenge of Effectiveness – UN Security Council, IFIs and Gx – Global vs Regional Organizations

The organizers identified for each panel two experts to prepare short memos (5-7 pages and) and also identified 3 to 4 discussants who led off with comments about the substance of the memos.

The discussions were wide-ranging and a times exhilarating – not to mention exhausting.  I shall dwell a bit more on the memos in another blog but let me raise the big themes that seemed to be generated through the discussion and debate.  As the sub-theme suggests the great debate is over two matters:

• the leadership place and the substance of United States global governance; and
• the leadership – if any – of the newly emerging large market states, particularly China, but also Brazil, India and Indonesia and even some of the so-called middle powers – Korea, Mexico and even some of the European states.

There was much debate over both themes but no resolution.  In part the continuing and yet unresolved debate arises from different perspectives on:

• Whether the states are reasonably content with the global governance architecture or it requires a wholesale makeover.  There were views expressed that the leading states were, and are, driven by deep cleavages and norm divisions.  Others focus on the complex web of interdependence that ties traditional states and the rising powers;
• The matter of hegemony.  Is US ‘decline’ and the fading of hegemony driving the creation of a new architecture or does the US leading role continue to insure the leadership of the United States and the basic architectural structure.  Must the United States forge a new diplomatic behavior in order to reshape the global governance architecture.  If so what is that new behavior;
• If the leadership structure is to continue – which entails the rising powers taking on leadership in a variety of settings – who are the stakeholders in the newly emerging states that will underpin this new leadership responsibility; and
• and is the architecture being remade with the entrance of rising powers to positions of global governance leadership, or is there a drawing apart with regions and regional authorities becoming the new architecture of international relations.

The future remains clouded and contentious.  I’ll return to the Princeton debate soon.