Have power dynamics in the Middle East shifted for good?

Summary

The Monocle Daily – November 10, 2025
Episode Summary: Have Power Dynamics in the Middle East Shifted for Good?

---

Main Theme

This episode explores seismic shifts in Middle Eastern geopolitics, focusing on Syria’s astonishing international reintegration and Iraq’s tentative stability. The conversation spans from President Ahmed Al Sharar’s White House visit to Iraq’s upcoming elections, global climate negotiations, provocative new research on the links between drinking and success, and a revealing discussion on how women have long been central to wealth creation.

---

1. Syria's Geopolitical Reinvention (03:40–12:28)

Key Points:

• Ahmed Al Sharar’s Transformation: Once labeled a terrorist and al Qaeda operative, Ahmed Al Sharar is now Syria’s President and a guest at the White House—a turn emblematic of shifting US priorities.
• Sanctions and Recognition: The swift removal of terror designations and international sanctions is granting Syria a fresh chance on the world stage.
• Strategic Realignments: US motivation is largely to sever Syria’s links to Iran and weaken Iran’s connection to Hezbollah, thereby realigning Middle East power structures.
• Israeli Opposition: While the US and Gulf allies welcome these changes, Israel is actively undermining Al Sharar’s regime, attacking targets in Syria and bolstering opposition factions.
• Concerns for Minorities: The podcast raises troubling questions about the fate of Syria’s Alawite and other minority communities in the aftermath of Assad’s fall.

Notable Quotes:

• Sir William Patey [04:33]:
  “I doubt he’s a Democrat, but I'm buying his reinvention as someone who can deliver something better for Syria than they've had over the last 40 years. He's made a good start.”
• Erin O’ Halloran [06:14]:
  “It’s the American half of this equation that we have even more question marks about... What exactly is the US trying to get out of the Syrian government beyond potentially this Nobel Peace Prize that Trump is so obsessed with winning?”
• Sir William Patey [07:28]:
  “The biggest geostrategic goal is that Syria under Shara is no friend of Iran and it cuts Iran off from its ability to support Hezbollah in Lebanon... That’s the biggest prize.”
• Erin O’ Halloran [09:12]:
  "After the decades of sectarian violence... this is an issue that can't only just be planted on the administration. It's something that is within society, within various militia groups... It’s got to be addressed on several different levels."
• Sir William Patey [10:58] on Israeli-Syrian normalization:
  “It’s hard to see at the moment… I think Sharia will have quite a lot on his plate without worrying about Israel.”

---

2. Iraq's Troubled but Improving Democracy (12:28–20:14)

Key Points:

• Parliamentary Elections: Iraq is about to hold elections in the shadow of previous years' protest and violence.
• Incremental Progress: Both panelists agree that while improvement is slow, Iraq is more stable—seen in declining violence and increased foreign investment.
• Persistent Challenges: Corruption, factionalism, and low voter turnout remain entrenched problems. Familiar political actors and militia influences exert continuous pressure.
• Optimism Tempered by Experience: The hosts note the durability of Iraq’s democratic process, albeit with the caveat that real power sharing and clean governance are distant prospects.

Notable Quotes:

• Erin O’ Halloran [13:24]:
  "It wasn't difficult for things to have been better... The bar was in the basement. And it has been a steadily stabilizing environment."
• Sir William Patey [14:18]:
  “This is the seventh election we've had in Iraq, which is astounding… The security environment is much better. Iranian influence is still there, but less.”
• Erin O’ Halloran [17:21], on voter apathy:
  "It sounds like a mature democracy to me... having 40% of the population out to vote isn't a big deal, especially in an enormous country like Iraq. It's still...millions of people."
• Sir William Patey [18:57]:
  "Not overly optimistic, but I think the trend is likely to be the same, an improvement... I think the path is set. When I left in 2006, I said Iraq was at a crossroads. I don’t think it’s at a crossroads now. I think it’s on a particular road."

---

3. COP30 and the Future of Climate Negotiations (20:14–25:44)

Key Points:

• Lackluster Prospects for Climate Action: With US President Trump, China’s Xi Jinping, and India’s Modi absent, COP30 faces an uphill struggle.
• Funding Gaps: Britain and other nations are unable or unwilling to commit large funds for climate mitigation in the Global South.
• Innovation vs. Policy: The panel distinguishes between the lack of political will and ongoing private sector-driven innovation, particularly in China and among fossil fuel producers transitioning to cleaner energy.
• Capitalism’s Role: While leadership falters, market-driven solutions provide a sliver of hope.

Notable Quotes:

• Sir William Patey [21:05]:
  “Not very. I think...we’re already past the 1.5 degree warming... You've got a Europe that is divided on this subject... so I think we’re all doomed.”
• Erin O’ Halloran [23:02]:
  “It requires a certain amount of agency and leadership that is more multilateral, that is less focused on the major players, and it requires imagination and creativity… the gauntlet is down because otherwise we really are absolutely doomed.”
• Sir William Patey [24:56]:
  “Capitalism might come to the rescue.”

---

4. Does Drinking Fuel Success? An Academic Provocation from Norway (25:44–30:00)

Key Points:

• Controversial Norwegian Study: A new book claims that heavy drinking in youth correlates with later-career success, provided one survives the excesses.
• Class and Causality Issues: Both guests challenge the study, suggesting that affording to drink to excess is itself a marker of privilege.
• Diplomacy and Academia Anecdotes: Panelists share tongue-in-cheek reflections on alcohol’s real—sometimes strategic—role in both international relations and academic networking.

Memorable Moments:

• Sir William Patey [27:41]:
  “If you can afford to get legless in Norway, you’re probably already well set in life. Try Scotland, I think...”
• Sir William Patey [28:42]:
  “Drink is the absolute fuel of diplomacy... Diplomats, we do it for our country.”
• Erin O’ Halloran [29:10]:
  “As a historian, I don’t know if you realize this, but historians have a reputation within the academy of being potentially the biggest offenders, like the heaviest drinkers.”

---

5. Rethinking Women and Economic Power: Interview with Victoria Bateman (30:55–37:09)

Key Points:

• Challenging Historical Myths: Bateman argues that women have always contributed to economic development—often as hunters, builders, brewers, and traders.
• Invisible Economies: Periods of decline in powerful civilizations coincide with increased restrictions on women’s economic roles.
• Modern Policy Lessons: Present-day anxieties about fertility, immigration, and “traditional values”—mirroring Roman history—risk undermining both women’s liberty and broader prosperity.

Notable Quotes:

• Victoria Bateman [30:55]:
  “If you look at, say, the Americas, for example, 40% of big game hunters were women... In ancient Rome... there were four times as many female plumbers... as there are in the US and the UK today.”
• Victoria Bateman [35:51]:
  “The wealthiest civilizations have always been those where women are free to be at the heart of the economy... Societal collapse was preceded by a process of increasingly constraining women’s freedoms.”

---

Key Timestamps for Important Segments

• Syria, US Diplomacy & Realignment: 03:40–12:28
• Iraqi Elections and Trends: 12:28–20:14
• COP30/Climate Change Debates: 20:14–25:44
• On Drinking and Professional Success: 25:44–30:00
• Victoria Bateman Interview on Women & Economic History: 30:55–37:09

---

Episode’s Tone:
Conversational, lightly irreverent, and incisive, with a balance of humor and critical insight.

For Listeners:
This episode offers a panoramic view of international affairs, combining deep-dive analysis of Middle Eastern shifts with reflections on global challenges and timely myth-busting on gender and career. Whether interested in geopolitics, sociology, or economic history, listeners will find points of curiosity and debate throughout.

Transcript

[Anita Riota]

Every day, the world presents you with hundreds of headlines. What do you believe? Who do you trust? The Financial Times cuts through complexity with clarity, accuracy and global perspective. Its journalism is guided by independence, not agendas. That's why leaders in business, policy and culture turn to one trusted source for facts, for insight, for what matters next. Source FT Read more and [e-mail].

[Andrew Muller]

You'Re listening to the Monocle Daily, first broadcast on 10 November 2025 from the most wanted list to the White House. President Ahmed Al Sharar of Syria visits the United States election eve in Iraq. But why do so few Iraqis care? And despite what HR may have told you after the last Christmas party, can excessive drinking be good for your care? I'm Andrew Muller. The Monocle Daily starts now. Hello and welcome to the Monocle Daily. Coming to you from our studios here at Midori House in London, I'm Andrew Muller. My guests Erin o' Halloran and Sir William Patey will discuss today's big stories. And Monocle's Anita Riota speaks with academic Victoria Bateman about her new book, a Global History of Women, wealth and Power. Stay tuned. All that and more coming up right here on the Monocle Daily. This is the Monocle Daily. I'm Andrew Muller and I'm joined today by Erin o', Halloran, historian at Cambridge University, author of the current book east of Empire, and Sir William Patey, former British Ambassador to Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia and political consultant. Hello to you both. Hi, William. First of all, it has been a while. Welcome back to the Daily. Among the things you have been doing with your time is playing golf in Morocco. I'm with you. Re the wanting to go to Morocco. Bit less so on the Gulf, but it doesn't seem like it has the landscape for it. But you can do this.

[Sir William Patey]

Well, you feel a little bit guilty because it's quite a brown country apart from the golf courses, but I'm reassured that they're using recycled wastewater to create. But it is creating quite a vibrant tourist industry. And we were in Agadir and there are, I know there are been to Marrakech, so there's quite a lot of Brits, French and Germans down there spending a lot of money. So it's, it's generating quite a bit of income for the Moroccans.

[Andrew Muller]

Erin, you are recently and you have in the waiting rooms the bag to prove it. Just back from Italy. There's no seamless link here. I don't think you played any golf in Florence or Rome.

[Erin O' Halloran]

I didn't, unfortunately. But I did eat very well, which.

[Andrew Muller]

Is something you can also do in Morocco.

[Sir William Patey]

Not as well as in Italy, I'm afraid.

[Andrew Muller]

I was trying. I was trying. We should refer, of course, again to your book, Erin, the Ideal Christmas Gift. Would you like to remind our listeners what it's sort of about?

[Erin O' Halloran]

Sure. So east of Embayre, the subtitle says it all. Egypt, India and the World between the Wars. So it's about the interwar period, the 20 years roughly leading up to the partitions of India, Pakistan and Palestine, Israel and what's going on in the Middle east and India at that point in time and how the anti colonial nationalist movements in both places are really deeply connected to one another.

[Andrew Muller]

Listeners, I have read it and everything. I do recommend it. But we will Start in Washington, D.C. and with real life confirmation of Lord Palmerston's dictum to the effect that nations have no permanent allies and no permanent enemies, only permanent interests. On US President Donald Trump's guest Our guest list today is someone who as recently as this time last week was still listed by the US State Department as a specially designated global terrorist, accused back in 2013 of being a former al Qaeda functionary and the brains behind a wave of suicide attacks whose ultimate goal was the overthrow of the Syrian regime. A year or so since he accomplished exactly that, Ahmed Al Sharrar is welcome to the White House as Syria's president. William, first of all, how entirely are you Biden Al Sharra's reinvention as a democrat?

[Sir William Patey]

I doubt he's a Democrat, but I'm buying his reinvention as someone who can deliver something better for Syria than they've had over the last 40 years. He's made a good start. And I think the international community for once has shown a degree of prescience that they don't normally show, the immediate lifting of sanctions. Britain has removed the designation of the organization that Shirah headed, the Hayat Al Tahrir, as a designated terrorist organization. All of that is giving Syria a chance. We'll see. I think Shiraz more of a Democrat than I thought he might be in the sense that he's moving slowly to an appointed legislative body that will have some say in making laws. That appears to although he gets to appoint everybody, who gets to choose everybody else, a top down approach. My experience in Iraq and Afghanistan is it's often a mistake to go straight to a fully elected parliament. You need a degree of stability. You need to build up institutions. So the jury's out in Sharah. But I'm pretty positive it has been.

[Andrew Muller]

Noted many times, Erin, not least in a recent episode of the Foreign Desk, that President Trump does take a somewhat unorthodox approach to diplomacy. Is it possible and might there possibly be advantages in the fact that he might care less than other presidents about being seen to be being photographed in friendly tones with somebody of Al Sharra's resume?

[Erin O' Halloran]

Well, that's a really interesting angle. I think you might be onto something there, Anjou. I do think that it's the American half of this equation that we have even more question marks about what exactly it is the US Is trying to get out of the Syrian government or out of its support for the Syrian government beyond potentially this Nobel Peace Prize that Trump is so obsessed with winning. I'm not sure that I perfectly well understand what the angle is, but it's true that in a couple of years of really bad news out of the region, the new Syrian administration has been a rare bright spot. And the pragmatism being shown both in Washington and in the EU and in other corners over this administration is, you know, the jury is out, but it's a hopeful sign.

[Andrew Muller]

An invitation to the White House is a big whoop. This is not something the United States had to do, William, even if they had decided, okay, fine, if he's going to be president of Syria, we'll live with it. They are clearly trying to be a friend to this person. To what end?

[Sir William Patey]

Yeah, I mean, it's unprecedented. He's the first Syrian leader ever to be invited to the White House. I think to what end is to double down on Syria not being part of the Iranian axis. I think the biggest geostrategic goal is that Syria under Shara is no friend of Iran and it cuts Iran off from its ability to support Hezbollah in Lebanon. So it has huge geostrategic value for the United States. It also helps the United States in dealing with its Gulf allies because they have all welcomed Shiraz. So it's another point of agreement with the Gul. I mean, it is quite interesting that the White House are taking a completely different line from the Israelis who are doing their best to undermine him. Attacking targets in and around Damascus, supporting the Druze and other groups in their opposition to the new Syria. So it's quite interesting, this divergence, but I think the most important thing is this geostrategic one. This is a Sunni led Syria that is going to be no friend to Iran. I think that's the biggest prize for them. And they're doubling down with the invitation to the White House.

[Andrew Muller]

It's not difficult to see, Erin, what the many advantages to this meeting are for President Al Sharab. But should we be concerned that one of them may be that he thinks that he maybe doesn't need to take the concerns of Syria's minorities as seriously as he might? It has been plausibly reported since the overthrow of Assad that life has been fairly hard for Assad's fellow Alawites in particular.

[Erin O' Halloran]

Yeah. And this is, I think there is a microscope on this issue from an international perspective. It's certainly the issue that I hear raised the most, both within communities of Syrians abroad, but also foreign observers. And I do, in a sense, I mean, I think that this is still a wait and see. I don't think we can say one way or the other whether or not this administration is going to prove dangerous to the minorities. I think that there is a concerted effort coming from within certain parts of the administration, at least to counter these concerns, to placate or, you know, to kind of reassure the communities. And I do think that the effort being made is sincere. But after the decades of sectarian violence that we have seen within Syria, this is an issue that it can't only just be planted on the administration. It's something that is within society, within various militia groups and various factions. So it's got to be addressed on several different levels. And we can hope that the administration is going to be able to do better as time goes on and as they consolidate just finally on this one.

[Andrew Muller]

William, you mentioned Israel's unhelpful or uncooperative attitude where Al Sharra is concerned. And leaving aside that it's quite difficult to imagine what plausible regime in Syria the Israelis would be happy with, it is easily imaginable, as Aaron suggests, that Donald Trump sees here another plank in his pitch for next year's Nobel Peace Prize. Is normalization of relations between Jerusalem and Damascus even remotely imaginable?

[Sir William Patey]

It's hard to see at the moment. I think it would come at the same time as other Arab countries. I doubt Syria would be. But there is the possibility of getting the Israelis to stop expanding the area they control. They've expanded beyond the Golan Heights, around Qunetra. It might be possible to stop the Israelis bombing arms dumps. I mean, the Israelis clearly don't want whatever the Shirar regime looks like. They do not want a reconstitution of the Syrian military as it was before. So there'll be certain strategic capabilities. They will continue to try and undermine missiles and the like. So I think Sharia will have quite a lot on his plate without worrying about Israel. The question is whether Israel is prepared to allow them to get on with doing a deal with the Kurds in the northeast, doing a deal with the Alawites in the northwest, doing a deal with the Douzi in the west, and there's lots of factions in the south. So there's a lot of forces pulling apart. And there's plenty other countries. Israel's only one. The Turks have a role. The Iranians will have a role. So he's up against it. But I think the Europeans and the Americans and the Arabs have said, look, we're going to give you a good. We're going to give you a good chance at this and we're going to support you. And let's see how it turns out.

[Andrew Muller]

Well, to one of the countries next door, that is Iraq, which votes tomorrow in parliamentary elections with all 329 seats in the Council of Representatives up for grabs, all 329 of whom will be hoping that Iraq is not about to stage a rerun of what happened after the last such vote. Back in 2021, violent protests wracked Baghdad after pro Iranian groups took electoral rejection badly and an attempt was made to assassinate then Prime Minister Musafa Al Kadhimi with drones. All followed by 11 months of paralysis. While nobody could agree on a coalition, current Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al Sudani is hoping for a second term. But keeping his block pointing one direction afterwards may prove difficult. First of all, Erin, at the very real risk of tempting fate over the last few years in particular, is it possible to say that things in Iraq have been getting better? Sure. Okay.

[Erin O' Halloran]

Do you want me to elaborate on the idea?

[Andrew Muller]

Yes, please, please do.

[Erin O' Halloran]

No, I mean, well, it wasn't difficult for things to have been better in recent years than they were, you know, pre. In the early 2000s, let's say the bar was in the basement. And it has been a steadily stabilizing environment. And the major indicator of that, in addition to the fact that fewer people are dying, is the fact that there has been increasing foreign investment in Iraq. So those two factors would indicate that it could have been worse.

[Andrew Muller]

William, this is one of the places where you served as Her Majesty's ambassador. Is it a big difference this time that Muqtada Al Sada, the perennial nuisance, is not turning up for this election. Does that suggest to you that he's kind of given up on this, or is he playing a longer game?

[Sir William Patey]

I don't think he's given up. He didn't turn up for the last election either. He tries to sort of exercise influence from outside because he knows if he takes part, he won't win a majority and he won't be able to control things. So he's clearly a calculation that he can exercise influence from outside. But this is the seventh election we've had in Iraq, which is astounding. They continue to elect. They continue to go to the polls to elect their governments. Now the results are usually the same. You have a sort of nobody wins an absolute majority. Some coalition has to be stuck together. There's a division of the spoils, there's a whole bunch of corruption, there's a whole bunch of rent, tourism, and that doesn't change. But I think Aaron's quite right. There's been a gradual improvement. Nobody expected Sudani to last for three years. He was a compromise candidate. He was the one that people least objected to. But he's done a good job. And the question will be, in a low turnout, will the Iraqis see that he's done a good job and reward his party. But there's a history in Iraq. Even if you get the most seats for your party, you don't always form the government. And some of the old guys are still there. Nouri al Malik is there, Amar Al Hakim is there. Hadi Al Badar is still. Yeah, the. The militias are still there. You've got the Barzanis up in the Kurdish region and you've got Sunni factions split, as they always are between Hal Busi and Mahatma Adani. So all the ingredients for the same old, same old are there. Whether Sudani can, as a result of the selection, emerge a little bit stronger, maintain his coalition and continue the progress we've seen, let's hope so for Iraq because they certainly need a period of stability in which that increased international investment can consolidate, that there's a deal, the Kurds, which holds fast and they can make gradual progress, the sort of progress we've seen on the streets of Baghdad. The security environment is much better. Iranian influence is still there, but less. Sudani has managed to balance the need to keep on side with the Americans with the need to keep on side with the Iranians. That's something any Iraqi prime minister gonna have to do. So we'll wait and see. But I don't imagine we'll know who the government the prime minister is the day after the election. I'd be surprised if that happened.

[Andrew Muller]

Aaron, One point William raises there, which is it is genuinely depressing when you think about, you know, the extraordinary sacrifices that have been made by Iraq and Iraqis to get to this point. Electoral Turnout was only 41% in 2021. I haven't read anything by anybody anticipating it being any higher this time. What does that tell us? Is there that much. That there is that much apathy and or cynicism about such political process as they have? I realize this is not unique to Iraq.

[Erin O' Halloran]

I was going to say it sounds like a mature democracy to me. I don't know what were the turnout results in the last American election, for example?

[Andrew Muller]

Again, to my mind, bizarrely unimpressive.

[Erin O' Halloran]

So I think that there's something to be said about how inane it is to note that a large part of the population doesn't believe that this is really where the agency lies or that it's going to change anything. And that doesn't mean it's not an important exercise. And that doesn't mean that having 40% of the the population out to vote isn't a big deal, especially in an enormous country like Iraq. It's still talking about millions and millions and millions of people going to the polls. So, you know, I'm really inclined to agree with William that as flawed and imperfect as the system is in Iraq, as in other places, it's meaningful that it happens. It's meaningful that it's free and fair. It's meaningful that we don't know the results in advance and that there will be coalition building as a result of it. And yes, there's going to be all kinds of horse trading involved in that, some above board and a lot below board as well. But it's still an important thing that is happening and long may it prosper.

[Andrew Muller]

Just finally on this, William, given that this is a country you know well and in which you served when things were a lot worse than they presently are, are you confident that that trajectory will be maintained? Are you broadly optimistic about Iraq's next, say, 10 or 20 years?

[Sir William Patey]

Not overly optimistic, but I think the trend is likely to be the same, an improvement. I mean, oil prices are high, production is good. They're beginning to get their electricity production up. They're beginning to develop their associated gas. So things that were never happening appear to be happening. You know, there's oil being exported out through the north, through the Kurdish region. Iraqis are investing, foreigners are investing. Corruption remains an issue that holds Iraq back, and that's not going to change. But I can't, you know, short of some sort of black swan event either. There's nothing in the current makeup that says it's heading for a catastrophe. I hesitate to say that, you know, Nouriel Maliki becoming prime minister might be a problem. The one man I tried to stop getting into politics when I was the ambassador singularly failed. But, you know, I think the path is set. When I left, when I left in 2006, I said Iraq was at a crossroads. I don't think it's at a crossroads now. I think it's on a particular road.

[Andrew Muller]

Well, to Baleem, capital of the Brazilian state Para, which finds itself hosting COP30, which is to say the 30th conference of the Parties, an annual wingding which gathers to contemplate such progress as has been made combating climate change and seeks to encourage much more of the same. This year's COP seems likely, however, to be largely a demonstration of the extraordinary talent of US President Donald Trump for making himself the center of attention even when absent in keeping with his belief that climate change is a massive hoax. A confident stance for the owner of beachfront property in Florida. Trump has declined to attend. William Veteran, as he will be of many such wingdings, if not quite cop. Exactly. This is going to be, it says here, the COP of implementation, according to the hosts. How confident would you be?

[Sir William Patey]

Not very. I think there's every cop's a cop of implementation. I mean, we're already past the 1.5 degree warming that we said was going to be a catastrophe. We've got a US President and a US system that doesn't believe in climate change. Doesn't believe, I imagine, you know, they believe the earth is flat. They haven't said so yet, but. And you've got a Europe, you've got a Europe that is divided on this subject. You've got right wing governments in Europe questioning what we can do about climate change and net zero. Our own government has rode back a bit. I mean, the $5 billion fund for saving the Amazon, Britain was a notable absentee. Now, that's not because lack of conviction. It's just no money. You're not going to put a billion dollars into that when you're desperate for funds. So we're in a real crisis. There's no way that Europe can step up with the funding that might have been there had the US been there. So the Global south is going to get less money to mitigate against climate change than they would have wanted. And I suspect that the Chinese will do what the Chinese want, which is probably invest heavily in alternatives because they can see the economic value in that, but are not going to be held to what they would regard as unrealistic targets and cutting their emissions. And the same would apply for the Indians. So I think we're all doomed.

[Andrew Muller]

Erin, Donald Trump obviously can't be bothered with this, nor can President Xi Jinping of China or Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India. If those three great countries have just given up on this whole thing, is there much more anybody else can actually do? Well.

[Erin O' Halloran]

There'S two answers to this question. The first answer is that, yes, of course, there's lots that lots of other people can do. There's lots that many other governments can do. I mean, even if the three or four big players are washing their hands of it or not interested in negotiating, that still leaves the other 180 whatever at the table to organize themselves. So, yes, absolutely, much can be done. And the other answer to the question is that it requires a certain amount of agency and leadership that is more multilateral, that is less focused on the major players, and it requires imagination and creativity. And these are the things that we are seeming to be lacking. So I would say that I'm very interested in grassroots solutions. I'm very interested in what civil society can do. I'm very interested in what smaller countries and global south countries and some European countries could pull together in terms of a more interesting coalition. But it will require initiative, responsibility, and creativity. And that's, you know, the gauntlet is down because otherwise we really are absolutely doomed.

[Andrew Muller]

As William said, just to push back on your we're all doomed narrative somewhat, William, you did say that China is actually investing, and China is investing hugely in cleaner technology, renewable energy, et cetera, as are a lot of traditional fossil fuel producers like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, because they all understand that none of that's the future. The future is going to be cleaner energy, and that's where the money is. Is there some cause for optimism there, even among those global south countries that Erin refers to? You know, if you're the innovators.

[Sir William Patey]

Yeah, I mean, I'm glad, Erin, sort of take me back from my old, you know, we're all doomed. I mean, there is some hope in the sense of innovation. And I think European countries and China and India, even though they won't cut back on their use of coal, they will want to innovate because they want to be in the forefront of the new technology. Even Americans will invest in this, regardless of what American companies will invest in this, because that's where the money will be. So although we see the US Government as absent from declarations and targets and the like. I don't think US companies will be absent because they'll see there's money to be made. So that's, you know, for me as an old, you know, moderate socialist, I hate to say it, capitalism might come to the rescue.

[Andrew Muller]

Well, to Norway now and the publication of a defiant rebuke to centuries of prim received wisdom on the virtues of moderation or indeed abstinence. A boffin at the University of Oslo, one Willy Peterson, has published a book, the Beauty and Pain of Drugs, whose core premise is that there are actual career benefits to regular and liberal consumption of whatever you're having yourself. Peterson's research has discovered that those who spent their teens and twenties, arguably overdoing it, enjoyed greater wealth and success later in life, assuming they survived. Erin, do we suspect it may just be that people who can actually afford to buy a drink in Norway were probably doing all right anyway?

[Erin O' Halloran]

Oh, man, this is, I need to read this whole book because I want to look at, I want to look at all the footpoint, I want to look at all the footpaths because I really need to understand to what extent this is an argument about correlation versus causality. The big glaring issue being that there's gotta be a class element to this. There has to be some dimension of this study that looks at, even in a relatively equal or equalish society like Norway, the difference between those who have the kind of income that allows one in their teens and twenties to really overdo it, not being the same thing as, you know, having a leg up already. And I'm very tempted to suggest that those two things probably go together very closely.

[Andrew Muller]

William. He does cite an example, the Oxford University Drinking Society, the Bullingdon Club, noting that a couple of its alumni, notably Boris Johnson and David Cameron, have gone on to do quite well. But again, it's not like either of those was born that greater distance on the wrong side of the tracks.

[Sir William Patey]

Yeah, no, I, I fear that rather undermined club. I mean, I, I, I welcome this. I mean, I thought any success, any success that I had had was entirely down to hard work and good luck, and now realize it was down to the heavy drinking I did at university. Dundee might be a better place to do a study of this because a drink was cheap. I mean, you could get, you could get completely off your tits quite cheaply in Dundee, and I think that's where you should do the study. I think Erin's quite right. Norway's not the place. If you can afford to get legless in Norway, you're probably already well set in life. Try Scotland, I think is where this study should be subjected to a real test. All of us who were on the piss during that years. How many of us made it? How many of us are still alive?

[Andrew Muller]

Have you ever found that, though? Genuine question, William. Actually diplomatically useful to pour somebody a few large ones and see where the conversation went?

[Sir William Patey]

Oh, I have to tell you, drink is the absolute fuel of diplomacy. I mean, you know, everyone wants.

[Erin O' Halloran]

Even in the parts of the world that you worked in.

[Andrew Muller]

Oh, especially in the parts of the world.

[Erin O' Halloran]

Little tongue and cheek.

[Sir William Patey]

Everyone thinks it's champagne drinking. Diplomats, we do it for our country.

[Andrew Muller]

Heroic labors, I'm sure all our listeners would agree. What about in academia, Erin, have you. Do you recall any particular period of excess having been subsequently professionally useful?

[Erin O' Halloran]

Oh, no. So as a historian, I don't know if you realize this, but historians have a reputation within the academy of being potentially the biggest offenders, like the heaviest drinkers.

[Andrew Muller]

I did not know this, but now that I think about it, I am unsurprised.

[Erin O' Halloran]

Yeah, so it started early, and it was an incredibly important part of my training. And. Yeah, absolutely, because after a certain number of drinks, you can talk to anybody and you can really get a lot out of a historian. So I met lots of senior colleagues that way, and it was very useful. But I do think as I got older, what I realized was that I couldn't write if I'd had two glasses of wine anymore. And that was the big difference from my 20s, where that was an essential prerequisite to being able to write anything at all.

[Sir William Patey]

It was a very important diplomatic skill. You had to remember as well. Halfway through the evening, you had to go into the toilet, get your notebook out and write all the gems that you've just been told, because you could guarantee in the morning you all you would remember was somebody told me something interesting, but I can't remember what it was.

[Andrew Muller]

Well, on that ringing endorsement of bibulousness, Sir William Patey and Erin o', Halloran, thank you both for joining us. Finally, on today's show, traditional conceptions of our economic evolution conjure up ideas of the hunter man and the gatherer woman, the man out in the world innovating, and the woman at home tending to domestic life. That, however, is the greatest, greatest myth in history, according to Victoria Bateman, author of A Global History of Women, wealth and Power. Monocle's Anita Riota spoke with the historian about what the truth of women's impact on global economies is. She began by asking what Thesis lies at the heart of Economica.

[Anita Riota]

When we think about the past, we tend to assume that men were the movers and shakers of economic history. You know, the men who've become household names, from Genghis Khan and Hernan Cortez to Henry Ford and J.P. morgan. So we tend to see the men as the wealth creators, people who've determined the fortunes of nations. And with that, we presume that women have spent most of history as housewives. And in fact, if you look at the heart of any economics textbook, what you'll find is a whole section on how women entered the workforce in the course of the 20th century, again creating this impression that for most of history, women have been economically inactive, that we've been economic dependents, that our fortunes have depended on the wealth created by our men folk. And that is, I think, the greatest myth of history. And it is a myth that I hope I burst wide open in Economica. So I go all the way back to the Stone Age. And where I start is with this idea of men, the hunter. And that idea that from the very beginning of history, that men and women took on very different roles in their communities. You know, that men were the providers and the producers, in a sense, and women were the reproducers, is one that really shapes modern day discussions about inequality. You know, there are some that believe that to aim for gender equality is to fight against human evolution, to fight against history, that what we should aim for is complementarity rather than equality. I really push it back to the Stone Age. And what I show is that actually if you look at, say, the Americas, for example, 40% of big game hunter hunters were women. And then going forward from there, I show how women were helping build pyramids alongside men in ancient Egypt and they were plumbing in the ancient city of Rome. In fact, there were four times as many female plumbers in ancient Rome as there are in the US and the UK today. And then it is. Isn't amazing to think. And then in the medieval period, women were brewing beer. So in the 15th century, when the first brewers guild developed in London, you know, when, when English pubs and taverns really started to take off, 40% of brewers were women. So, you know, women have been doing all of the, all of the same things that men have been doing throughout history. If they've been given the opportunity to do so, if they've had the economic freedom, the ability to go out to work and make their own money, they have been there alongside men. And I think really the key message of the book is that Whatever period of history, you look at the most successful economies, you know, the. The wealthiest civilizations have always been those where women are free to be at the heart of the economy, economy, and then similarly, the collapse of civilizations, you know, whether you're looking at the collapse of the Roman Empire, the collapse of the Islamic empire in medieval times, the collapse of, you know, China after the Song dynasty, you know, each societal collapse was preceded by a process of increasingly constraining women, women's freedoms and pushing them out of the formal economy, pushing them into the home. And so we really cannot tell the story of the rise and decline of nations. You know, that repeated story.

[Erin O' Halloran]

I wanted to ask to then bring it more into the modern day, are there practical policies or changes that you think would be best enacted from everything that you've learned in the process of writing Ika Economica, that would both enhance women's freedom and boost economic growth?

[Anita Riota]

So I'm going to say two things, and the first is a warning from history, really, and that comes from the Roman Empire. In the Roman Empire, women were free to, you know, own ships and shops, and they traded their wine and olive oil across the Mediterranean until Roman emperors decided that women would be better, better off reproducing for the good of Rome. And so Emperor Augustus, for example, ran the empire at a time when people were increasingly worried about immigration. They were increasingly worried about falling fertility rates, about women not getting married, about Roman culture being polluted by cosmopolitanism.

[Erin O' Halloran]

And.

[Anita Riota]

And so the rhetoric of social conservatism decided that the answers to all of these supposed problems was to push women into the home to reproduce for the good of Rome. And it didn't work out well for the Roman economy. And as we face similar situation today, falling fertility rates, falling marriage rates, immigration, questions about quite a cosmopolitanism. I think we need to remember that.

[Andrew Muller]

That was Monocle's Anita Riota speaking to Victoria Bateman, author of Economica A Global History of Women, wealth and Power. That's all for this edition of the Monocle Daily. Thanks to our panelists today, Erin o' Halloran and Sir William Patey. Today's show was produced by Hassan Anderson and researched by Joanna Moser. Our sound engineer was Elliot Greenfield. I'm Andrew Muller here in London. The Daily is back at the same time tomorrow. Thanks for listening.