tv Munk Debates Focuses on the Future of Geopolitics CSPAN May 1, 2017 4:37am-6:01am EDT
>> the morning debate is a semi-annual event from toronto. on friday the topic was the future of geopolitics. this is an hour and 25 minutes. >> brilliant minds, mediocre minds operate better deliberations on stimulus. >> the canadian. you can't take away the individual. >> barack obama has systemically rebuilt the trust
of the world in our willingness to work through the security council and other institutions. >> you must not talk to anybody in the world. >> whatever you want to call this system, it's a disaster for ordinary russians. >> i think that's the kind of hypocritical argument that if i were chinese i would find annoying. >> it can be described as bar barren management. >> science and religion are not incompatible. >> religion forces nice people to do unkind things. >> are men obsolete? the answer is no. i won't let you. >> show me where pretext. you can keep screaming that and it doesn't change the point. >> we do not want sympathy, we do not want pity. we want opportunities. >> it's an appalling slander to me. i never said the word
muslim. it was a muslim free foam nation. >> it is that kind of restraint, it is that kind of sober-minded sensible foreign policy that obama represents. so i guess what i'm telling you is he is sort of a closet canadian. vote for him, for god's sake. >> it is my privilege to once again have the opportunity to serve as your moderator. i want to start by welcoming the north american wide television audience tuning into
the debate right now on c-span across the continental united states, and on cpac from coast-to-coast. in canada, warm hello to our online audience watching the debate live, right now on facebook live, our exclusive social media partner and on bloomberg.com. courtesy of bloomberg media. it is great to have you as ritual participants in tonight's proceedings. hello two, the over 3000 people who filled roy thomson hall to capacity for yet another debate. this is great to see you again. this evening marks a milestone in this debate series. this is our 20th semiannual contest. our ability, debate after debate to bring it what we think are some of the brightest minds, the sharpest thinkers on the big, global issues of our time would not be possible without the generosity and public spiritedness of our host tonight. in appreciation of peter munk, hank you. well done. [applause] as i mentioned, this is a special occasion first. our 20th debate. for only the second time in the history of the series we are convening a one-on-one contest. our topic is the key geopolitical
question of the moment. it is, can the process of globalization, both economic and political that has defined international system since the end of the second world war survive an era of rising nationalism, protection is on, and populism. o find out let's get our debaters out here's centerstage debaters out here's centerstage to square off on the resolution, be it resolved, the international liberal order is orderover. ladies and gentleman, please welcome your debater are going for tonight's motion, renowned historian, filmmaker and best-selling author, neil ferguson. >> meals opponent meals opponent tonight is cnn anchor,
celebrated author, for reads a car. gentlemen, thank you for being ere. it will be an exciting debate. i want to run through a few uick pre-debate items with you. first, for those watching online and in the audience, there is a #, munk debate. you can be part of the conversation. we have a rolling poll going, you can analyze, judge the debaters comments at ww munk debates.com/vote. we also have our countdown clock, key piece of the success of this clock.
this will count to zero for each of the different segments of the debate. when you see a countdown, join me and around of applause. that will keep our debate on time and to our debaters on their toes. fun and critical data point at the top of the evening, all of you here, 3000 people in attendance voted on tonight's resolution coming into this hall. be it resolved, the liberal international order is over, gay or day -- yes or no, 34% agree, 66% disagree. this is a critical question we asked to get, depending on what you get on the debate, are you open to changing your vote? let's have those numbers please. 93%. wow. 93% are open to changing. this debate is in
motion. it is fluid and let's get us started. we will have opening statements. neil ferguson you are speaking in favor and you have ten minutes. >> thank you very much indeed. and thank you peter and melanie for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important issue. was famously said the holy roman empire was not holy nor roman, nor an empire. the same can be set for the liberal international order. it is not liberal nor international, nor for that matter very orderly. yet, it seems that reckless at best to come of all places, toronto and try to get people to vote against those three words. you are all liberal. you are all international, and
by my own experience, you are all quite orderly. it seems to me that one way of thinking about this is how difficult it by my own experience, you are would be to get you to vote in favor of what i suppose would be the opposite, which would be conservative, homegrown chaos. we are trained in the united tates at the moment. [laughter] i just want to make it clear that i am not here to defend donald trump. i am not even here to persuade you, the liberal international order is necessarily all bad. i'm just here to dissuade you that it is . now, i think there should be some fold disclosure. you and i have been amongst the beneficiaries of the liberal
international order. not quite as much is peter, but some. we have had our fun over the years, i think you still go to those places. i am not going to deny that it has been pretty good. the question i want to address is whether or not it has been good for a lot of other people who may not be so well represented in this audience tonight. has it been good for ordinary americans? it north americans, canadians, u.s. citizens? has it been good for ordinary europeans? has a been good for the people and the places we come from? those that did not ake it to toronto. or the indian muslims who do not make it on cnn. that really seems to me the points. i want
to suggest you tonight that we need to consider very seriously the possibility that globalization has overshot. it overshoots and caused at least two major crisis, the consequences of which we're still living with, financial crisis and another crisis of mass migration. if we carry on telling ourselves the story, the story goes something like this, a we have been so much more peaceful and prosperous since 1945 thanks to those nice liberal international order institutions, the united nations, the wto and so on. why must these populist spoil at all? that seems to me to be an extremely dangerous narrative for us to cling to. i don't think it is good history to explain peace and prosperity in
that way. in fact, the mip state history. why is it not liberal? because the principal beneficiary of this wonderful liberal international order has been china. yes, that has been the principal winner back in 1980 china accounted for perhaps 2% of the world economy. the u.s. and canada together were -- of the world's economy. today china accounts for 18% of the world economy and the u.s. and canada together slightly less at 17%. there saying by 2021 china will account for one fifth of the world economy. how can it be a liberal international order if the principal beneficiary is a
one-party state run by a communist elite? they are not the only beneficiaries. there's a terrific article about ill liberal democracies. once with elections that have no rule at elections that have no rule at all also turn out to have dominic, rather well from the system. actually looked at some of the measures you used in that article. i wanted to see if the world got any more free since you wrote that article back in 1997. it hasn't. the proportion of countries tend to free is about the same as it was in 1997. some of the world's countries are getting less free by the day. dramatic freedoms not only in russia, but countries like venezuela, china the principal beneficiary of the liberal international order ranks 173rd out of 195. in terms of freedom
oday. some liberal order, some international order two. let's ask ourselves who really has benefited from this era of globalization. it is really in inter- elitist order that we should be talking about. the principal beneficiaries of the system turn out to be those lucky few who possess rare intellectual property or rare real assets, including and peter gnosis as well as anyone,
globalization. it is really in peter gnosis as well as anyone, commodities. even canada has experienced rising inequality experienced rising inequality in this era of international order. as gone up since the 1980s, a made in this glorious decade before the financial crisis accrued to the top 1% of income earners. the show the incoming canada that goes to the top is not quite 1% today. not quite as high as it was before world war ii. that is another consequence of the liberal national order. the winners take all in this system. it is one of the paradoxes of globalization. if i am right about that, it signified by the fact that it is not only popular to try to rein in globalization, here in canada you have just imposed an additional tax on foreign investors in housing because of the dramatic increase in the cost of housing that has been. as chinese and other investors,
toronto has gone up by a factor of three sincere 2000. let me conclude by observing the liberal international order isn't orderly. the order in any case was not produced by the unit much less by the use wto, was produced by the united states in the military and ther alliances that led. the reason for itself has been made often let's not confuse these things. it's very different if the world is led based on america as opposed to collect the security base that is a challenge is being made to that tax what do we see? increase disorder islamic extremism claiming to thousands of lives every year. that tens of millions of people displaced from their homes. nuclear proliferation, another test tonight, luckily it didn't work. you don't need to support
onald trump to know that there is something wrong here. you don't need to be a populist, you can do it as a classical liberal which is what i consider myself and recognize the biggest of classical liberalism is a set of globalization that undermined the foundation of a free society based on the rule of law and represented as government. so, the liberal international order spelt l i o. it is an l ie. it is not liberal nor truly international and it certainly is not orderly. folks, it is over. thank you very much. [applause]
>> now the opening statement will call on peter. your ten inutes on the clock now. >> thank you all. it is a great pleasure to be here. i have to confess that i was nervous when i was told i would be up against neil ferguson. i do not have his oxford degrees, and i certainly don't have the british accent. i thought he would have these extraordinary moments of eloquence, he began by quoting voltaire. i'm a simple guy, i can't do all of that. i'm just going to tell you a story. going to tell you story of how this liberal international order began. it's an interesting story because it involves the canadian. about a
year after pearl harbor, year after pearl harbor, franklin roosevelt decided he wanted to try to figure out what kind of world the united states wanted to build at the end of world war ii. he could always see that the united states would decisively win this war. he did not have someone he could talk to and really trust. except mackenzie king, who is a confidence. he asked him to come to washington. king took the train, went to washington and they sat down at dinner. roosevelt had a martini, did not offer mackenzie king a drink because he knew he was a teetotaler. then he went to the oval office and franklin roosevelt, this aging, visionary man described to him what kind of world he wanted to build. mckinsey kept a diary nd it is one of the rare instances of where we have recorded roosevelt's vision. and it was in understanding
that the world has so far been characterized by war, great power of conflict, colonial empires, economic -- and next line tatian. the united states cannot support the resurrection of that old order. we are going to try to do something different. we're going to try to build a new international order. he did not quiet a liberal international order but clearly that is what he meant. a world in which is at first will ask for the absolute surrender, the unconditional surrender of the -- powers. will ask the british and french to understand they cannot reconstruct their great empires, that we need a world in which freedom, liberty and self-determination has a greater scope. he wanted a world of open trade and open economics. he wanted a world of greater commerce in contact. but he also wanted a world that have more rules. so there were some political structures that would be built that allowed for a more orderly resolution of
political disputes. and that is called the united nations. and all of these things together in roosevelt's view would justify the great american effort and involvement in world war ii. at the end of world war ii, roosevelt did not ive to begin to build that vision. but he talked about it throughout the war and he worked on it throughout the war. in fact, what happened was a partial creation of exactly that vision. after hundreds of years of something completely different, perhaps thousands of years it was built, this liberal international order. it created a rule-based system and an open economy with greater commerce in contact. it wasn't perfect, there are many flaws a month of countries that were not part of it. the soviet union and its allies been the most important exceptions.
but it did create a new world. if you think about the world we live in, it is the world or franklin roosevelt created and dreamed of with mackenzie king. f you think about the world we it is a world of much greater order, much less political violence, much greater trade ommerce and capitalism, much greater broad sustained prosperity that has ever been true before. that is the world you live in, the world we live in, and what we take for granted. it has now become so it is a world of much greater commonplace. it becomes easy to attack the little flaws, the challenges, the pauses that take place, the iny reversions that take place
when you have a world like when you have a world like that. just look at the big picture, steven pinker, harvard professor, colic of meals wrote a book and he meticulously calculated that we are now living in the most peaceful each in human history. violence, political violence, war and terrorism is down 75% compared to for five decades ago ago, it's probably don't 90 or 95% from 500 years ago. or so he claims. i'm not sure the data from the late middle ages is not very good. i'm not sure ne can speak with confidence about that. but he is a harvard professor so, i trusted. when you look at the about that. but he is a harvard professor so, i trusted. when you look at the expansion of this world you see the power, the endurance and appeal. it started as i said without the great soviet and without most of the third world. by the 50s and 60s countries began to realize that in order to grow fast you needed to be art of it.
japan, taiwan, south korea started to come in. latin japan, taiwan, south korea started to come in. latin american countries joined in. then you had the collapse of and now has a hundred and 70. f you look at the european union which was union which was six countries in 1970, and has 28 now. twenty-seven when we kick out meals written. but, still an enormous expense expansion from that time. they include most powerfully the new rising powers. we have talked about who this order has empowered. i tell you who it has empowered more than anybody else, it has empowered the poorest people in the world. the united states nation calculates that in the last 50 years, we have taken more people out of poverty than in the preceding 500. that is rincipally because countries like india and china were able to grow and raise their living standard and allow peasants who
are living on 1 dollar a day to move out of poverty. my father was a politician, his constituency was largely rural. 1000 villagers in it. when he went to india 30 or 40 years ago and went into those villages, people live lives that looked as though there from the middle ages. today when you go to those places it is a world transformed. they have food, medicine, shelter. it is not luxury by any standards but the difference between living on a dollar a day of living on three or $4 a day. that transformation has taken place in india, china, latin america, and other parts and it is beginning to take place in africa. those are the people who have most powerfully benefited from this new liberal international order. others as well. it is not as though the united states has been standing still. u.s. gdp is up 1000% since 1970.
european gdp is not up that much but if you go to any of these countries you're struck by a rich society. there is a problem with how it has been redistributed. when it is -- we have globalized very fast and we have had enormous amounts of immigration. women have been emancipated. all of these changes produce cultural anxiety. they make people want to go dollar a day of living on three back to a simpler time to make america great again. to make britain great again. but to these countries have been great because that they led and spearheaded this liberal international order. they have found a way to allow the world to share this extraordinary dream that franklin roosevelt had that he talked to mackenzie king about. a dream that brought peter munk from hungry fleeing persecution here.
it is a world who has allowed neil ferguson to leave scotland and britain and come to the united states and fall in love with a woman and born in some aliyah fled to go to holland to find freedom there. and then to the united states. it is where they have had their son, beautiful boy name tiny thomas, neil colson. i think that thomas is future rests on an open, pleural, diverse, cosmopolitan world where people think of you based on the content of your character, not the color of your skin. i think hat is the world that neil secretly believes is powerful, deep, and enduring. otherwise he would not have voted with his feet. and moved to the united states and moved to palo alto. he knows that is where they are inventing the future and he wants to be a part of it. what i say to you, neil ferguson is, come home. come home
to the liberal international order that has been so good to you and that will be so good to your son, thomas. [applause] > we've had two fabulous debaters on stage. we are now going to move into two rounds of bottle. you'll each have three minutes on the clock, uninterrupted to react and what you heard in the opening statement. neil, europe first ith your first rebuttal. >> now he has crossed the line because he is my children into t.
you should not have done it. that was not smart. you are going to regret it. so franklin roosevelt had a vision, but was you should not have done it. the reality? the reality was that that the united nations was permanently gridlocked because of the veto exerted by members of the jersey council. and practice what the u.s. did was that mantle other people and then build one of its own, with i think it's fair to say, mixed results. i don't think we should fall into the trap as we said earlier believing that the relative peace in 1945 had anything much to do with the institutions that franklin roosevelt discussed after that martini with mackenzie king. on the contrary, it's an illusion, it's fake history to credit the relative peace of the post- 1945. on those institutions. it's an incorrect inference. the reality was with considerable violence there was lot like violence before.
violence between two great empires, the united states and soviet union both of whom pretended they were not empires. stephen's book will be like a great solution, proven violence between two great wrong the first nuclear war that happened. the potential is there to invalidate that entire thesis to the day. yes, people have been pulled out of poverty in china, and india, but you know as well as i do, the reason for that is both countries have respectively communism and state socialism and embraced market reform in their own domestic policies. once again it's an incorrect inference to say they grew because of the liberal international order. they grew because they realize that state control of the private sector does not work. you mentioned thomas. you know, it means a lot to me that we live in the united states. we live in a
society based on the rule of law, on representative government, and on the constitution that has withstood all the challenges that face. t will was stand the current challenges of populism and demagogy. that is why we chose it. because my wife can be safe in that country. safer than she ever was in western europe. it has not got to do with the kind of global baloney that you're talking tonight. [applause] >> i thought what i would do is talk about china because clearly that is the elephant in the room as it were. the country that neil really said has benefited the most from this liberal international order. it is not simply that it
has grown fast because it embraced capitalism, capitalism is a core part of the liberal international order. the more liberal is -- liberty the first time the phrase was used was by a scottish deadline thinker, forerunner of neil ferguson in the sense. william robinson, the second man to use it, robin smith they both used it in the context of capitalism and free trade. but, china's embrace is not just been that. it has been a broader embrace of order. if you think of mouse china, this was a country that had nuclear war to blow up the world and he said at least that way there'll be a few communists left and all the capitalist would be dead. china has me from that place were remarkably more rule-based acceptance of this liberal international order. it wanted desperately to become part of the world trading organization. it is now seeking greater influence at the united
nations. it is now the second largest supporter of peacekeeping operations around the world. it wants to become the second largest funder of the united nations in general. it has become far more involved in nuclear security issues supported the comprehensive treaty, supporting the nonproliferation treaty. these are all things that china believed were terrible, vicious, american imperialist parts to keep the world down. now, the chinese actively want to be part of that. they want to solve the problem that arise. if you look at how they are handling north korea, they're moving to a more more constructive, cooperative approach where there involving regional actors. they want to resurrect some regional diplomacy. this is not perfect. power still matters, but, what roosevelt was trying to do was put some degree of regularity,
some kind of norms, some kind of procedures that might help gain some of the savage whims of war. if you look at the challenges we face, the extraordinary effort to incorporate the rest of the world into the system, the rise of nuclear weapons, the dangers that permit poses, the dangers of chemical and biological weapons and how we have managed to deal with these issues. the outbreak of ebola and other diseases, they have been through international cooperation. through greater and greater consultation. of course, some has involved the un and some not. but surely, that is the kind of world we want rather than one where we hope somehow the countries that have nuclear weapons won't use them or the united states could just keep threatening countries to blow them off the face of the earth. the liberal international order is in inevitable because the alternative is unthinkable. > it neil you are up with your
second rebuttal. >> i want to talk about history now. you see, what troubles me most about your argument is that we have heard something very similar before. if you go back to the late 19th century, there are a great many people who believed that a new international order could be based on what we now call globalization. the idea of an international liberal order was there before the first world war. at a time when the forces we see in our time were extraordinarily powerfully at work. in the 19th century
international migration reached levels that we have now begun to see again from our time. the percentage of the u.s. population reached about 14% in the 1880s. they reach new heights, international capital flows, all of these things reach unprecedented levels. the liberal intellectuals do not work from -- i know you went to yale. they made the exact same mistake that people are making now. that is that everything is awesome mistake. the everything is awesome it if you are no liberal bubble for example, your counterparts globalization famously said that everything you may possibly order to his
room in a matter of days, telegraph, steamships, international trade, the book the great illusion said what could go wrong that would never be something absurd is so war given this liberal international order we have created. they were wrong. they were wrong because they underestimated the backlash that has generated you allow globalization to run too far. they overestimated the ability for international institutions to overt conflict now remembers the peace conference. there is a warning from history here, the real history we should learn is the history of what went wrong on globalization last self-destructive. it worries me when i hear these stories about franklin roosevelt, the united nations and tiny thomas living
happily ever after, it is global baloney and worse. i suspect that in your heart you know. > for someone who does not want to be associated with dental trump, you certainly use the word fake several times, neil. i have refrained from associating with donald trump because i do not know how you feel about it one way or the other. but, let me just talk about the challenges that you raise. they are real. there is no question. donald trump thinks he is a singular unique phenomena and n some ways i suppose he is. his flexibility with the facts and matters like that, but in many ways he is part of a trend. a right-wing populism
that is against the liberal international order. you see it everywhere. what is striking is where we you see it. you don't see it in latin america, they're trying to integrate into the liberal international order from mexico, brazil and argentina. populism is on the decline. if you look at asia, indonesia, asia, japan, reformist prime ministers are trying to integrate. we see populism is in europe and the united states. you see in countries in europe during very well economically. it can't just be about economics, germany is powering ahead. it can't be just about any quality, northern europe has not have much of a rise of inequality. for example, the dutch have not had a rise in the way you measure inequality in about 20 years. sweden is going very robust. all these places do have immigrants. that has caused enormous
monocultural anxiety. that is true and there are some legitimate concerns. by the way, there has been time in the past when immigration has been restricted, even in the united states. the liberal international order still continue to grow. what it tells you is that these things can be managed. you can find ways to address inequality and do with immigration. in fact, we are in the one western country that is not going through a great rise of white winged population, restricted, even in the united canada and that's because they have managed immigration quite well. it's not in their dni, they had a whites only mmigration system that had its own problems and then it changed. under trudeau there was an enlightened reform and mphasis on a certain kind of multiculturalism and civilization. now, you are in an extraordinary position where
you watch the rise of the sill liberal globalist anti- globalist populism. you are not feeding it. in canada today. i look at that and gives me great hope. tells me their policy solutions to the real challenges that neil ferguson has brought up. it reminds me once again that we should all come around the world be a little bit more canadian. >> we are not going to move into moderator portion of this. we will do very lightly. i want to just start gentleman by refocusing the debate. resolution is be it resolved, the liberal international order is over. i think people may choose to vote on whether it's good or bad. but most people are trying to figure out is it over or not. give us some concrete examples of why you
think not that it is bad, that it is over, it's time has come. >> will he is just that semester nearly optimistic things about your. but i would say the european union's current crisis is the reason why international order is over. it's one of these institutions that was held up as an example of what can work. the truth is, it is not working. that is one reason why the majority of british voters opted to leave the e.u. i was a very him about brexit last year but i came to realize why many people felt that way. they felt that way because they discerned that into fundamental respects, the european union has become dysfunctional. it's holiness manage the financial crisis. massively emphasizing the impacts on the other member
states of the european union. britain felt very relieved not to be a part of that. then it massively experienced the migration crisis caused by orth africa and the middle east which they had a hand in causing which politicians might call a sort of national disaster. but at every level he most basic role that we expect a state to perform from economic management to the defense of borders was flung to come pensively by the european union over the last ten years. economic management to the the british response was, we need to take back control. that is a really important idea here. control, by sovereign state is vital if they are to retain legitimacy. what is scary in europe is to see populist gaining strength from
the failure of the beloved international institutions. that is the argument i am trying to make tonight. if you the failure of the beloved are complacent in your elite bubble, on the upper west side of manhattan, imagine everything is awesome and going to sweden to another bubble there and the presumably to a bubble in london, you don't realize how disaffected ordinary people in the provinces are. in the provincial parts of eastern europe that have swung sharply away from the liberal international order. that is the trouble. the populism you allude to is not something i am here to legitimize or defend. my point is precisely that it is a symptom of what is malfunctioning in this liberal international order. i think ultimately the european union will fall apart, it is simply not possible to pursue the policy for an entire continent. it is not compatible with the
stability and legitimacy a of the nationstates themselves. the brits have been the first to realize that you make. >> okay the year is the canary n the coal mine and is close to death. >> i am so glad that neil is mingling with the people in palo alto. my home ould probably value a garage. to death.
1850 and 1950 and drag the world and onto those locations. when you look at the european union today, the principal achievement is that it is unthinkable that these countries that routinely went to war for hundreds of years will ever go to war again. yes they have problems about border control and they have debates about monetary policy and it's difficult to have monetary olicy in one direction and fiscal policy and another. it's a very different world from germany invading france and belgian from the horrors of world war i and world war ii. >> >> he said the award within europe would be so costly it would make no sense but the victor would lose economically so much to plunge into chaos in to be proved right with that interdependency that had been achieved. britain has always disliked europe. and to be set against the scheming machiavellian europeans is say countries set apart and all
kinds of waves were to say fog ver the channel. >> the then i don't but then to say we are doing this because with the international commerce cooperation with these institutions we are in. with the largest body in the world of my point is if you look away if you exit the european union eye when arguing exception to prove the rule. there is a line of countries desperately try to get into europe so why do all these other countries want to get in? with that before and after a pitcher in europe you have ever seen anywhere else in history the. >> if you ask yourself to call that the free trade area is a stretch this has been true with the quasi federal system with the federal republic of europe they don't even pay tax. with the mid 20th century. to the subsidiary but they actually never divorced anything. is predicated on that
>> if you ask yourself to call that the free trade area is a stretch this has been true with the quasi federal system with the federal republic of europe they don't even pay tax. with the mid 20th century. to the subsidiary but they actually never divorced anything. is predicated on that extraordinary complex system of recognition so those who have become the ordinary people i would not make jokes. a eminder that the canadians hemselves adults think it is rong to run that distinction
had what teresa may and others ecause what we must wish for the stable international order on the rule of law and yes they could reach trade agreements and to revisit that it is clear that is exactly what i would regard a statement international order. that is not the situation. with the nd to revisit that it is clear
council of ministers of the ritish parliament there is the uge difference in my mind with those liberal international's with the more conservative nation based order. that is far more likely. at one o keep the debate focused on the opposition. and the people need to make up their mind. and coming across the land kickback to the united states. and with that legitimacy with its own
voting public with western democracy to no longer have that social consensus and with that crisis that you cannot ecover from? >> think about that. so what i would point out to we are less subject of the moment for those who seem likely to win that economic free trade of believer of transatlantic. and seems to be likely to win in germany is a huge lumber gold issues the
ssue will lose those democrats. click gatt donald rump can't united states hillary clinton almost had 3 million more votes but now has hillary clinton almost had 3 he lowest approval rating of ny president in history at this point of the presidency so remember there are many forces that there are lots of people now in favor of the of the brawl international order and that is most telling is the one common factor of all these countries young people are
verwhelmingly that not only do they understand it is inevitable you cannot stop china from growing you cannot stop the corporation or the independence from growth in to be beneficial to live in a world that is connected and pluralistic and that is why you see the extraordinary numbers to let young people in the united states and europe and britain. and they would have lost dramatically. that is the future life with people who were older with less education but there are policy remedies across the board from emigration to economics. the
global growth international capital flows is the crisis of global growth international migration to expose that fundamental weakness that they cannot even achieve stabilization but right now you have 65 million people in the world with 1,000,002 reclassified as refugees. mrs. and increasingly in the distant disorder so those populist on the left and the right it is ike a scream in the cost - - communist country but bernie sanders would have been the democratic nominee if they had ot written to the democratic
nomination system. and with the ocean under french voters so let's not pretend that centerfolds when did is not. his id is clear from range of studies i know-how difficult it is but to do academic research. that is a consequence of a national crisis. well it is very triking? the financial crisis to take a backlash against globalization and it is from both sides what we see the european politics of the moment is regrouping from and it is from both sides what on board of the titanic you can see how that plays out and they
ill tell them that the alienation will continue because what they say is that his election in france will go pretty much as it has. in order o keep them out to but that is the critical point we need to focus on. not here and now aware europe is headed. it is very clear to any if it cannot even secure its own borders we cannot basic -- sure remember he banks have not gone away.
ithout liberal international order is to keep the spirits p. and then to shrink the deck of the titanic. >> just to have you respond to the symptoms of the demise that many people think of look at the annexation of caribbean -- crimea that should not happen fter 1945 also declining trade been also the use of chemical weapons on defenseless civilians in syria may be more
than a cosmetic military attack those that's foreshadow that that is in demise. > so to find a trend audit but that is not data if you try to figure out what is happening you have to look at the aggregate data to show political violence was civil war and terrorism is down. over he last 80 years the chart goes way down. >> if there has been an inflection with armed conflict or terrorism with everything
that has happened to cause terrorism we cannot claim that order is in great shape. >> let me just talk about that for a second with those people are killed by terrorist groups like the islamic state like boko haram civic 30,000 americans die of handgun iolence. >> but let me broaden the scope unbidden if you look at the world of violence the striking thing the happens the colombians and now's the nsurgency that has gone on five decades with those that
have displaced millions of people to mark the end of any type of political violence in the western hemisphere. half the world does not have a civil war or an armed insurgency of any kind. the latin america was very violent when i came to the united states united states had insurgencies like nicaragua and grenada and there was a lot of stuff going on but now it has come to a close. essentially it is restricted to the places at the crescent of risis from nigeria through afghanistan is the islam built it is worrisome and you probably agree on some of those
but you don't see the nation my point is that things and not happening in the world but fairer bad things in the 40's and in 1919 and in the 19th century but the trend that we're looking at, the broader trend to talk about the european union that we in the stand those who want that european union the most are not from aspirin but the people of the ground that surround it. why is ukraine trying to break free from russia? they're trying to break free because it wants to be part of the liberal international order. why?
because in 1990 they chose to be part of the european union and part of the west ukraine was not allowed to become part of that order. they had the same per-capita gdp in 1990 oday it is one-third of poland three times richer than ukraine and started in the same place in 1990. so the ukrainians and the polls to understand this. to provide them with political stability and economic assistance and provides with order and protection those are the people that i look to when i asked myself if the european union has a future. i could not care less about davos.
>> coming on of a technology we re living in this age of rapid technological change so why is hat revolution we are living hrough underpinning to the rder? because the networks connecting people to supercharge and not hold ack. >> not quite what mark zucker bird intended when he created facebook he would did create the engine during more than
anything else to get donald trump elected over the last year with international olitics you cannot claim the fed has done a great deal. that is not entirely surprising because that unfettered growth acebook or google is save more nterconnected species and more than ever before it has turned out to be a tremendously powerful engine for the full blown cyberwarfare? the question about ukraine i thought about what happens with
the invasion of ukraine is a complete failure if fails to a ulled andean annexation is accepted by the international order it is more or less a onflict under those periodic outbreaks sold picture of latin america is baffling or venezuela or caracas? is putting up action and people re killed in the streets so my sense we all have probably overestimated the benefits of
created a completely interconnected world in we did realize to have the kgb operative to me shows full arby's we underestimated that hat world would be a great pportunity to propagate that message that it is contained prexy really? have not noticed that that people are murdered in london or paris this is a global threat and unfortunately the technology has proven to be neutral. >> if think it is important 2.0
terrorism in the 1970's i know is it is easy to scare people because they are muslim and a ot different and sound different but let's not forget going through very bad stretches for terrorism the we have been through periods of violence and terrorism. yes that russian annexation of crimea was a terrible thing and lso czechoslovakia and the soviet invasion of afghanistan. it is not as though the of the heyday of the of international have order but on balance where they tilting?
we'll get the a mill kay line sleeve the line will bend oward justice souls will be in the zigzag way also with a greater degree of freedom that margaret thatcher said when people are free to choose they choose freedom. >> we have come up against the clock with a closing statement happening in the opposite order to put five minutes on the clock. >> ucla was worried about being up this brilliant will read man and has a very posh accent but
i will try get to tell you what i know the movie lawrence of arabia to go up against the ottoman empire then to go through this terrible desert that it has never bed done efore to leave behind an air of soldier and then played by omar sharif in the movie if you an remember says you cannot do anything about it that it was fate. it was written going into the desert for a second time then he brings them back alive and says nothing is written. this is active ongoing history there are all kinds of challenges from donald trump all these are onto something
>> but the truth is you will not get very far so i feel like i have lived through the ovement that to believe in rejecting with the mayor again imperialism and to shield hemselves to protect their industries and their culture with corruption and decay and tagnation to be completely solated from the world to lack that dynamism and the sense of hope but what i want to say don't give into the fatalism we can fight these forces you
don't have to give it to them r think you are giving in to a middle eastern fatalism we believe we can write our own history and make our own destiny. as long as we remember that there are powerful forces that believe in diversity and tolerance and of the political spectrum. we will prevail history and make our own ecause honestly there are many more people like that. they are anxious that they want to prepare for it. for those that are far more eloquent than me
he is also an optimist in some ways even more optimistic of how the united states would do back in the day of being a conservative. but if you look back because that is what i do etween the great powers is the roduct more than anything else of americans power and purpose of this the same guy just 20 years ago american power has brought peace and liberty to tell this places across the globe to help create a more
civilized world despite the approach toward nation-building were afghanistan has improved the lives of the afghan people from this truly ambitious postwar reconstruction in the middle east does us sound like that liberal international order you were talking about earlier. if i think about the argument central to much of his work includes a proposition of the order will work with the prince of bull beneficiary to rid knowledge china in 1997 with the united states could encourage us to play to oderate those regional
ambitions by increasing in to the world economy over time to become more liberal state and he just has not given up on that political performs increasingly becoming an issue they want to prevent from ever happening. giving you optimistic view of the islamic extremism he has always been optimist but over the last six years the support for bin malden has crossed deadly but they are no longer scared the muslim world is organizing more slowly but the art the history is one of those places i am
allergic to. sometimes it is a liff and what worries me about his optimism is that it leads ou to go off a cliff. for that somehow that liberal nternational order will keep you up in bat wiley coyote moment that all the of members f the audience will remember when he runs off the edge of the cliff and keeps running for an agonizing puce seconds he you up in bat wiley coyote thinks he is still on solid ground until he looks down history is more like that we don't know when the next cliff
will come if you think back to he last great age of globalization even after they have gone off the end of the cliff there still planning a meeting in the summer of 1914 owriting their letters and telegrams the liberal international orator is over but it has run over one of those clefs. the order is going to fall.
>> a terrific debate you have made your moderator's superfluous thanks for making these possible all of you have a valid tenders opportunity to go to again on tonight's resolution so we will review where we were at the start of he evening with 3,000 people 66% disagreed with the motion 33% in favor then we ask what percentage would change your 66% disagreed with the motion mind in which were open only 7% had the ideas so let's see how his plays out we will take the votes as you leave if you're
mind in which were open only 7% watching on line we will have the results vaughan social media shortly after 9:00 p.m. thanks for a terrific debate we will do this again. >> today a panel discussion. live coverage beginning at >> earlier today i shared with my fellow commissioners a proposal to reverse title ii.
>> tonight on, the communicators, we asked jeffrey we also do speak with chris lewis, their thoughts on the impact of the proposal. >> we think the rules that we got in 2015, the net neutrality rules are working. they are popular, the overwhelming majority of americans want have clear rules of the road for an open internet. we are concerned that he has gone down a path to review and potentially reveal -- repeal some of those rules. ,> from the internets inception it was free and open. there was not a problem. dystopianno controlled internet with anyone interfering with people's ability to post content