Office Hours @ TMP: Jean-Marie Guéhenno
(Photo/Jean-Marie Guéhenno/Columbia SIPA)
By Celia Saada, Varun Thotli, Jean-Claude Lane, and Sidney Poor
Office Hours @ TMP is a monthly podcast where we bring your questions on current events to Columbia professors. This month, we’re joined by Professor Stephen Biddle, a leading expert in U.S. foreign policy, military strategy, and defense.
This month, we’re joined by Professor Jean-Marie Guéhenno, the inaugural Kent Visiting Professor in Conflict Resolution at Columbia SIPA. A former U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations and President & CEO of the International Crisis Group, Prof. Guéhenno brings decades of experience in diplomacy, mediation, and global security.
VARUN
Welcome to the Morningside Pod, the Morningside Post podcast edition. My name is Varun,
CELIA
And my name is Celia.
VARUN
We're both second year students at SIPA with an interest in bringing office hours to the airwaves.
CELIA
In this episode, we're lucky enough to interview Professor Jean-Marie Guehenno, an esteemed scholar in conflict resolution and peacekeeping operations. He's an Arnold A. Saltzman professor of practice and international and public affairs at SIPA and the director of SIPA’s Kent Global Leadership Program on Conflict Resolution and the director of International Conflict Resolution Specialization at SIPA.
He is a former French diplomat and former Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations from 2000 to 2008. At SIPA he teaches in the fall conflict in the 21st century: Rethinking. And in the spring Failures and Successes of Three Decades of Peacemaking Lessons Learned and Unlearned.
VARUN
Outside of SIPA the list goes on and on. Professor Guehenno was a member of the UN Secretary-General's High Level Advisory Board on Mediation.
He's the former president and CEO of the International Crisis Group. The former chairman of the board of the center for Humanitarian Dialog, and so on. Professor Guehenno, it's a pleasure to have you on. Delighted to be with you. Looking at early beginnings and your presence at SIPA, what advice do you have for students at SIPA who are eager to work in conflict resolution this year, given the current job market? Where would you look for a job if you were graduating this year?
Professor Guehenno
Well, I think there are lots of NGOs that are still up and running and, that's that's a serious, market. Of course, they also affected by cuts. So I'm not saying it's an easy market, but I think at a time when, the UN, is becoming much more difficult with major, cuts, one should think about all the environment around the UN.
They also, they're also governments. There are many students who are, foreign students. And I have in my former students, I have some who work in various foreign ministries around the world. There's also, beyond the UN, there are international institutions like the world Bank, that also, interested in having, people who understand something about conflict resolution.
There are also corporations, that so you have to pick your cooperation. There are issues, sometimes there can be an ethical issue, but there are corporations who precisely want to be ethical and who engage in places which are difficult places where there is conflict or the risk of conflict. And so they need to have their political eyes, so to speak, wide open…And I would think as SIPA students would do great there.
CELIA
That's great advice. Now let's look, though, it's conflicts at Columbia that took place here this year, last year. So two months ago you took part in the Speak Out Protest for academic freedom alongside many of your colleagues here in academia at Columbia University. What motivated you to be a part of this initiative, and what are your thoughts on the current climate for academic freedom at SIPA Columbia University on a larger scale? Do you think the situation will improve also?
Professor Guehenno
Well, first, I think the core business of a university is a search for truth. And if you begin to compromise on that, it's the essence of what a university stands for that is at risk. And so I thought it was very important at a time when universities are under a lot of pressure, to show that the professors that the instructors are with the students in wanting academic freedom.
Because if you begin to to limit your thoughts, because you're afraid, of power, that is the end of independent, thinking. Now, what's the climate? Now, you know, I can't talk about the whole university or even the whole of SIPA. I can say in my class, I want to have, sort of open discussion, and I make sure that I don't censor myself.
And I don't think the students censor themselves. I think obviously they're all nervous, especially foreign students, because, they have, they have a visa depend on, on a visa. So I think it's important that we stand together in that difficult period so that there is a sense of community because we are the community which is looking for truth and that community, if it begins to fracture, then, it's over.
And I think that's my regret for universities is that they haven't coordinated their response enough. There should have been a much more coherent, front of universities. And that's one of the reasons why I, I was, at this, protest.
CELIA
Yeah, that makes perfect sense. I mean, we saw sort of a fractured response from each university.
Every campus had a totally different reaction to the Trump administration's. That being said, do you see the situation improving? There's still many more years of Trump left. At least three. Well, hopefully not more. Do you see any change coming up, a Columbia University from what you're seeing, from what you're experimenting here?
Professor Guehenno
Well, first, I don't know if the administration will continue to sort of focus on Columbia or not.
I, I personally don't think that the accusations of anti-Semitism, have any real foundation of course, they may have been incidents of anti-Semitism. That's, in a big place with thousands of people. You cannot, there is anti-Semitism everywhere. And, universities are not immune. But I don't think, that Columbia, which has many Jewish professors and Jewish professors with a range of opinion, they don't want to to decide that if you are Jewish, you have a certain position on Israel.
And if you're not, you have a different position. That's now freedom of thought means you have, every, every kind of opinion. So so I don't think, Columbia should be singled out on the issue of anti-Semitism. I think Columbia is a great research university. I think the administration should see that a great strength of the United States is its research.
That's what it's that what, that is the one big advantage of the United States, just as in my view, it's a big advantage to attract foreign students from all over the world. It's, I think for other countries, it's can be seen almost as a brain drain, because some of the best and the brightest, once they studied in the United States, they, some of them stay in the United States for good reason, because they, they like the country and they have job opportunities.
And I think also when you when you have spent, those critical years of your life, you make friends and, you, you like the place where you have worked. And so it's a great investment to create friends around the world. So I think, I hope that the Trump administration will see that and that it will see universities as an asset, not a liability for US power.
VARUN
I think it's great to see professors like you setting the standard and setting example for students here who may feel pressured or, not as emboldened to speak out on behalf of academic freedom. So I think your support is greatly appreciated by the students from in Columbia and around, the country. Thank you. Moving to current events around the world in terms of diplomacy and your courses at SIPA, you teach about different tools in conflict resolution and you assess their effectiveness, sustainability with students focusing on Gaza, given the broken ceasefire, as of recently, what do you think caused the failure, in the cease fire, if you had to pick one specific element, what would you say is the missing element in the Gaza deal from the Trump administration?
PROFESSOR Guehenno
Well, I think if you if you ask me to pick one specific element, I think any lasting ceasefire needs a strong party that can adjudicate disputes. If that does not is not present, then, each side can say it's you, it's you.
And, it unravels very quickly. I don't think you have that in the Gaza ceasefire. And then there is a broader context. There is the question of what are the real goals of both sides. And so there the ceasefire is very precarious because there is no real political horizon. I would say there's not visible political horizon on the Hamas side, and there is not a visible political horizon, on the Israeli, side.
So that that makes everything very precarious. I do hope, nevertheless, that the, the, the transactional side of President Trump, which achieved something that the Biden administration had not achieved because he was willing to to put I mean, there was a variety of reasons for that. There was maybe the exhaustion, but there was also more pressure, I think, put on Israel by the Trump administration than they had been by the Biden administration.
There's no question about that. And so it does open a window, a very fragile window, but it does open a window. And I think the the responsibility of, I mean, the international community, although I don't like this expression, international community because I don't think there's much of an international community, but the responsibilities of the countries that care, let's say.
And you have Arab countries that care. You have European countries that care is now to try to build on that imperfect, very fragile, foundation, to have something a bit more lasting so that the, the nightmare of, years of war doesn't restart. And so that there is a political perspective which in the end, will be the only foundation for a real peace.
VARUN
How would you suggest going about a means of adjudication for dispute resolution in the Gaza, region? Are there any prior examples of strong measures of dispute resolution that have been implemented, that you could think of that would be applicable to the situation?
PROFESSOR Guehenno
Well, I mean, when you look at, Unifil in Lebanon, Unifil as I mean, as had its ups and down and now it's, on the way out, but, nevertheless, you have seen it has it has been able for years to manage a very fraught relationship between Israel and Lebanon.
There have been attacks of the Hezbollah, in, against Israel. They have been, and they are, bombings of, Israel, of, Lebanon and the job of Unifil with, liaison officers and observers has been to, to try to diffuse each of those incidents so that they don't escalate into a major war. And that has worked a lot of the time.
I mean, it didn't work all the time. And we had the war of 2006, and then we had the more recent, war, but, when you think of the decade, decades during which it more or less worked, it's not insignificant. So I do think that you can have imperfect ceasefires that are nevertheless contained.
CELIA
Right. And un Unifil, I mean, the mandate is going to end in 2027.
And just now we're having reports of a resurgence of Israeli strikes on Lebanon. They're saying it's targeted strikes. Do you think that the dual role of disarming Hezbollah, the five face plan and pushing Israeli forces to withdraw is too much responsibility to put on the Lebanese government at the moment?
PROFESSOR Guehenno
Well, the the Lebanese government needs all the support it can that you can get.
To be honest, I think, Israel has the best possible interlocutor in Lebanon. It's a it's, government that is not corrupt. It's a government that wants, peace, that wants to develop, Lebanon. But it's a government that is fragile, that needs international support. The whole question of the disarmament of Hezbollah, it's going to be a very hard thing to do.
If it is to happen, I think it needs at least two things. It needs a strong, Lebanese, government with a strong, force. But disarmament will not happen just through force. That's the illusion of many situation like that. If there is to be disarmament, one has to recognize that the Hezbollah is indeed an organization that has committed a lot of terrorist actions and sometimes atrocities, but it's also a political movement.
It's a political movement that has a following among the Shia and among the poor Shia in, especially in southern Lebanon, but not just in southern Lebanon. And, Bekaa Valley, too. And it's a component of the political picture in Lebanon. And so you're not going to be able to turn Hezbollah into, civilian organization if there is no possibility of a political perspective.
For them, I don't think that will work. And so you have to have that fine balance between, yes, the strong, Lebanese government that can assert its sovereignty throughout its territory. And that's not easy. And at the same time, a political dispensation that does not give Hezbollah a lock on, Lebanese, political life, but that gives it the possibility of having a political existence if it renounces violence.
CELIA
Yeah. Thank you so much for sharing. Also on Lebanon, I think there's so much going on right now. There's definitely all eyes on the region. And looking also at the that Trump's approach to deal making and the rise in transactional diplomacy. How do you think that, you know, what space remains for inclusive and transparent but still impactful peace negotiations?
You talked about how in Gaza, that opened a window when we looked at other deals made by the Trump administration around the world. How do you think that there can still be inclusion of civil societies of other partners? You mentioned for guys, also how Europeans can step in and build a more sustainable deal. How do you think they can actually happen through a more inclusive and transparent process to these negotiations?
PROFESSOR Guehenno
Yes. The the advantage of being forced to, as the, Trump administration is, is that sometimes you can push people into a deal they don't really want to agree to, but for a deal to be sustainable in the long run, it cannot be too far away from what is the long term balance of power, so to speak, between the parties.
You can put your finger on the balance, but since you're not going to keep your finger on the balance forever, And if you if you remove that finger, there may be this equilibrium and everything can go south again. Can go wrong. And so I think for a deal to be sustainable, it has to be more than a deal.
In a way. It has to be a framework for peace. And you can see how the deal, the, the agreements that were just deals, either they are not sustainable or they freeze conflict in a bad way. When you look, for instance, at the Dayton Agreement, different period. The Dayton Agreement in a way has frozen Bosnia Herzegovina in 1995.
It's not great for Bosnia Herzegovina, but I use that example to to say that actually a good approach is to think in a phased way where the deal leads to, another step. And I think that's what, third countries, which have not necessarily been involved in the first phase, what I was saying about Gaza, need to, to move in to add support economic support, to so that, things get better.
I was, yesterday, I had in my class on zoom, Louise Arbor and we were discussing the role of justice, and, and I was very. And we asked her at the end, so what's the most, critical ingredient, for sustainable, peace. And I was surprised by her answer because I thought she would sell justice, but actually, she said no.
You know, at the end of the day, people want to have a living. They want to to have a life. And so we need really to help on that. And if we don't, everything remains very precarious. And I think there's a lot of wisdom, and that and I, I mentioned it because it's interesting to hear it from, someone as, I mean, experienced and with experience of justice as Reese Harbor.
CELIA
Yeah. I mean, you ask also people on the ground, they have the same answer. I was also at an event with an Israeli and Palestinian peace activist, and they were both saying at the end of the day, we managed to create a lot of joint ventures between Israelis and Palestinians because they need to make a living. People need to have food on the table.
So sometimes that can also be a key gateway to peace.
PROFESSOR Guehenno
I think it is. And that and that's why I mean, to to answer your question, if we want a deal to be more than a deal, there has to be a long term engagement of, external actors who are prepared to help, not to help, not to overwhelm.
CELIA
Yeah. Okay, let's move on now to peacekeeping operations on which you are expected to be the expert here. So between the UN significant deficits and the UN aid reforms, would you say that you've seen the UN in the past undergo such an existential crisis before?
Professor Guehenno
To be honest, no, I think, I think the UN at the moment is really at a very serious, you know, very serious crisis.
And when I try to to think about it, I recently read, a biography of you tonight, the Secretary-General, by his grandson, to meet you. And it's a very good book. I highly recommend it. But when you what you see. So Tunde was the secretary general of the United Nations in the 60s. What is interesting is that you see that in the 60s, all the leaders at the time, they had been through World War two, or they had been through the formative experience of decolonization.
And so the UN was, in one way or another, at the center of, their adult political experience. And they took it much more seriously, I think, than now. Today, everybody says we know everybody, almost everybody. Says we need the UN. We need. But it's it's an intellect. And and that's that can be sincere. But it's more an intellectual, conceptual pronouncement than an emotional one.
The I think in the 60s, there was a sense that the UN had been in a way, the, had played a big role in the decolonization process. And the UN was that organization that would prevent the resumption of a big war. And everybody had the memory of what a big war means. Now, fast forward a few decades, when I came to the UN in 2000, I think the UN was still, in a big place, but already much weaker, much less central than in the 60s.
And then now, even less so. So I think there's been, sadly, a trend toward the marginalization of the UN. And that is extremely dangerous, in my view, because, we know and it should not be just the knowledge of a historian. There should be some emotion in that knowledge. We know that the world, if it just relies on balance of power, that's a foundation that at some point, collapses.
We have been helped by, nuclear deterrence. It has made every act, more cautious. But to rely just on balance of power or nuclear deterrence to, to consolidate peace, that's a very dangerous proposition. I think the people who had the memory of World War Two understood that. I'm not sure we understand it, today. And so I think this crisis is really, existential in the sense that, yes, you can.
Yeah. As you say in the UN now, you can do less with less, so you can merge un human and UNFPA or things like that. That's really, tinkering on the margin. It's not, that's not the core. The core, the core issue, the core issue is do you want a world where there are some rules, and the rules have always been violated?
I'm not sort of painting a rosy picture of the of the past. I'm not naive, but nevertheless, there was a sense that rules mattered. And when you broke them, you tried to practically to pretend that you did not. And that was the beginning of virtue, so to speak. I think. Now, what you see is that you don't even care if rules are broken.
You invade a country, you bomb you, and, there's, there's no limit. And so that's a very dangerous phase. Which reminds me of what happened before World War two. The, Japanese, invaded Manchuria. The Italians invaded Abyssinia, then, Germany reoccupied the bank of the Rhine. So there were steps. And in the end, there was no more rule.
And we had World War Two. And so that's I think, what, we should be aware of. I think there's a vast majority of countries in the world which want rules. But they have to come together. If they don't, it will just, gradually, you know, disappear.
VARUN
You mentioned that the your main takeaway from what's been going on at the UN is that there's a lot of countries that have been essentially skirting or breaking the rules that have been set up by the UN.
Are there ways that the UN could reshape the the way that they set narratives or, create incentives for states that break or flaunt the rules so that they can be drawn back in the same way that they that they were in the 60s, as you mentioned.
PROFESSOR Guehenno
That's a tough question, because if you want, for instance, sanctions, the city council is too divided to, to agree on, many sanctions, at the moment and even more to implement them.
So, you have sanctions put forward by groups of countries or by countries. You have American sanctions, you have European Union sanctions. They certainly don't have the same legitimacy and universality as sanctions adopted by the UN Security Council. I think that nevertheless, the General Assembly, at a time when the Security Council is so paralyzed, could have a greater role, it has its limits because 193 countries with some which are tiny.
If you look at the majority of countries, you can have a big majority, which represents a small minority of the people of the world. So the General Assembly gives a voice to every country. But between Nauru and China, there's a difference. No offense to Nauru, but, that's, that's that's the reality of power.
But nevertheless, the General Assembly as a forum where everybody can speak the small islands as well as the big powers, I think there you can create some measure of legitimacy and pressure. The, the resolution that was adopted by the General Assembly, I think it's a couple of years ago when they pressed the Security Council members to motivate their vetoes.
They can't force the, the, the the Security Council permanent members to, to to abide by that. But nevertheless, it's a pressure. It's, and I think that's what we need to see more of. Yeah. The Lister sign initiative.
CELIA
Yes. Yeah. That, that was like a valuable effort. And I think the more it goes the more the council is paralyzed, the more we're thinking and exploring creative ways that we can use the General Assembly through even methods that were employed during the South Africa apartheid , the General Assembly to make sure that we can find new gateways.
Professor Guehenno
Exactly. Exactly.
VARUN
Going further into to your bread and butter peacekeeping operations. Year 2015 memoir titled The Fog of Peace discuss the tension between the varied results of peacekeeping operations in your tenure and the mandates that were set by large, powerful nations with little to no bottom up and the reliance on personnel from more minor developing countries.
Ten years later, how do you reflect on the increased isolationism from the larger countries? An overall deflated faith in peacekeeping operations and the growing tale of two cities between developing and developed countries in the international community?
PROFESSOR Guehenno
Well, first, I would say that when I was running peacekeeping, I have to be honest, there was a bit of hubris.
In the early 2000, this was really the unipolar moment. And there was this notion that a third party, that peacekeepers, that the United Nations can anyway reshape a country. And that's, that's not true. One has to be one has to have more, more humidity. So you had these big multi-dimensional, missions that were expected to really re-engineer, a country.
I think we, we realized that technically, it doesn't really work because you don't have the expertise to engage in such a huge project, even when there is a lot of money, as there was in Afghanistan, it was not under you and truly UN leadership for the development part. But there was a lot of money. So it was not a question of resources.
But we know how it ended. So this notion of, an all encompassing peace operation that reorganizes a country, I think it's, is not going to be revived. The question is where to find the right, where to set the right balance, because I think a complete retreat into narrow security mandates, will not work. You look at something that is very much in discussion now.
Haiti. In Haiti, yes. The police is being overpowered by gangs who have better weapons, more resources, etc.. So you want a stronger police? Sure. A more better trained. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. You want a police that is proud of what it is, of what it does? That is well paid.
So you need taxes for that because it's not going to be an international trust fund forever. You need the you need the Ministry of Finance that works. You need a ministry of finance that is legitimate as it taxes the people. You need the judiciary system because it's one thing to, to shoot, gangsters. But as much as you can, many of those gangsters and especially the sort of, low level gangsters, they are just they're out of poverty.
They're controlled by thugs. But, they need to make a living and, and many of them, they could be reintroduced to a more normal life. So you need a much more comprehensive, program, than what is envisaged, at the moment. So you you going to think I'm contradicting myself? And after having said that, a multidimensional mission is overambitious and ambitious and recreating one.
Not exactly. I think you need to prioritize a few key things under an umbrella that has some legitimacy. And I don't think there is a real alternative to the legitimacy of the United Nations, as imperfect as it is. But at the same time, I don't I think the UN has overstated its legitimacy, and especially with long missions, because when you arrive, when you deploy in a country, I have seen it with my own eyes.
And when I was in, in some place, in some places in Africa, you are welcome like the Savior, because people have have gone through horrible things. And so they see blue helmets arriving and they think their life is going to be transformed forever. And then a couple of years later, if you've been lucky, there has been an improvement.
But it's far from the Paradise that they were expecting. And so they begin to turn on the UN because there is a gap between the expectation they have and what the UN can really, deliver. So you have to, to manage that, and you don't want to overstay your welcome. And so I think as one looks at the future of peacekeeping, I would say more priorities, not ignoring the security dimension.
Of course, members say they would love to have just a few political officers because that costs much less than deploying a battalion. I think there are situations where you don't need more than a few political offices. There are many situations where you need a bit of muscle. So yes, security, but rule of law and a way to create legitimate institutions, a process which is not necessary.
Rushed elections. You need to focus, on that. And then you need to frontload things. Because if you if you think that, you will still be legitimate five years later. That's too late. And so I think this the UN needs also to have a sense of time. And lastly, I would say that it's important that the United Nations does not replace the national government because what we see in these long standing missions like, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, is that the government begins to win at the same time dislikes the UN.
And at the and relies on the UN, and the UN becomes an easy cop out. And so that must not be the case. And then and then you are in a kind of trap. And and that's a bad situation. So I think the UN may have in the future to be more supportive and more engaged in, supporting national forces, which raises all sorts of problems of impartiality, of being next to a force that may commit abuse, so that we compromise.
You do you cover something that is really bad. So there's no easy solution, but that these are the broad directions that I see for the future.
VARUN
Just one quick question about the DRC. As you mentioned, do you think that there's any room for the UN to work more cooperatively with, external multilateral negotiations? I'm thinking of Trump's negotiation in between the DRC and Rwanda, which of course didn't involve the M23 as it should have. But do you think that the UN could do more work to cooperate?
PROFESSOR Guehenno
I think the UN should be very pragmatic on that. I think it's a problem when there are too many parallel negotiators, which we have seen in some conflicts. But, in this particular case, you have a forceful president who wants, to to make progress on, on that file.
The UN is always better off is if it can, you know, a fly on the tailwinds of a strong actor. And so then the the United States is a very strong actor. So I don't think the UN should be bashful, about working with, with the Trump administration and on the IFC.
CELIA
Wouldn't it be the other way around, though, the US being bashful about working with the UN on the DRC?
PROFESSOR Guehenno
That may be the case, but at the same time, I think, you know, I was, at a peacekeeping during the Bush administration, which was not always the best friend of the UN, to put it mildly. But, I remember a conversation with the national security adviser at the time who realized that, the United States was not going to be everywhere.
It has its priorities. And I think that's very much, the thinking of the present, president, he doesn't want to commit, troops. He he wants others, to get involved, on the, on the, on the ground. And I think in that respect, he's quite wise because if the US is too visible in in some place first, it won't be very popular in the United States after the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan, but it won't be popular with the country for the troops where the troops are.
And so the UN is a great force multiplier in that sense because it, it can recruit troops that, the United States will have, is not willing to deploy or will have a hard time recruiting. So I would not be surprised if in the end, there is some kind of modus vivendi that develops, on that with the United States.
CELIA
Yeah, I think we're starting to see also ‘a la carte’ kind of, choosing and picking of us support to certain peacekeeping operations within the Security Council and others that they're trying to draw up as well.
Yeah. All right. Well, thank you so much for answering all our very serious war and peace and conflict resolution questions. But let's move back now to see by into lighter topics.
So firstly, a question we like to ask professors here. If you could teach any other course at Columbia outside of your field, what would it be?
PROFESSOR Guehenno
You mean if I could bluff and talk about something, I don't know.
CELIA
We want your hidden talents.
PROFESSOR Guehenno
My hidden talent. My hidden talent. Something I'm a more an amateur than anything I would.
I like to to teach on the question of democracy. Because I think this is. I mean, I write books, on that because I do think that this is this is a question of the future on, I think we're coming at the end of the of a long, cycle. And that the way societies come together in a hyperconnected world, but in a very superficially connected world, it raises all sorts of questions.
And, and with the competition of virtual communities, which can be more powerful than territorial communities, that, that creates really unprecedented challenges and maybe opportunities too. But I first see the challenges. And so, really thinking with students how we can manage that revolution, the political consequences of this revolution, how it redistributes power, how it reshape communities, that I think is extraordinarily interesting.
And and, you know, I, I think young people like you, you you are more I mean, I, I read everything I can put my hand on, to, to understand those things, but I cannot say I cannot claim to be an expert. I think we need that kind of, you need different generations to work together on, on that.
So I would love to teach a course like that. It sounds like a great one.
CELIA
Yeah. And also focusing on intergenerational dialog. Yeah.
VARUN
Yeah. Our second question would be if you could take any of the classes available at SIPA, which would you take?
PROFESSOR Guehenno
I would take a class on something, I don't know. So I would love to I mean, I don't know which is the best class for me because unfortunately, I'm not going to register for class.
I haven't studied, but if I had a class which would not be too mathematical because I never particularly gifted in mathematics, but and I know mathematics are the, the heart of artificial intelligence, but if I could understand better all the processes through which we develop today, artificial intelligence and the different types of artificial intelligence, I'd love to take that class.
CELIA
That sounds really interesting. Yeah, the inner workings of LLMS. We'll talk at the suites to get you in that course. We'll find it for you. Thank you. Spring registration is coming up. And finally, I don't know if you have one of those, but a surprising or memorable anecdote from your class over the years. You were at SIPA for a long time. You left. You came back. I'm sure you met some interesting students, with interesting questions or proposals.
PROFESSOR Guehenno
You know, I remember, moments, discussing fragile states. And I always have problems with this very notion of fragile state, which projects a certain vision of what a strong state should be. But anyway, we were discussing that.
And in the class there was, Singaporean students and students from a country in Latin America that hasn't done so well. And I won't name names. I won't name names. I can name this. And, the student from the Latin American country that hadn't done greatly, very well, says, So what is it in Singapore that you are doing so well, that you've been so successful, which is a, you know, a a fair question.
CELIA
Yeah.
PROFESSOR Guehenno
And what isn't it what was what I liked is that the Singaporean students. You didn't say we are smarter than others. He he explained, very intelligently. Why, I mean, Singapore was a very special case. First it was small. That makes things even less difficult. And second, none of the neighbors wanted them, and they were very diverse country and that they had, to come together.
And so there was number. And then they had. Yes, they had a good they had a very enlightened, leader. But he he explained things in a way that was humble, that did not sort of he was not looking down on the countries that haven't done as well as Singapore. And I think that's that's what I like, to be honest,
At SIPA is the, is that kind of, of, interaction between people who come from with very different backgrounds and who can really confront, their experience? I think that's, that's better than the professors.
VARUN
Yeah, no, I think those discussions are very emblematic of what SIPA represents. I think that's what people come here for. Right?
CELIA
So that's why we need to keep the student visas.
VARUN
Exactly. Yes. So, professor, thank you so much for your time. We really appreciate again to hear from you more about yourself and, ongoing, issues around the world. Are there any concluding messages you have for our listeners to the SIPA students, in the broader community or past and prospective students?
PROFESSOR Guehenno
Well, I would say, you know, my generation's, I mean, I'm at the end of my career, and I was, I'm a professor of practice, so I was involved in operational things.
I think, we messed up, on several fronts. I'm a European. I think we could have managed a post-Cold War moment in a better way. We could have built a stronger Europe. And now we we see, the problems with that. We could build them. And then, speaking from my perspective as a Frenchman, I think we could have built a different rapport between Europe and the global South.
So, the world I think, and, and you could say the same thing is for the United States, there are a number of things they could have done. They could have done better. So you you are inheriting a world that's I mean, I can it's it's a challenge when I teach, because I don't want to discourage my students, but at the same time, I feel the picture is not that great at the moment.
I think, you know, you have to. You can only do better. Because we we are not. We are not in the best of situations. And at the same time, an optimist. I always say that I would love to be 20 because what we were discussing, artificial intelligence, that enormous revolution that is coming upon us, it's coming so fast.
It's a lot of opportunities. So I think you have to see the glass half full and make the best of it. And just as, the, the people who were in charge in 1945 didn't do too badly, but the people who were in charge at the end of the Cold War, I think, didn't do that. Well, I think, you know, at the end of the end of the Cold War, you have an opportunity to to do better than us.
CELIA
Let's hope so. That's a great message for us to part on glass half full. You heard it, folks. Thank you so much, Professor Guéhenno again for being with us today, for taking the time. This is the Morningside Pod. Many thanks to our guest, Professor Guéhenno, for his time and contributions. We are your hosts Varun and Celia. Stay tuned for upcoming episodes on Spotify and let us know what you think by checking out our website, www.morningsidepost.com, or by emailing us at morningsidepost@columbia.edu.
This episode was produced by Celia Sara Lee, Jean-Claude Lane, and Sidney Poor.