And donald trump says mexico will pay to build a wall on its border with the u. S. We will build a wall and you know who is going to pay for the wall, mexico. But parag khanna says the next president should do the op set break down borders between north and south and form an allpowerful north American Union. He will make his case. Also, islamic radicalism in pakistan has always been worrying because of that countrys nuclear arsenal. Pakistans charismatic politician imran khan tries to explain the anger against america in the muslim world and why he says its actually lessened in pakistan in recent years. But first here is my take. After Donald TrumpsForeign Policy address this week, the chairman of the Senate Foreign relations committee, republican bob corker, announced that he was very impressed, extolling the broadness, the vision of the speech. The wall street journal said it was serious. The national interest, jacob hybrand opined, that the candidate was more restrained. Clearly we now consider it a wonder of sorts that donald trump can spend 40 minutes in front of cameras during which he avoids vulgarity, refrains from bigotry and reads from a teleprompter. The speech was in fact an embarrassment, a meandering collection of slogans. That were mostly pap pablam. We must make america strong again. Our goal is peace and prosperity, not war and destruction. It did not contain his most absurd and unworkable suggestions, building a wall, stopping people from sending their own money to relatives in mexico, banning all muslims from entering the United States, and a 45 tariff on chinese goods. In that sense it was an improvement i suppose. The most striking aspect of the speech was its repeated contradictions. We will spend what we need to rebuild our military. Washington already spends more than the next seven countries put together. Almost in the same breath he talked about pinching pennies because of the crippling national debt. Trump is against humanitarian inventions, but he implied that we should have intervened to help embattled christians in the middle east. Which is it . Trump put americas closest allies on notice if they didnt pay their fair share on defense, a complaint washington has made for at least four decades, he would end americas security guarantees to them. We have no choice, el exclaimed. Then he assured them that he would be a close and reliable ally. Trump promised to be consistent and yet unpredictable. Is your head spinning yet . Mostly trumps speech was populist pandering masquerading as a strategy, but one theme emerged, donald trump is a jacksonian. In his book special providence, Walter Russell mead explains that Andrew Jackson represents describes a populous style of american thinking which is different than the country other major ideological traditions, it is antiimmigrant and nativist, in Foreign Policy largely isolationist but if and when engaged abroad militaristic and unilateral. In trade it is protectionist and on all matters deeply suspicious of International Alliances and global conventions. Jacksonians are exasperated not so much by enemies, but by our allies. He they want to abandon the world or utterly dominate it. What is exasperating, in fact, intolerable for them is engaging with the world, working with other countries to achieve incremental progress, manage conflicts and thus solve problems. Unfortunately, that happens to be what the bulk of Foreign Policy actually looks like. If we want to defeat isis, for example, what is going to make that possible is a complicated series of military and diplomatic moves, but trump has a better idea, a secret plan he says that will zap the group into o oblivion. He wont tell them or us what it is or when it will happen. In 1993 the scholar senator Daniel Patrick moynihan wrote an essay entitled defining divancy down. In it he explained American Society was quietly accepting as normal behavior that would be considered abnormal by any earlier standard. Welcome to the Trump Campaign of which his speech on Foreign Policy was openly the most recent example. For more go to cnn. Com fareed and read my Washington Post column this week. And lets get started. Ive taken part in several debates in my life but none quite like the one im about to show you. My opponent was edward snowden, traitor to some, hero to others. He joined remotely from moscow where he has been given refuge from american authorities. This was Edward Snowdens first ever debate. The topic was one that is near and dear to the former cia employee, encryption, more specifically should the government have lawful access to any encrypted message or device . Its a subject that reared its head after the San Bernardino attacks. One of the attackers, syed farook, had an iphone that the fbi wanted access to. The agency believed that the phone could hold valuable investigative information and asked apple to help them break into it. Apple refused. Listen in and tweet us using the hashtag fzgps to let us know which side you come out on. Barton geldman, who is writing a book about snowden, was the moderator. Imagine tomorrow that bank of america announced that it had a new product, lets call it an ivault and bank of america said this is a vault, a virtual vault, in which you can put all your bank information, any Financial Information you have, any other kind of information you want. Remember, all information is now digital so it could be your tax receipts, it could be your will, it could be receipts for travel, it could be whatever it is you want to keep secure and safe. Now, imagine that there was a guy, lets call him bernie madoff, who embezzled billions of dollars from poor Workers Pension funds and it turned out he had one of these ivaults and the government is trying to figure out exactly the extent and the scale of the crime, they need evidence for it, they need to find out what else he might have embezzled and they go to a court and ask for a search warrant, the court provides it, but bank of america says, no, this is encrypted digital information. In fact, our whole sales pitch to our customers is this is encrypted so you cant have access to it. How would you get around that problem . Because after all if apple says you cannot have access to the information in an iphone because it is encrypted, why does bank of america not have the same right . Why does any institution, frankly, any company in the United States not have the right to encrypt the information it has . This is relatively routine software at this point, and then argue that it is in a sense created a zone of immunity in which no laws can reach, no courts can reach, no government can reach. Thats really it seems to me the heart of the question here. Now, i know what youre thinking, you dont want people to see whats on your iphone. Neither do i. But i understand that within a democracy if you have rules, laws, you have to sacrifice liberty for security at some point. This is not an absolutist position, i believe in strong protections for those liberties, i do not want the government abusing its authority, i believe it has, but you cannot have an absolute zone of privacy. Now, youre going to hear a lot or you probably have already heard a lot about the dangers technologically that this now produces, that it might mean a master key that unlocks all information everywhere, that it endangers all kind of encryption everywhere. Im not a technology guy, but i thought it would be worth listening to what a technology guy has to say about this, somebody who ran the Largest Technology company specializing in software for two decades, bill gates. So here is what bill gates says about apples request the federal governments request of apple that it unlock an iphone. Bill gates, apple has access to this information. Theyre just refusing to provide the access, and the courts will tell them whether to provide the access or not. You shouldnt call the access some special thing. Its no different than asking the phone company to get information or bank records. There is no difference between this information. The government comes asking for a specific set of information, and the bank can say its tied a ribbon around the disc drive and says dont make me cut this ribbon because if i cut it this one time i will have to cut it many times, unquote. As i said, i worry a great deal about what the government might do with all this information, which is why i believe you need laws that clearly demarcate when the government may have access to information, when it may not, what it can do with that information, but you cannot have liberty in the absence of law. That is the rule of the jungle. Thats welcome to haiti, welcome to somalia. If you want to live in a Democratic Society that has rules, the laws, the rules, the laws, the authorities have to have some recourse to lawful court orders. Look, i love this phone. It is the coolest thing that i have, but theres something even cooler, the United States constitution and it has to be possible for a government of laws to operate in a way that Legal Authority has the ability to access this kind of information. No one in america can withhold evidence that is relevant to a court. Not the president , not the worlds most powerful company, not any individual, not even the most shining and alluring product, not even the iphone is above the law. Thank you, fareed. [ applause ] ed. Lets start with what tonight is not about. Fundamentally, tonight is not about politics nor is it really about the law. Its about science. And for that reason it doesnt really matter whether youre for or against surveillance because by the end of this debate well have established that the proposition is not really a choice between privacy and security. Its rather about more security or less security. Here is the problem, were in the midst of the greatest crisis in Computer Security in history. One of my greatest critics personally, director of national intelligence, general james clapper, said just months ago a lot of people find this surprising in our post 9 11 world, but Computer Security bumped terrorism out of the top spot on our list of National Security threats. Now, let me underline that. Our intelligence agencies say Computer Security is a bigger problem than terrorism, than crime, than anything else. The backbone of Computer Security today is encryption. Encryption is the thing that keeps your money in your bank account rather than in a criminals. Encryption saves lives. Encryption protects property. Without it our economy stops. Our government stops. Everything stops. Now, my opponent hopes that somebody could perhaps find a way to make encryption work only for the good guys, but encryption is a field of mathematics and no matter how much we might hope otherwise, math is math. It works the same for Mother Teresa as it does for osama bin laden. The Scientific Consensus on this next point is absolute, lawful access to any device or communication cannot be provided to anybody without fatally compromising the security of everybody. And thats not my opinion, either, thats the formal conclusion from gathering of the worlds top computer scientists and computer experts at mit to study precisely this issue. Now, the fundamental problem of the science in this space, is for the government to unlock everything there has to be a key to everything. Now, we can pass a law to require a key under every doormat in order to make things easier for police, but the problem is that every other person in the world can find that key, too. And they can use it. You might be saying, oh, well, thats all well and good but what about National Security . This is a legitimate interest. The former director of national intelligence, two directors of central the cia, the director of the National Security agency, the nations former top counterterrorism official have said despite their sympathy for the fbi our nations Computer Security is simply more important than yet another surveillance tool. In fact, that nsa director former that i just cited, michael hayden, said this, the fbi director, jim comey, is wrong. America is simply more secure, america is safer with unbreakable end to end encryption. Now, i look forward to exploring the details of all of this tonight with you and mr. Zakaria, but i can promise you, ladies and gentlemen, one thing, if i am Standing Shoulder to shoulder with a director of the National Security agency on something, theres a damn good reason for that. Thank you very much. [ applause ] you just heard our opening arguments. You will hear our closing arguments when we come back. Well also tell you how you can see the entire debate. Back in a moment. If you have allergy congestion, muddling through your morning is nothing new. Your nose is the only thing on your mind. And to get relief, anything is fair game. Introducing rhinocort® allergy spray from the makers of zyrtec®. Powerful relief from your most frustrating nasal allergy symptom ,all day and all night. Hasnt your nose been through enough already . Try new rhinocort® allergy spray. Muddle no more® im in vests and as a vested investor in vests, i invest with e trade, where investors can investigate and invest in vests. Or not in vests. This is my retirement. Retiring retired tires. And i never get tired of it. Are you entirely prepared to retire . Plan your never tiring retiring retired tires retirement with e trade. Plan your never tiring retiring retired tires retirement i need to keep organized,ause anything that makes my life easier, im using. Hey cortana, remind me we have a play date tomorrow at noon i need that in my world. Dad, yoh no, ill take you up to me off rthe front of the school. Thats where your friends are. Seriously, its, its really fine. You dont want to be seen with your dad . No, its. No. This about a boy . Dad stop, please. Oh, theres tracy. What [ horn honking ] [ forward collision warning ] [ car braking ] bye dad it brakes when you dont. Forward collision warning and autonomous emergency braking. Available on the newly redesigned passat. From volkswagen. Are you powered by protein . I am. Milk has 8 grams of protein to help give me energy to unleash my potential. Start every day with milks protein and milk life. More now of the highlights of my debate with edward snowden, the former cia employee and nsa contractor who has settled in moscow after fleeing hawaii just under three years ago. He joined us remotely from russia, the topic was should the government have lawful access to encrypted messages and devices like the now famous iphone used by the San Bernardino shooter . By the San Bernardino shooter. Listen in. This week as the 30th anniversary of the Chernobyl Nuclear accident, that accident spewed more radiation into its region than all the radiation that emanated from hiroshima and nagasaki, the two bombs the United States dropped on japan. The reason i bring this up is this is the kind of problem we might face in the future, it is not a hypothetical speculative point im making, there is ample evidence that the perpetrators of the brussels terrorist attacks were initially or at some point planning to try to explode or to cause an explosion at a Brussels Nuclear at a Belgium Nuclear power plant. If they had done that you would have had an absolutely catastrophic fallout both in terms of the radiation of course, to thousands and thousands of lives lost, tens of thousands of people displaced but also politically. There would have been a dramatic shift in the attitude of publics in the western world everywhere toward this whole debate that were having. I think thats the point i really actual is important to understand. We do face real threats out there. This is not the figment of somebodys imagination. There are people out there trying to do pad things. It is much better that we figure out what the government is allowed to do, what it is not allowed to do, what information it can have access to, what information it cannot have access to before you face one of these terrible events because once they happen the public will react with fury, the government will be given Carte Blanche and they will be able to do many, many more things than mr. Snowden or i would want governments to do. Thank you, fareed. [ applause ] ed, your threeminute closing, please. First off id like to say, you know, those are important thoughts, but more generally those thoughts, important though they were, did not address the proposition, which is not should we consider the powers that government could have, but what powers should the government have . Should the government have access, lawful access, to any communications or device, even though we know it would cause fatal harm to the actual security that we had. Now, the fbi director spoke on this saying things very similar to what mr. Zakaria said, unbreakable encryption will allow drug lords, terrorists, even violent gangs to communicate about their conspiracies with impunity. Upon which Law Enforcement depends, to successfully investigate and often prevent the worst crimes. The fbi also said if we didnt get the kind of lawful access were discussing right now, in three years wiretaps worked by the fbi would be useful, only 40 would provide anything and a few years later they would provide nothing at all. The problem is thats not from 2016, thats not from 2