As keynote speakers at the inaugural FT Asian Financial Centres Summit in Seoul, Alan Greenspan, former US Federal Reserve chairman, and Rudolph Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, answered questions on the future of financial centres.

Rudolph Giuliani, former mayor of New York and chief executive of Giuliani Partners, talked with Anna Fifield, the FT’s Seoul correspondent, who asked selected questions on behalf of FT readers. The following is an edited transcript of the Q&A.

Click here for the transcript of the Q&A with Mr Greenspan, who answered questions about the competitiveness of Asia’s financial hubs, corporate governance regulations, high valuations of global assets, and world trade imbalances.

....................................................................................................................................

Financial Times: I would like to start with protectionism in the US – and whether you think in the wake of the Dubai Ports fiasco whether protectionism is on the rise and whether you think the Bush administration has perhaps lost its way on this front?

The Bush administration was in favour of doing the deal, or at least re-examining it and trying to work it out. So in this particular case, the Bush administration was on the side of free trade. It was more the reaction among - to a large extent - the opposition party and then some Republicans that also joined them that I guess struck down the deal.

More stories:

Transcript of Q&A with Alan Greenspan
Click here

Greenspan predicts US governance revamp
Click here

Editorial comment: Greenspan’s advice
Click here

Seoul pledges level playing field for foreigners
Click here

FT report: Asian Financial Centres
Click here

The balance between free trade and protectionism has gone on in American history forever. And it goes on here [in Asia] and every place else. I tend to think the balance should be struck more in favour of free trade. But the reason I think that is that it’s inevitable. Trying to emphasise too heavily on protectionism is almost fighting the future. Whether all of our populations recognise it or not, the economy is in fact a global economy. The growth of a country and its ability to move its people out of poverty are going to depend on how well countries understand that.

So, I think maybe there’s a lot to be learned from that deal, about in the future how to explain things better and how to get out in front of things and give people more information earlier.

I don’t think that particular situation [Dubai Ports] should be seen as America becoming more protectionist. America has always been in a debate between protectionism and free trade and sometimes one wins and sometimes the other wins. But I think the essential direction of America is a recognition that we’re very much a part of the global economy and that we benefit.

FT: Were you surprised or dismayed by the reaction to the Dubai Ports deal?

I wasn’t surprised. I understand what happened. I think maybe the lesson that I learned from it is that things like that have to be better anticipated and the explanations for the whole deal and arrangement probably should have taken place in the months before. The way it all came out – as a surprise – and the spin that was put on it, I believe to a lot of people seemed to make it appear as if the explanations weren’t going to work. Those explanations being that Dubai was an ally, Dubai was a country that has sophisticated levels of security, that the ports were actually going to be run by Americans who were responsible to the customs authorities and the Coast Guard. Those explanations – had they been made earlier – might have prevented some of the strong reaction.

But once the reaction took place, it appeared to a lot of people that it was too late to make those explanations because they just weren’t going to work.

FT: There was a similarly strong reaction to CNOOC’s attempted deal with Unocal. How do you feel relations between the US and Asia, and in particular, relations between the US and China are going now?

I think that trade relations are always good when there are big disputes because it means people are talking to each other, people are debating things with each other, people are trying to work things out with each other. It’s much better than where we were 10 or 20 years ago when the relationships between the US and China were military. They were more confrontational, less open. When you have disputes about trade, these are things you can work out. You might not work out every single one of them, you might not get an answer on every single one of them. But ultimately when countries are engaging with each other over trade, eventually it’s going to end up in a healthy situation.

FT [China’s] President Hu Jintao is going to Washington next week. How do you think Washington is handling China at the moment, particularly over currency and trade?

It seems to me both sides are handling things well. They’re engaged with each other, they’re in disputes that are going to naturally take place. And it seems as if there’s a pretty open relationship where they can discuss disagreements. It’s unrealistic to think that two very large economies, two very large countries that everything is going to be harmonious, that everything is going to work out every time.

What you want is the ability to have discussions, to express your viewpoint, to let it be heard. The dialogue seems like it’s a healthy one.

FT: Do you have any inkling as to whether we might have any announcements coming up from when the Chinese president arrives?

I don’t know if we will or won’t. Sometimes these things result in big surprises. I’m not close enough to it to be able to tell you that.

FT: Do you think that changes need to be made in the way US economic policy is handled and if so what changes would you institute if you were president of the United States?

I don’t have a platform for running for president. It’s too early, first of all, to make the decision of whether to run. So if I start announcing a platform, it seems I’ll have made a decision that I haven’t made yet. So if I decide to run, I’ll answer that question a year from now or two years from now.

FT: Would you like to be president [of the United States]?

I don’t think it’s something you like or not like. It’s something you decide, that it’s realistic, that it’s something you can do, that something you think you have a chance of making a very big difference. It’s a really difficult thing to do so you have to have a very strong commitment to why you could offer something really unique to it. Those are all things that over the next year …. the best that I can tell you and the most honest answer I can give you is I will give it a lot of thought. But I don’t know where that’s going to lead me a year from now.

FT: Do you think it is necessary for a financial centre to have its own native investment bank in the way that New York has JPMorgan?

I don’t think it’s critical, but I think it’s helpful. And it probably emerges … the more and more of a financial centre you become, the more businesses like that develop. It’s sort of a natural outgrowth of being a large or primary financial centre or even a regional centre.

FT: Venture capital is an industry that is underdeveloped here in Asia. Do you have any idea what would be a good place for a venture capital hub of Asia?

I think venture capital is something that’s going to grow in Asia. By Asia, I mean Japan and Korea, China and India. These are all expanding economies. You’ve got incredibly large numbers of people who are moving economically from in some cases poverty to some degree of independence and in some cases to the middle class and upper middle class.

I’ve had the most experience in Japan over the last two years. I spent more time there. I’ve been here [Seoul] twice but I’ve spent more time in Japan. It seems to me there is a growing group of entrepreneurs in Japan. I know that exists here in Korea. You have people inventing businesses and business ideas. That’s where venture capital moves. And I think that probably wasn’t the primary experience in Asia in the past but I think … you’re going to see a lot more of it.