of the soviet union until later. >> sunday night at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span's two and day. -- c-span's q&a. >> h.r. mcmaster, the former security advisor to president trump discusses china's role in the world and the biannual munk debate. it was moderated by richard griffith. this is all most two hours. >> you don't know which of your fax will be demolished. you don't know which of your arguments will be destroyed. you are not rattled. you are shaken up. you don't know what to say, but you have got to state something. a canadian is a canadian.

>> i think it is time for this , zero-sum madness to stop. and i haven't seen nobody be a bigger snowflake than white men who complain. mommy, mommy. >> barack obama has systematically 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. any of our allies. >> whatever you want to call to system, it is a disaster for ordinary russians. americacandidate of first-ism, huge walls are part of his plan. it must all be related to the size of his hands. we don't require divine

permission to know right from wrong. we don't need tablets administered to us 10 at a time in tablet form on pain of death, to have a moral argument. >> if men do become obsolete, it won't be for long are. you'll find one in a thrift store and go, oh, my god, do you remember when we had men? >> we do not want sympathy, we do not want pity. we want opportunity. >> it's an appalling slander, to me, to the muslim religion. >> i never said the word muslim in my fulmination. it was a muslim-free fulmination. [laughter] >> it is that kind of restraint, it is that kind of sober-minded, sensible, intelligent foreign policy that obama represents. so i guess what i'm telling you is he's sort of a closet canadian. vote for him, for god's sake. [laughter] [applause] ♪

>> ladies and gentlemen, welcome! [applause] great to have you here tonight. thank you. for the munk debate on china, it's my privileging to have the opportunity to organize this debate series and to once again serve as your moderator. i want to start tonight by welcoming the north american-wide audience tuning into this debate on television via our partners, cpac if, canada's public affairs channel, c-span across the continental united states and on wned and its pbs sister stations. it's great to have that audience with us this evening. a warm hello, also, to our friends watching right now via the website of our exclusion social media partner, facebook.com. please, stay with us after the debate, we're going to have an expert panel featuring opinion from "the wall street journal" and top canadian thinkers on

tonight's debate topic. that all coming up live online right after the mainstage debate. and finally, hello to you, the over 3,000 people who filled roy thompson hall to capacity, for yet another munk debate. a special thanks to our premium members and our subscribers for your generous support for more and better debate of the big issues of the day. we cannot do this series without you. our ability year in and year out to bring some of the world's biggest minds, best thinkers to this stage would not be possible without the commitment and the generosity of one foundation and one family. so please join me in a round of applause for the peter and melanie munk foundation and the munk family. thank you, guys. [applause] -- for your generous

support of this series. peter's philanthropic legacy lives on. this evening we'll focus on the geopolitical issue of the moment. it's been on our screens all day today, it's been dominating the news all week. it's the issue of the impact of a resurgent china on the international balance of power. we're going to explore this critical issue by asking the question, is china a threat to the liberal, international order? now, i think it's important for us to just spend a moment here and define some of our terms. what do we mean by this phrase, "the liberal international order"? i see it as the kind of catch phrase for the world that all of us have grown up in, a world that has favored the free movement of people, ideas, goods and capital. it's a world order guaranteed,

supported by the rule of law, setting rules, observing rules. it's been supported by a broad commitment over decades to pursue multilateralism as a way of decision-making over unilateralism. it is a world that has given nationstates the capacity, the ability for self-determination. and it's also a world that has been guaranteed to a large extent, over five decades now, by the military power and economic strength of the united states of america. so we're going to ask this evening some tough questions. we are going to ask, are china's geopolitical interests, is beijing's vision of the world and how it should be incompatible with the values and institutions of the liberal international order? or is this view just a fundamental misunderstanding of

how china sees the world? instead of being its enemy, is beijing, in fact, an important ally to the liberal international order in an era of multipolar competition and confusion and an era of seeming rising american unilateralism? well, let's find out by getting our debaters out here center stage and our debate underway. arguing for tonight's resolution, be it resolved china is a threat to the liberal international order, is america's former national security adviser, a celebrated military commander. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome general h.r. mcmaster. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] mcmaster's debating partner tonight is one of america's most influential advisors on china today. he's counseled multiple u.s. administrations and has played a key role in informing president donald trump's china strategy. please welcome from washington, d.c., michael pillsbury. [applause] now, one great team of debaters deserves another. and speaking against tonight's motion be it resolved china is a , threat to the international order, the liberal international singaporean-born diplomat best selling author and , former president of the united nations security council. [applause]

his debating partner is someone who's made the trip this evening from beijing. he's one of china's leading thinkers on globalization and the founder and leader of the influential beijing-based center for china globalization. please welcome mr. wang. [applause] well, let's go through a quick predebate checklist. , we've got a hashtag running #munkdebate.

please, those in the audience, those online, join in, post your comments, engage in the debate. we've also, for our online audience, we have a rolling poll going throughout the night, www.munkdebates.com/vote. vote on the resolution, on the performance of our debaters throughout the next hour and a half. so be sure to go to that website. and also to those in the house here, i need your help with a key part of what makes each and every one of these evenings a success, our countdown clock. we're going to see this clock come up on the screen timing the various debaters' elements. when it reaches zero, please join me in a round of applause, and that will insure that our debate remains on schedule. so debaters, you're warned. now let's see if we can do this, for this debate, flawlessly. it's time for our first live audience vote in the hall on tonight's resolution. all of you were given an electronic voting card when you came in here, so pull those out of your pocket, and we're going to have a vote on the resolution. we're going to make that question live. if you're in favor of the motion, you're going to press a

or 1. if you're opposed to the motion, press b. so a or b. a, you're in favor. b, you're opposed. so you've got your voting cards out there. you're doing the vote. and for those of you watching online, again, we've got the rolling poll going. www.munkdebate.com/vote. you can vote on the motion now and you can gauge the collective score of the online audience now versus the end of the evening. so i'm going to give this question a little more time for our data to populate with our computer and be tabulated. and then in a moment, we're going to close this first vote, in just a moment, and go to our second question. so hopefully, everyone's had a chance to vote on the motion at the beginning of the debate. you'll be able to do it again at the end also. ok. so do we have those results up now on the screen?

can i see the results for the first audience vote on the motion? 76% of you believe that china is a threat to the liberal international order. only 24% opposed. so so an interesting start to the evening. but remember [laughter] >> we could just end it now, i guess. we're now going to see how fluid your minds are -- [laughter] we'd like to go home, if you don't mind. gentlemen, was i unaware of wagers being made? a second question, are you open to changing your mind tonight, depending on what you hear on the stage between our various debaters? could you change your mind? could your opinion be swayed from one side of the hall to the other? so press a if you're an open-minded, critical thinker who's willing -- [laughter] to take a second look at 74

26 or, b, no, you are committed. you're going to vote the way you did at the beginning of the debate at the end of the debate. so i'm going to let those results build for a moment. again, a, if you think you could change your vote. b, if you to not going to change your vote. again, online audience, go to that online, you can participate. are you open to changing your mind, those of you watching the livestream. ok, let's close that question up. cross our fingers that our computer system is tabulating that for us as we speak. look at that, ok. are you open to changing your vote? 83%. so this is a very fluid debate, gentlemen. either side could move public opinion to their case for the resolution. ok. enough of me, let's get our debate underway and our opening statements. we're going to put six minutes on the clock for each debater. of we've agreed on the order in

advance. h.r. mcmaster, please kick us off. you've got suggestion minutes. thanks, rudyard. good evening. it is a privilege to be here in this wonderful forum. under xi jinping, the chinese communist party has resolved to strengthen its grip on power, take center stage in the world and make good on xi's pledge to lead the development of new rules and a new international order sympathetic to chinese interests. the chinese communist party is not only strengthening an internal system that stifles human freedom and extends its authoritarian control, it is exporting that model and undermining the liberal international order. not only strengthening an internal system that stifles i ask that at the conclusion of tonight's debate that you answer tonight's resolution, does china threaten the liberal international order, in the affirmative.

the chinese communist party poses a threat not only to the chinese people, but also to the rest of the world. first, let's consider the liberal international order and why we might want to preserve it. the liberal order is not an exclusively north american, european or western. its key components are representative government, the rule of law, freedom of speech and freedom of the press, the right to privacy and freedom of religion and free market economies that allow those who are entrepreneurial, work hard and contribute to society to build better lives for themselves and their families and their communities. i believe the canadians care about our liberal order because, as a model democracy and a founding member of that order in the wake of two disastrous world wars, canadians know that liberalism is not only an

ideology, but also a system that protects the rights -- their rights in canada's mosaic society. the free world's approach to china for the past three decades was predicated on the assumption that china would not threaten our liberal international order. china, we believed, would inevitably converge with the west, liberalize its economy and, ultimately, liberalize its political system. to accelerate that transformation, we welcomed china into our order, opened our markets, invested our capital, trained chinese engineers, scientists and even officers of the people's liberation army. but as happens sometimes in life, we were disappointed. we underestimated the strength of the party in resisting reform, and we underestimated

the role that ideology plays in driving the policies of the party. xi has reinvigorated policy since levels not seen since revolution, which killed tens of thousands of chinese. chairman xi is purging the party to strengthen his control. he punished 1.5 million officials, over three times the federal public service of canada. xi implemented mandatory study sessions and even apps on xi jinping thought. the party is harnessing new technologies to shut out alternative sources of information while creating a , surveillance police state more intrusive than big brothers in george orwell's novel, "1984." ethnic and religious minorities are subject to the worst forms of oppression. jinjiang, 1.5

million to as many as people are 3 million in concentration camps undergoing a campaign of brainwashing designed to erase their religious and cultural identity. construction of new camps is underway. the party raids universities. student activists disappear only to reappear months later on confession videos. hundreds of lawyers, legal assistants and professors have been detained. books on rule of law are removed from university shelves and destroyed. censorship of all media and communications is the party's obsession. there are no alternative perspectives to counter the party's steady diet of propaganda, much of it anti-western and anti-canadian and anti-liberal international order. the party combined anti-communist -- i'm sorry, anti-west and canadian propaganda with hostage taking.

after the legal detainment of a chinese company executive for charges of bank fraud in the united states. china has expanded its propaganda efforts overseas. those efforts recently exposed in studies in australia, new zealand and the united states , shape popular opinion in ways that support china's goals. chinese students overseas are under surveillance and unable to engage in the free exchange of ideas essential to higher education. the united front even creates fake organizations that then fake the prime minister's signature on fake documents. the party wants to mute criticism of its most egregious aggression, such as its attempt to own the south china sea. to do business in china, the party demands that our companies and their employees support china's foreign policy on tibet, taiwan and other issues.

to obscure facts such as how china, while feigning commitment to reducing greenhouse emissions is poisoning the global , environment [applause] and using, and using its one belt, one road initiative [applause] ok, we're going to let you pick up some of those points in your rebuttal which you're going to , get after all the opening statements. so, mr. wang, you're up next with your opening remarks. thank you. mr. wang: thank you, rudyard, and good evening, ladies and gentlemen and also distinguished panelists here. it's really a great honor to be in toronto. this is a marvelous city, and i really welcome this debate. i think mr. mcmaster has just painted china in a very dark picture here. but what i think maybe we have to look at it objectively. just to give you an example if,

i tell you a personal story. i, you know, i'm the person has lived through the cultural revolution. forty some years ago i was working in the countryside and making five cents a day. but 35 years ago i come to canada. i studied at the university of toronto. it's a great university. and you know, the first day i went in class somebody say, come me, can i touch you? i said, oh, why not? i touched someone from red china, so scary. i have a proposal to make. the china is a great beneficiary first, of the liberal international order. since china, you know, opened up, actually the u.s. setup is wonderful liberal orders, including united nations, world bank, imf, wto, you name it. china embraced them all. so that things last for decades.

can you believe it? china has lifted 800 million people out of poverty. actually, that's more than 10 percent of the global population. and also correspondent to 70% of the global poverty reduction. so larry summers, the former president of harvard came to a think tank about two months ago, and he said the transformation of china probably will go down in history as larger than the industrial revolution. so i think that since china joined the wto, china's gdp has jumped up ten times because china embraced the liberal international order. and also, china is the largest trading nation of over 100 countries benefiting from chinese economic activity. contribute over 35 of the gdp growth of the world. so it's become an engine of the world economy.

so china has become now the second-largest economy in the world. china every year has 100 and 50 billion tourists traveling around the world, spending $200 billion for the local economy. china has sent [inaudible] second, china is a great contributor to liberal international order. the second-largest donation to the united nations and also the second-largest peacekeeping country among permanent council members. also china has actually committed to the paris accord agreement. the u.s. has backed off, china did not avoid its responsibilities and its duties. [applause] moreover, china has is set up investment infrastructure bank.

actually, you know what this has , been embraced globally. china is a member, canada, france, germany is a member. there's actually 95 members and you know who is the largest recipient of asian infrastructure investment bank? india. india is the largest recipient. president xi actually launched a belt and road initiative five years ago. but this is still in the process of becoming more and more beneficial. but since the belt and road initiative started, it has invested $44 billion u.s. dollars around the belt and road countries. actually now china has assigned -- china has signed 127 mous with different countries including italy, including italy, switzerland, including luxembourg and, you know, a lot of countries. international agencies and institutions. so china, actually, is really

contributing because china has benefited from last four decades of the help from the world. it's time for china to contribute. it's time for china to make a contribution. so belt and road is the initiative to do that. so it still needs a hot of help, it's not perfect. it still have improvement. but world bank has actually just released a report that if belt and road is compacted, the world trading costs will cut down by 1-2%. the global economic growth will increase by 0%. now, number china has a great three, opportunity for the global liberal system. i mean, today jpmorgan just concluded its 15th china global conference in beijing. actually, the chairman of said, that china has witnessed, the transformation of china benefit all countries in the world from the growth of chinese economy.

so that china is now also, the opportunity, china is largest market in the world. now it was 400 million middle-class next year it will , be 800 million. china actually has established china actually has established 850,000 companies in china. u.s. has set up 16,000 companies in china. china is the largest market in the world, and the china export -- canada, actually, today's "global mail" said for the last 12 years has increased 12%, last year, 18%. so it's a great market for canada. thank you. [applause] griffiths thank you. : and, again, we'll get more time in the rebuttals to finish off your points. michael, you're up next with your opening statement. thank you. it's ok to walk around or you

-- michael -- michael: is it ok to walk around or do you want us to stay? mr. griffiths: yeah. do whatever you like. michael: well, it's possible to agree with everything henry wong just said, all these good things about china. it's possible to agree with everything he said but still vote for h.r. and my position on the resolution, that china currently -- and i'm going to give you the year i think the problem began -- china currently is a threat to the global international order. i think e the problem began about 2011. just about the time you were having the munk debate here when you had henry kissinger in his first debate, you said. about that time there was a power struggle in china over who should become the leader. and something called singing red songs. we didn't pay much attention to at the time. dr. kissinger actually went to schezwan to hear this contender for leader singing the red songs. at the time someone else paid careful attention, xi jinping. he also made a visit. he began to adopt the language of the hard-liners in china. he won the race. chinese politics is not like the new hampshire primary or debates on television where you can say, you know, you're sleepy, no,

you're low energy [laughter] chinese politics is played like a blood sport. the gentleman who lost actually went to jail. and all of his supporters went to jail. the issue at the time was whether to continue the liberal reforms that china had begun as early as 1980, joining the world bank, the imf, studying the u.n. specialized agencies and joining every single one of them, taking over leadership in a number of them. all that began to go down in the battles of the 1990's. we all thought, no, the reformers are going to recover. and they didn't. the hard-liners were back. so this back and forth now looks like something really serious has happened in china. large numbers of reformers are in jail. it's a bit unfair to ask henry

to represent china tonight because his think tank is one of , the most influential in the world. it's in the top 100 in the world. when i visited his think tank, do i see the hard-liners come out? no. they're winning. they're in power. i see the reformers and the good economists and the good part of china at henry's think tank, but they're losing. so if you look forward to 2049, which some chinese say is the end date of the book title i borrowed from a chinese author , "the 100-year marathon." they say this marathon, which will be peaceful, will be over in 2049 with china's gdp three times america's gdp. in the beginning of the conduct we're seeing over the last few years -- it began under president obama -- is china breaking commitments, breaking promises, saying, for example,

we never militarize the south china sea which was a voluntary promise by xi. as they say, the ink was no longer dry when we began to see missiles and military deployments in the south china sea. so there's now a long list, h.r. has given you. freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, free market. they've capped the free market. even appears the percent that's free in china is being reduced. freedom from the communist party control of your company. that seems to be gone. so the question becomes how to turn china around. can we get back to a cooperative china with the reformers in power and the hard-liners, i hate to say it, the hard-liners in jail. how to do that? way to do it is to vote for our side of the resolution. [applause] [laughter] and then you will head off what graham allison of harvard has

called the almost inevitable war that's coming. it's not just the united states, by the way. you have a great statesman in lester pearson who helped. he was canada's ambassador to the united states, 1945. he participated in the creation of the u.n. charter. he was proposed to be u.n. secretary-general. vetoed by the soviets. he was proposed again 1953, to , be secretary-general of the u.n. vetoed again by the soviets. so canada's been involved deeply, has a stake in this liberal international order. i have to say in conclusion, if you look ahead at 2049, everything seems to get worse. pollution gets worse. what china calls its cancer villages increase. the censorship increases. we've now had 150 tibetan monks light themselves on fire in suicidal protests. that gets worse. the one million to 3 million muslims in concentration camps gets worse.

perhaps all reformers will be in jail. we won't be able to have henry wong come back in 2049 because he'll be in jail. [laughter] so it's a pretty grim picture. and to me, i'm nostalgic for the 1980's. when i was working for president reagan, we sold six weapons stations to china. we sold torpedoes. john [inaudible] actually delivered them. so that's the vision of chinese-american cooperation. but not what we're seeing happen now. so i'm hoping that the munk debate results will help us in getting china back to where it should be. i think i should finish by saying, the chinese have done an excellent job understanding the united nations system. our debating partner was

singapore's ambassador twice. [applause] tripped up by the clock. mr. griffiths: i'm hoping to hear from him about china and the u.n. [laughter] we're going to save our last opening statement to kyshor. six minutes on the clock for you right now. thank you. >> you know, i'm very happy to be back in canada because i consider myself if an honorary canadian. i studied got a masters, spent , five summers in chester, and for ten years i was high commissioner to canada. and i learned something very good from very well known canadian, wayne gretzky [laughter] he said skate to where the puck is going. [laughter] not to where it is. and we are skating to where the puck is, not where the puck going. so where -- [applause] where is the puck going?

it's important to realize that today we live in an era where we see far greater change in 30 years than we have seen in 300 it's a period of immense change. future historians will be amazed at what has a happened in our era. in the last 2,000 years, the two largest economies of the world were always those of china and india. it's only the last 200 years that europe took off and north america took off. so the past 200 years of world history have been a major historical aberration. [laughter] as you know, all aberrations come to a natural end. [laughter] so it's perfectly natural to see the return of china and india.

so when you all voted by 76% to say that china is a threat to the liberal international order, why -- what are you expressing? it's a deep gut feeling that china has changed the world. and it has. when china has 10% of united states gnp, bigger than the united states in 2014, in 34 years everything changes. but what is china threatening? is china threatening the liberal international order? or is china threatening the global balance of power, the number one power in the world so ably represented by general mcmaster and michael pulse bury. [applause] and the honest answer, there's only one simple, honest answer. china is stretching the global

balance of power. and i'll tell you why china is not happening. the liberal international order. because why has china come out of nowhere and in 30 years became the largest economy in -- [inaudible] how did china do it? china did it because of the rules of the liberal international order. now, many of you will be confused by this phrase, "liberal international order." i mean, i could completely agree when they said china is not a liberal domestic order, but that's not the issue of the day. it's not whether china is liberal domestic order. the issue of the day is whether china's working with the liberal international order. and i can tell you what a liberal international order is,

because i was born in an era or what you call an illiberal international order in a british colony. as you know, when you are colonized, you have no rights whatsoever. and china went through hundred years of hell from 1842-1949. and then when the liberal international order began, china discovered two big things that work for china. one, the first pillar of the liberal international order is sovereignty. every country can then the decide it own future, what it wants to do. and then the second thing is rules, rules to insure what you can and cannot do in the international space, not domestic space. international space. and i also want to give you one statistic which i hope you will bear in mind throughout this

whole debate. out of the world's population of 7.5 billion people in the world, only 12% live in the west. 88% live outside the west. so you want to judge china's international behavior -- let me emphasize that, international behavior -- ask yourself how is the 88% of the world reacting to china's rise? and a amazingly, they're welcoming it, they're cooperating with it. my partner, henry wong, described what happens in the belt and road initiative. countries are queuing up to join it. i mean, the unite doesn't want to joan, i understand -- the united states doesn't want to join, i understand. it won't. but the rest of the world is

doing so. so the debate is about the liberal international order. please pay attention to international sentiments. thank you. [applause] well, i think we have a debate here, gentlemen. we're going to put two and a half minutes up on the clock. we'll do a round of rebuttals and, please, we're going to start in the same order of our opening remarkings. so, h.r. mcmaster, you're up first. ok, thank you. well, the negative team would have you believe that we should be happy about xi jinping making the world safe for authoritarianism.

eight already in deep distress. what china does is, it undermines the sovereignty of these countries by trying to re-create the tributary a system associated with chinese dynastic history. where you can live in the system as long as you accept a servile relationship with china at the center of the system. sure is talking about sovereignty. he would have us believe on the 30th anniversary of the tiananmen square massacre that the chinese people enjoy having no rights. and living inside of an authoritarian system. it used to be key sure only spoke for people in asia. for everyoneaking except for north america and the west. how do the countries in the toion view china's efforts export its authoritarian system?

was a great deal of concern and even fear. what you have seen recently is a reaction across the world. where small countries like sri lanka, who could no longer service their debt and voted out the corrupt government and welcomed in this financing they created the servile relationship. a similar phenomenon happened in the maldives. and it happened in this hemisphere. consider how china is making money on the backs of the venezuelan people by keeping up the cash flow to mature out. china immediately resells it on the international market. the new prime minister of malaysia come another country subjected to this relationship has said this reminds him of the unequal treaties to which china was subjected in the 19th and early 20th century. tot you see is enough there model being exported.

canadaot a u.s., or problem. it is a competition between free and open societies. [applause] . >> we will follow the same remarks. >> without whole abstract quarks with that majority. so with that initiative a benefit to the countries around the world. and then for the ambassador to say what has the us given us?

and will have nothing to work on the international development plan. and also benefiting from countries it's time to give back. so the financial times report as a consultant based in new york over the last ten years. and 38 countries 40 of them china was writing off. and also you can see the trend

billed by china. and then also with the free trade to germany and with those employment opportunities. and also to managing greece now it is the top 30 in the world. so there are the abundance examples. of course, it is working together like a capital project. but let's make it popular.

. >> the global international order did not begin in 1845 with the un charter. the only threat is not china. the order the way the theory is taught around the world with india and japan, it began into obscure little towns in 1638 to end a war going on 30 years so can we structure a set of treaties that first of all, invent sovereignty? then there are a set of rules among the major powers and they had to abide by certain

internal rules in their countries. it worked for a long time but not ultimately. those rules are from 1815. so to change the order to sell up on --dash set up a system lasting 100 years the league of nations a similar story so it failed world war ii that builds on all previous efforts of the current world order the first 20 years was not part of it but kept out of it as a lever. then china joined for more than 20 years and they took it very seriously only fairly recently over the past decade or so that china has shifted

and india and japan see it also not just canada and the united states or germany. it's the neighbors now the indians are the number two arms purchaser from the united states they see the military threat on their border. china back down ultimately but to see what the chinese were trying to do we haven't gotten into japan's reaction or china's massive defense spending on outer space weapons, hypersonic weapons , whole series of things that china once told us we would never do that. [applause] .

>> we don't disagree that china that isn't an argument. [laughter] china has a lot of intelligence but people in china could not even choose what to wear or what to live or what to study and zero could travel overseas but today you go to china they can choose what to wear and where to live where to work what to study. and each year in this amazing land of freedom 334 million chinese travel overseas every

year and then they come back to china. what is wrong with that? the other point the best conception of philosophy is the paradox of our global situation is the biggest fact of the liberal international order paradoxically is not a nonliberal society or a liberal society like the united states of america. [applause] two of the leading in america that i believe that the

biggest threat is into the united states of america and not from china. and with that liberal international order faces the danger from its creators. think of that. [applause] . >> the perfect debate so far. now let's go to the middle of the debate and work through the key issues perk i want to pick up where he left off and also begin by touching on the news of this last week with trade tensions between china and the united states ratchet up considerably so will you level with this audience and admit this trade dispute is

not about defending the liberal international order by pursuing america's security interest by clipping china's wings economically and technologically and by doing this you create critical bilateral relationships and more importantly knocking the pins out from under the liberal international order doesn't have something. >> doesn't america has something to answer for. [applause] spec this is a chinese communist party's talking points. [laughter] [applause] i think we have seen over the last two years is a recognition across all societies that the assumptions on which we based our policy of china were wrong henry mentioned really they should be proud to be part of these

international organizations but is just too bad that the chinese policies undermine those very organizations and all the promises made for example, joining the wto were broken and what were these promises? that china would open its market to international companies. with the proviso that when you come in to do business you transfer all intellectual property to china's companies who act as an extension of the chinese communist party. [applause] the other aspect is they have to adhere to support the foreign policy of the chinese communist party you can put up millions of people in concentration camps but adhere to the party's position on tibet with major airlines and marriott to this type of coercion but what you also see

with china and breaking these trade and economic protocols is they try to use the coercive power of its market to soften the criticism of china because companies want to maintain access even as we are subjected in the west to a sustained campaign of industrial espionage on the unprecedented scale trying to make this a problem between the united states and china but the people are waking up people of china are waking up where the wealthiest people of china buying up all of your real estate in vancouver? [applause] they know the changes that have happened in 2011 they want to get the hell out or get their money the hell out of there so we have to recognize china's behavior. why are they behaving that way? but it's because the chinese president has prioritized maintaining his grip on power

over what makes sense economically even for the chinese people. so it will be tough to grow the economy. >> i will stop there because i went to bring henry in on that point. it is clear the deal is held up this week largely because china's leadership does not want to give it seems its control of the economy over to the market mechanisms the united states has been promoting someone and a forced technology transfer come in and subsidies, are those cornerstones of the international liberal order those are embedded in the wto? why has china resisted the reforms seemingly ratcheting up the tension of these negotiations to a whole new level? . >> to agree with what mister

mcmaster has been describing china embrace the system and also those requirements of the conditions and actually there is a review every year so if china did well then let's reform the wto unilaterally against china so for example, to talk about china with a force transfer but with those wto conditions so the examples of which company has the transfer and as a matter of fact just a couple months ago

china has passed a new foreign investment law from any government at any level. and any company or they will be persecuted or punished so i think they are right because this is a moment because china needs to do business on the global order of the two largest economies fight each other so i really think it is up to the leadership>> that was.

[laughter]in president trump's trade strategy if that interest you but i'm more interested in the idea of the elements. [laughter] because there is a an important point when china and the united states art too close together in the past or other great powers that affects everybody. put forward by one of your predecessors that idea is all the main issues could be solved by the two great powers and economies and the others can just take it. that vision is in washington d.c. if you look at the president's

comments at the end of the trade war, he wants zero tariffs more us investment in china. the commerce secretary has we. he has had trade shows to attract more investors. that has to be kept in mind if china stops threatening the global international order. as far as the elephants that is an important scenario. both countries have begun to have wargames, military exercises, write books and give speeches about war between the two countries and this is also bad. because kissinger's book on china which by the way my book

has outsold him so i can afford to praise his book. [laughter] but it talks about a major war coming on the scale of world war i. millions will die so i rather have the elephants make love than fight each other. >> and with this stupid loan - - debate - - to continue with this debate isn't that chinese the victims of us aggression? in the heat of these trade negotiations your navy decides to sail to destroyers through the south china sea without even asking not even asking permission in the last time i looked i didn't see the chinese navy sitting off staten island.

>> so explain to this audience while china shows restraint the us projects aggression spirit china showing his restraint by building islands in the south china sea destroying the ecosystem as they do it and militarizing those islands against international law and international court ruling. so what china is doing is laying claim to the ocean. not just any ocean but a part of the ocean that one fifth of global trade flows. and china has benefited from that liberal international order to recognize nobody owns the ocean nobody has to ask anybody's permission to execute global commerce. but this is what china is trying to put into place. why? because what china wants to do and this is explicit that henry cannot even talk about

because he would be detained is china wants to create exclusionary areas of control. exclusionary areas of privacy that they can push the united states out. why? without the states you can intimidate countries like singapore. so how does your government feel doing business with the chinese communist party's policies in the region? because officials sound much different than you do. so we have to recognize that all free and open societies it is time to have a conversation with china to explain to china that its activities to establish hegemonic control over the indo pacific region and to challenge the united

states, canada any free or open societies and what we stand for globally has got to stop. and china and teethree in the chinese party has to recognize china is risking those gains lifting those people out of poverty all that is in jeopardy dow. is not just a military issue. all of these are integrated so now let's ask a country in our hemisphere like ecuador how is that going for them? and 19 billion-dollar dam built at the base of the active volcano that was claimed immediately for the first time it blew out the entire country's electrical system.

all of the officials involved in the deal guess where they are? they are in jail because china had corruption in this campaign and coercion what does ecuador get in return? it gives up all global exports to china which that immediately sells on the markup to the global market prickle that is what china's system looks like land grabs so to speak in the south china sea under strict international commerce to create servile relationships and dependencies with regimes so it can challenge free and open societies and international order. [applause] . >> a direct charge as an apologist for the chinese government we will let you address that. but stay on the topic of the military security component

because there are a litany of charges here the general set up i would like a response to. >> thank you general mcmaster that i am not speaking on behalf of the singapore government. my job is to sell the book and then you decide whether or not if what i said is correct that is the only standard by which i am judged if that agrees with the american position so on that military dimension, fir the only major power on planet earth that actually has not gone to war in 40 years and has not fired one bullet is

china. [applause] by contrast, under the peaceful presidency under barack obam obama, in the last year of his presidency the united states dropped 26000 bombs on seven countries. in my being an apologist for the chinese government? check your facts. fact number two is even more interesting. as a nonresident high commissioner in canada a diplomat told me they made the discovery that spending many years in north canada there was a dispute with united states and canada if a body of

water was an international waterway of canada or the straits for the united nations convention. united states it is international waters and then the united states has squandered that through history. now under international law to have a destroyer in international waters? you are very wise. [laughter] the most recent ruling by the way is an island occupied by the united states and the indian ocean that the court has ruled that the united

states is not given up so to seriously obey international law then i think that's the best way for china and international law. [applause] . >> first of all, what i would like to do is to point out that a good percentage of those bombs united states dropped were in support of ally and canadian soldiers courageously fighting alongside us. [applause] . >> now moving on to a number of topics but the next has to be human rights. so in your opening remarks you talk about this larger call to

arms in a world where individuals rights are respected and freedoms thrive but how can you refute the fact that china cares about human rights not only do they care about showing what they have accomplished that what has been talked about 850 million people lifted out of poverty with incredible accomplishment of any nation or civilization. how can you say caring about basic human rights is less important than like freedom of the press or the right to academic freedom? are those secondary and a country like china facing these urgent social program - - problems? . >> let me tell you a story. communist party leaders of all

china both got fired and they both went to jail they said basic human rights are good we will bring as many as we can out of poverty and succeeded they also stuck up at only for human rights but also rule of law. mae translated james madison into a draft for china nobody knew this at the time this is in the 1980s. this is when the two party secretaries went to jail for life he described how far things had gone in china in the eighties to a rule of law of open elections multiparty system as i emphasize where did he spend the rest of his life? house arrest.

prison only months later we learn about this internal debate so yes there is great human rights lifting people out of poverty i think is the greatest achievement of china of them all. but they also know, the reformers know about the other part of your question and that's where the tragedy is the trend is in the wrong direction and china because of the power struggle back in 2011 the idea now isn't hopeless. is china on the wrong path? or global surveillance technology system to export to the whole world where you are evaluated which magazines you subscribe to, what food you buy, what you said

surreptitiously to someone else, and your credit card score will evaluate how you should be treated next time you go to the canadian government. that's what china stands for now this was not the case ten or 20 years ago this is something new to compromise the human rights of the whole world if they are not called on this and asked to stop. [applause] . >> this is key. people in this room and your opponents would like to frame the debate as a contest between not just variations of global order but something much more dangerous which is a concept between freedom. is that a fair way to characterize that? . >> i don't think that is a fair way because it has its own situation it is still the

largest in the world so managing a population like that with different religions it is a big challenge but china has embraced the market economy that is a democratic economy. so basically so that said china has come a long way i don't think it has reached that point yet but also that complex education really and also medic basic medicare for

all country like canada. that is an achievement so five hours to beijing china has more assets it is important for china with a global order. . >> they say this division between the liberal order as a global phenomenon versus domestic politics is false because the domestic dimension

informs the international behavior and actions. why do you refute that with the debate you always end up with perspectives and lose the new ones so to agree with general mcmaster and mister pillsbury and the standards for human rights in the united states are much higher than in china. freedom of speech, so on and so forth. china is a long way away. but the other question is which society is progressing forward in which isn't. [applause] and let's talk about regression.

point number one the major develop society where the average income of the bottom 50 percent has gone down over the past 30 years is the united states of america. fact number two. and i mention this in my book. [laughter] two thirds of americans don't have $500 cash i think two thirds of chinese households are there already and this is the most damaging fact, when i studied philosophy at university in 74 and 75 if anyone said to me in the future the first major

developed western country to reintroduce would be the united states of america i would have taken a bet with anybody that would never happen in my lifetime. believe me it was a great personal shock to me when guantánamo happened. how is it the world's biggest defender of human rights became the first major developed country to reintroduce torture? amazingly enough the canadian citizen was involved to be tortured. now i would like to live in a world where there is zero torture.

and if we can work to gather to achieve that world then no torture anywhere in the world and let's work together on that. [applause] . >> on that all societies are flawless. [laughter] but when we do discover flaws in our government's behavior, we debate them we are exposed and we are self-critical and we improve. imagine could we even have this debate? [laughter] one - - [applause] and i would also ask how many people are trying to become chinese citizens? [laughter] [applause] there is a reason for that

great disparity from those who want to come to a free and open society and those who prefer not to live in the authoritarian close police surveillance state. [applause] . >> actually there is one year of development last year china just set up a new organization called the national immigration administration now more foreigners come to china with the green cards china is one of the top countries to work for so there's also opportunities ther there. >>. >> so let's move on there are

two more topics before closing statements.

>> they shifted the espionage, a large portion to the private sector. produced a law that said if you are a chinese company, you have to support our intelligent efforts. why would anyone let china establish your communication infrastructure if you know this authoritarian police state is going to collect all your data, labeled the data and try to use , it against you later.

hundreds of thousands of records of our federal employees have been transferred essentially to the chinese, and his party. of the ten really big communications hubs in north america chinese telecom party owns those. chinese, party has access to communications between the u.s. and canada by controlling those hubs. it is just responsible of a part of any government would let the chinese, and his party into their systems. at the chinese, and his party treats its own people the way it does to think they will treat you any better? i don't think so. i think this could be the establishment of privacy and globally is what china is endeavoring to do by the establishment of this into structure. >> i think the key issue here is surveillance.

i completely agree with general mcmasters that it is wrong. one story and one points. i was in vancouver a few weeks ago not to buy property but to participate in a tech talk. most powerful speaker of the tech talk with the british journalist called [inaudible], watcher ted talk. she describes graphically on facebook that she says in her words, destroyed british democracy. how? by injecting lies into facebook accounts that enter and disappear and it took months and months before the british parliament could see the lies that facebook has said. what is the solution?

solution solution for the public facebook of huawei or any such corporation is great and open set of multilateral rules and agree to all countries and that is what the liberal international order is about and say this is what is acceptable in cyber warfare and this is what is unacceptable in cyber warfare. i can say confidently that the number one country that will oppose this would be the united states of america. the united states of america has by far the best surveillance capability of any country in the world and my source for this is the best professor in the israeli man and in cyber warfare

by part number one is the united states and number two is russia and number three and four together are israel and the united kingdom and number five is china. that's the reason why the chinese get caught because they are so bad at it. [laughter] >> let's move on for the last topic for this free-for-all and then go to closing statement. this debate is originating from toronto and from canada and i want to go around the one year and get this distinguished group's advice on when the elephants are making war or making love what do smaller powers like canada, like your singapore say do? what is the strategy -- let's hope you can drive but maybe it simply to survive this clash of superpower rivalry. michael, let's start with you. >> well, small powers, as you phrase it can have an enormous amount of influence when they

gather together in the coalition and in one of the organizations that does this. the most important is the un general assembly. they been efforts to declare the u.s. practices torture or does surveillance and if you do a kind of test count in the un general assembly it won't pass. is the number -- this is by the way i praised lester pearson for his role in the shaping of the un charter in 1945 and almost time for secretary general of the un and un structure itself is probably the most important parts of the global international order. it includes arms control treaties and canada has played an important role on soviet union and russia and to have bilateral nuclear arms control treaties there are a number of successes but china has destroyed arms control treaties there ever was.

the treaty on intermediate nuclear missiles of the range and when we and the russians would destroy completely we had teams in each other's factories to make sure nobody built missiles like that. everything was fine. then china began to deploy missiles thousands of them in just that range. because both russia which has concerns and even fears about chinese military and us to withdraw from the treaty and has caused the russians in response to these chinese new year missiles to even say we are now going to place more emphasis on nuclear forces than ever before so we will have some kind of countermeasure to what china is doing. the american side as china you join us three-way talks with russia, china in america to

reduce those missiles and all the others because soon the entire arms control agreement on icbms will expire. you can also reduce dispense spending and all three capitals china gave his answer yesterday and no, no. that's a spoiler in the international system that really worries me a lot. >> what is the canada strategy? >> canada can help with that and say we like this idea of three-way talks with china, get on board. >> what they try to set off is a really a false debate here about china versus the united states and everybody in between gets cap adopted this is an issue between free and open society's enclosed authoritarian systems and despite the narrative of unilateralism there's been tremendous multinational

corporation and confronting the predatory and dangerous policies of the chinese, and his party. if you just consider him a for example, the bad effects of the one belt, one road and how that's creating these debt dependencies and failed projects and bolstering corrupt authoritarian regimes from, as i mentioned, venezuela to cambodia to zimbabwe. what we've done is worked with states, canada, japan, australia, new zealand have come together to stay there has to be standards. it's important to have standards in our establishing standards that can help reduce the threat of one belt, one road to these other countries. we are also putting our money together so that there are financial alternatives to the predatory policies of the chinese cummings party and henry mentioned the ai id is funding some of these products.

very few projects are funded by the aaib because canada and others sit on its board and won't conscience the funding of these corrupt projects and corrupt governments. that's another example. another example is on december 20th of last year.canada was a vanguard fixing other countries who simultaneously exposed the systematic campaign of industrial espionage affected by so-called apt ten. all nations and simultaneously range of sanctions and indictments against thet espionage the president xi had promised they would never do again. again, don't let them trick us into thinking that this is about the united states and china. the european commission last month officially recognized china as a systematic rival promoting alternative models of governance.

and also, recent media exposures for the u.s. and canadian journalism have worked together to expose how the chinese, this party could have allowed this drug fentanyl, this murderous drug to be exported without any kind of checks into both of our countries. by the way, the per capita death rate in canada is even higher than the massive death rate in the united states. investigative journalist, not just governments, play a very important role in exposing the activities and efforts of the chinese, and his party to export [applause] >> as a citizen of philosophy i would say i will after your -- neither of them answer your question. your question was what do small states do and they went on to

give speeches. the question is what should small states do? the answer is that states like canada and singapore and by the way there are to take the 119 member states of the un and take away china and the u.s. you ask 191 states what they would like . they would like a stronger unita -- united nations. they would like a stronger international law and they would things to be adjudicated by an impartial barn -- body. not unilateral demands made by one superpower on the other countries. now, i know -- [applause] i read american papers that when general mcmaster was a national security advisor, he fought a very noble fight and tried very hard to persuade president trump not to walk away from multilateral units. -- agreements.

not to walk away from the paris climate accord and not to walk away from the transpacific partnership. guess what happened? he failed. that is the sad story. when you have an honorable man like him trying to do the right thing and it feels you have to ask yourself the question. -- and it fails, you have to ask yourself the question. how do you live in a world where a superpower decides to walk away from multilateral agreements. the answer to that -- i can tell you and i served as ambassador to the u.s. for 10 years, and in the course of 10 years of i spoke with some degree to some -- some degree of intensity with ambassadors. one thing we all agree upon is let's try to strengthen the one -- the u.n. and make it a place where you can go impartially. the only protection that medium

powers like canada and small states like singapore have is a stronger multilateral order and i hope that general mcmasters will get back into the u.s. government. [applause] >> henry. thank you. i think the debate tonight is very meaningful. for the last 75 years after the second world war we are not seen any major war for example because we have this new liberal international order. let's maintain it. canada is a great country and canada, not long ago, had w-2 meetings. but they can play an enormous role as a g-7 country. really has ao a neutrale and

position to do this kind of thing. it's really important canadian people to speak up. canada is really international. you have a multicultural system in english and french and everyone gets along very well. at least, the quebec's do in canada. for the next seven decades i think the world has fundamentally changed where were so much intertwined and so interconnected that the capital movement and the good movement and the movement and migration we are one world. we cannot separate each other. but the realistic. let's not shake this multilateral system. including belt around. let's china u.s. work together and let's make it more responsible for the countries. the world order needs us and we

cannot use leave this multilateral system. the liberal international order should be strengthened, maintained and china can be a , new contributor to the system. >> great. thank you. that is our time for the cross-examination portion. we will now go to our closing statements so we will put three minutes on the clock and will go in the reverse order of the opening statement. i will exit stage left, you are up first. >> as you can see, this has been a fascinating debate but i want to emphasize one thing. it's not about fun and games. we are at a very special moment of history where we have a rather narrow window of opportunity to create a better world for tomorrow.

what is this narrow window of opportunity? it is this -- china while it is still number two not yet fully number one is prepared to accept the constraints of the liberal international order. china abides by major agreement and when you work with china in the united nations as many of us have done so, you try to support the un all the time. i can say after ten years in the u.n., the objective of the united states mission to the un was to weaken united nations, control its budget, refuse to given freedom to grow, and when i served as a commission member,

the united states was even trying to strangle the iaea. china, by contrast, is prepared to give more to the un that china is a single biggest contributor of peacekeepers to the united nations. what is this window of opportunity? while it is still number two and while it is still willing to play by the rules this is the moment for the united states to actually work with china and to strengthen the multilateral order and to serve as a good role model but unfortunately, as you know, the united states is doing the opposite and it is walking away from the paris climate agreement and drawn from unesco, it has walked away from the transpacific partnership. it has withdrawn from the human rights council and i can keep going on and on. the sad part of all of this is that the united states today is creating so many major loopholes

in international law, loopholes that china will walk through tomorrow when it becomes number one. so if general mcmaster and professor michael want to preserve this order, the best way to do it is to show china that yes, we will support you in making the liberal international order a stronger one. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. michael, your closing statement, please. your three minutes up on the clock. >> thank you. it seems to me that threatening the global international order may come down to just one thing, one word. cheating. cheating. in your own relationships or

organizations you belong to, companies work for if you embezzle, if you lie, if you cheat there is a punishment for it. in international politics, since the agreement i mentioned 400 years ago, there's no punishment for a country that cheats. it is only the moral authority of the other powers that can try to persuade that country to change its ways. let me give you a couple examples we have not mentioned so far and have concerned cheating. why the trade decisions tonight, one minute after midnight may be so important to china. in the wto, china was sued by the united states, other countries joined us in the chinese market, close to all foreign credit cards, in particular, in our case, american credit cards. the dispute settlement mechanism is to take a vote, the judges

voted against china and china acknowledged that they had lost and said they were now open the market to foreign credit cards. 2012. they never did it. during that time they had a secret plan to boost their own credit card where today it's the world's largest by revenues internationally. because all the other markets opened themselves to the chinese credit card. that is cheating. the issue of the trade talks an -- the issue of technology, is not about america first or america tortured people more than china does and that's an unusual competition, i don't know how even to address but the issue is deception ok? is cheating ok? is it ok to join the united nations agency, interpol would be a good example and the

chinese had the head of interval which is a huge procedures achievement for china and suddenly was recalled home, put in jail, no process in the head of an international agency is treated like a common criminal without even the charges other than his wife talking to the press. so, faced with this kind of challenge to the liberal global order, what should we do? should we be quiet and happy? should meet me make love with china? should be given to war? should we just had to bring this to their attention by putting on tariffs which we know work. these are not the tariffs to protect america. [applause] thank you. these tariffs are to bring china to the table to answer for cheating. >> you have the last were there,

i appreciate it very. >> henry, your closing remarks, please. thank you. i think tonight is really a memorable night and that in this famous town all that we have debates about international liberal order which i think china is still a student, but we have learned a lot. it is really great. i think this debate will be remembered for a long time. i learned a lot. it will be in my memory for a long time. i'm am an admirer of kennedy -- of canada and canadian people. , i heard many times the story about the canadian doctor who sacrificed for china. in my university i had a professor come from canada from toronto and taught me for two years. first place i came as toronto, and i think canada's spirit plays a united important role in -- plays an important role in the future. the world is so complex and so colorful, lots of different

models, different practices and healthy competition. actually, i think that china opened up and we gave it credit for deng xiaoping. he had of the fundamentals saying. that she had a fundamental saying. he does not matter if it is a white cat or a black cat as long as it catches mice. it's really important and now we see china is developing to become the second largest economy the largest market economy in the world now so we let china have more space and let china continue with opening up and reform and china will be great markets to the world. as a matter of fact, tim hortons, a canadian company opened its jobs in china. open years time, they will 1000 in different cities. starbucks has actually 3600

shops across china, 150 cities. there are 3000 mcdonald's in china. tom friedman, the author of "the world is flat" actually said if the country middle-class is growing large enough and if they are interested in mcdonald's and have their kids go to mcdonald's will be less interested in more -- in war, more interested in peace. who wants to sacrifice such a life or a prosperous life so i think that we really need to think about things hard. we're all on this planet and only have one earth. so let's talk to each other, communicate with each other. not deepen the negative narrative. seeing is believing and we have to communicate better. we have a lot of work to do.

tonight, midnight, 25% of tariffs start your -- start. but it's not in a good direction. let's work together and solve the things for peace and prosperity for mankind. thank you very much. he pulled out all the stops when he tried to make this about president trump. as you know, president trump would love to have a name in any venue. [laughter] but is probably -- but he is probably disappointed to hear this debate is not about him. this debate is about how our free and open societies are under attack by an authoritarian closed model. a model that is not only affecting the chinese people by the establishment of their rights and their rights to free speech and the rights to privacy but it is also affecting other nations of the world including our own.

ask your two canadian citizens who were essentially taken hostage and are still in captivity. one of them, a former diplomat, whose child was just born a few weeks ago. the chinese communist party every day exposes the nature of their system and it is time for us to make up for it. what he would want to do is try to create a crisis of confidence in ourselves so that we are no longer able to stand up to this behavior in the export of this authoritarian system to other nations and the intimidation of other nations to create vassal states and relations servile relations with other countries. but we are to vote tonight for our own self respect in our own self-respect is free and open societies who will no longer, as

my colleague michael said, allow china to cheat and will no longer allow china to export its authoritarian system to others. when he was in his 20s nowthey don't kill 50 million of his own people and then to keep himself in power killed millions more. at the time, mao decided he would try to export this revolutionary model to other countries. president xi has put back into place very tight control of the party and the new vanguard of the chinese, his party now are party officials in suits carrying duffel bags of cash to corrupt governments. this is in an effort to extend their influence and establish exclusionary areas of control. in efforts to intimidate us and others while they regard their

intimidating behavior and the threat to our free and open societies is just a normal way of doing business. it is time tonight to send a very clear message that will allow us to escape this false dilemma between being passive about this problem and war. we need to have a conversation. thank you. [applause] >> on behalf of a grateful audience, debaters, thank you for tackling hard issues and bringing new insights into an issue that will no doubt inform the national conversation here in canada and the global conversation for many years to come. ladies and gentlemen, our debaters. thank you. [applause] again, i want to recognize the

peter and melanie monk foundation-- munk and the terrific support they provided for us to gather together to have this conversation. here is the moment that we have all been waiting for. our opportunity to vote a second time on tonight's motion and to figure out which one of these two teams has been able to sway opinion in this all over to their side. you all have your voting card. you used them once successfully. that was perfect. we will do it again now and put the resolution up to a vote. is china a threat to the liberal international order? if you are in favor of the motion press a. if you have come to a different view or began at the beginning to oppose the motion press be.

--- b. we will let the results populate for a moment because it's important critical vote and go to our online audience again and remind them that we have an online poll going right now where you can vote on the motion. ww w. munk debates/vote. go there and see how you voted at the end of the debate versus all the other people watching online right now. let's also, just for a moment, review some of our pre-debate votes so those are fresh in our minds and gives us more time to see the voting here in the office. initial vote 76% in favor of the motion, 24% opposed and we then asked the question how many of you were open to changing your mind and that was a pretty big number, 83% versus 17% so let's

now see if we can close our tabulations and if everyone has had a chance to vote and let's see the final result. that could well be the pre- audience vote that we are seeing a second time there. this is deja vu, i feel like. let's see if we can see, in fact, whether those results are indeed the final results and have been no change in the audience vote. i find that hard to believe. let's give this a moment. always fun here working with technology. we will wait one moment. i have a technician here. this is the final blow. -- vote. there is no change. [applause] two debates in a row. this audience went in at 74% in favor of the motion and went out

at 74% so i am going to declare and this has only happened twice in 11 years of these debates. i draw between these two sides. we have fought this debate, gentlemen, to a technical draw. thank you. very interesting results. thank you all for coming here. if you are watching online, stick around for our postdebate panel. for you here in the hall, thank you for your attention tonight. we will see you all again in the autumn for the second annual debate of 2019. ,> on american history tv sunday p.m., on american artifact. exhibit on thep lgbtqi a rights exhibit on the

museum of the 50th anniversary of new york's stonewall riots. >> it prayed upon the gay wall street workers who socialized their. it was sort of a blackmail ring going on. place, but at least the place gay people could call their own. >> and at 8:00, here about the watergate tapes from jeff sheppard, who worked with president nixon's defense team. if you listened all the tapes, the president said this, did this, decreed that. he told them to do this. and you will not find anything that says the president gave an order or acknowledged criminality. it's just not there. >> this weekend, on american history tv, on c-span3. book, thes newest president's beard noted

historians rank america's best and worst chief executives. they provide insight into the lines of 44 american present. are noted presidential historians. explore the life events that shape our leaders. challenge they face and the legacies they have left behind. order your copy today, it is now available at the hardcover. presidents.he >> now, democratic presidential candidate better or them a former u.s. congressman from texas talks to voters at a campaign party in new hampshire. this is about an hour and 25 minutes. mr. o'rourke: hey, how you doing? you coming