I would argue, thats a much better gamble for the future when you continue with the current system, the current bureaucracies and the current mess in washington, and thats why i have a much better chance of making America Great again with donald trump. And mediocre minds better on the stimulus. A canadian is a canadian and you cant take away citizenship. And barack obama has systematically rebuilt the trust of the world and 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 this system, a mafia state, a futile empower, its a disaster for ordinary russians. I think thats the hypocritical argument that i find quite annoying. And the Foreign Policy can be described by management. Science and religion are not incompatible and religion forces nice people to do unkind things. My conclusion to the question is no, i wont let you be you. Show me the word pretext. I quoted him saying that show me pretext. You can keep screaming that, and it doesnt change the point. We do not want sympathy. We do not want pity. We want opportunities. Its an appalling slander to me to the muslim religion. I never said the word muslim in my formanation. It is that kind of restraint and the soberminded, intelligent Foreign Policy that obama represents so i guess what im telling you is hes sort of a closet canadian. Vote for him for gods sakes. On geopolitics and its my privilege to once again have the opportunity to serve as your moderator. I want to start tonights proceedings by welcoming the north american y Television Audience tuning in to this debate on cspan across the continental United States and on cpac from coast to coast to coast in canada. A warm hello also to our online audience watching this debate live right now on Facebook Live or exclusive social media partner and on bloomberg. Com courtesy of bloomberg media. Great to have you as virtual participants in tonights proceedings and hello to you, the over 3,000 people who filled Roy Thompson Hall to capacity for yet another debate. This is great to see again. This evening marks a milestone in this debate series. This is our 20th semiannual contest and our ability, debate after debate to bring you what we think are some of the brightest minds and the sharpest thinkers on the big, global issues of our time would not be possible without the generosity and the public spiritedness of our host tonight. Ladies and gentlemen, an appreciation of monk and the oria foundation. Thank you, guys. Well done. [ applause ] this is a special occasion for us and our 20th debate and for the second time in the history of the series, were convening a oneonone contest. Our topic is the key geopolitical question of the moment, and it is can the process of globalization both economic and political that has defined the International System since the end of the Second World War survive an era of rising nationalism, protectionism and populism, to find out, lets get our two debaters out here center stage to square off on the resolution, be it resolved, the International Liberal Order is over. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome your debater arguing for tonights motion. Hes a renowned historian, filmmaker and bestselling author, Neil Ferguson. [ applause ] neils opponent tonight and the liberal International Order is over is cnn anchor, celebrated author and big geopolitical thinker fareed zakaria. [ applause ] hes going to be an exciting debate and i just want to run through a few quick predebate items. First, for those of you watching online and those of you in the audience and there is a munkdebate. You can be part of the conversation and also we have a rolling pole going and you can analyze, comment and judge the performance throughout the debate at wwmunkdebates. Com vote, and weve also got our trusty countdown clock and a key piece of the success of the debates. This clock is going to come to zero from each of the different segments of the debate and when you see a countdown join me in a round of applause and that will keep our debate on time and our debaters on their toes. Now fun and critical datapoint at the top of the evening. All of you here, the 3,000 people in attendance voted on tonights resolution coming into this hall. Be it resolved, the liberal International Order is over. Yea or nay. Lets see if we have the results for you. The preaudience vote. 34 agree and 66 disagrees. Interesting, the room at play. This is a critical question we ask to get a sense of the variability depending on what you hear during the debate. Are you open to changing your vote . Lets have those numbers, please. 93 . So, wow 93 are open to changing and this debate is in motion and fluid and lets get it started and well have Opening Statements and Neil Ferguson, since youre speaking in favor of the resolution and youre going first and youve got ten minutes on the clock. Thank you very much, indeed, roger. Thank you, peter and melanie for giving us the opportunity to discuss this extraordinarily important issue. Voltaire famously said the Holy Roman Empire was nor holy, nor roman nor empire. It could be said about the International Order and its not liberal and international nor orderly and yet it seems reckless, at best to come to, of all places, toronto and try to get people to vote against those three words. Youre all liberal and youre all international and by my own experience, at least youre all quite orderly, but it seems to me that one way of thinking about this is how difficult it would be to get you to vote in favor of what i suppose would be the opposite which would be conservative, homegrown chaos. Were trying that in the United States at the moment. And i just want to make it very clear that i am not here to defend donald trump. Im not even here to persuade the liberal International Order is necessarily all bad. Im just here to persuade you that its over. Now, i think there should be some full disclosure, fareed. You and i have been amongst the beneficiaries of the liberal order, not quite as much as peter, but some. Weve had our fun davos in pass pen over the years, and i think you still go to those places and im not going to deny that its been pretty good. The question i want to address is whether or not its been good for a whole lot of other people who may not be so well representeded in this audience tonight. Has it been good for ordinary americans . In this audience tonight. Has it been good for ordinary americans . North americans, canadians and ordinary citizens . Has it been good for europeans and the places we come from . Those who didnt make it to toronto. Quite a lot tried or the Indian Muslims who didnt make it on to cnn really seems to me the point. And i want to the suggest to you tonight that we need to consider seriously the possibility that globalization has overshot, that in overshooting it caused two major crises and the consequences of which was living with a financial crisises and then a crisis of mass migration, and if we carry on telling ourselves this story, and the story goes Something Like this. Oh, weve been so much more peaceful and prosperous since 1945, thanks to those nice, liberal, International Order institutions and the United Nations and the Monetary Fund and so on and why must these beastly populists spoil it all and that seems to me to be an extremely dangerous narrative to think so and that was peace and prosperity in that way. In fact, i think it may be fake history. Let me explain why i think that. Why is it not liberal . Wases that 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, and the u. S. And canada together were about a quarter of the World Economy and what are the percentages now. Well, today china accounts for 18 of the World Economy and the u. S. And canada together slightly less. 17 and on present trends that it would grow by 2021 and china will account for a fifth of the World Economy. How can it be a liberal International Order if the principal beneficiary is a oneparty state run by a communist elite. And theyre not the only beneficiaries. Fareed wrote a terrific article about liberal democracies, the ones with elections, but no rule of law also turn out to have done rather well from the system. I actually looked at some of the measures you used in that article. I wanted to see if the world had gotten any more free since you wrote that article in 1997. It hasnt, the counties is about the same as it wases in 1997, and some of the worlds countries are getting less free by the day. Dramatic declines in freedom have happened in not only russia, but countries like venezuela. China the principle beneficiary of the liberal International Order ranks 173rd out of 195 in terms of freedom today. Some liberal order. Some International Order, too. Lets ask ourselves who really has benefitted from this yera of globalization and its an interelitest order that we should be talking about because the principle beneficiaries of the system turn out to be those lucky few who possess rare intellectual property or rare, real assets including and peter knows this as well as anyone, commodities. Even canada has experienced rising inequality in this era of order and its gone up since the 1980s and a third of the gains that this economy made in the glorious decade before the financial crisis accrued to the top 1 of income earners and the share of income in canada that goes to the top 1. 1 today is as high as it was before world war ii. Thats another consequence of the liberal International Order. The winners take all in this system. Its one of the paradoxes of globalization, and if im right about that, its signified by the fact that its not only populists who are trying to rein in globalization. Here in canada, you just imposed an additional stamp tax on Foreign Investors in housing because of the dramatic increase in the cost of housing that theres been as chinese and other investors have poured into the vancouver and toronto markets. The toronto housing has gone up by a factor of three since the year 2000. Let me conclude by observing that the liberal International Order isnt orderly. It wasnt produced by the u. N. , much less by the world trade organization. It was produced by the United States and the military and other alliances that it led. A point fareed himself has made often in prints and lets not confuse these things. It is very different if the world is led by a packed americana baseded on american par as opposed to collective security based on the u. N. As the challenge has been made to that tax americana what have we seen . Increased disorder. Islamic extremism, claiming tens of thousands of lives every year. Tens of millions of people displaced from their homes and Nuclear Proliferation and the koreans father and another missile tonight and luckily it didnt work. This were calling order and that seems to me a misnomer. Ladies and gentlemen, we dont need to support donald trump to know that theres something wrong here. You dont need to be a populist. And you can do it as a Classical Liberal which is what i consider myself and recognize that the biggest threat to Classical Liberalism is an unfettered globalization that undermines the foundations of a free society based on the rule of law and Representative Government. So the liberal International Order spelled lio. Ladies and gentlemen, an lie. It is neither liberal nor is it Truly International and it certainly is not orderly. Folks, its over. Thank you very much. [ applause ] a powerful Opening Statement and now well call on fareed zakaria. Your ten minutes will go on the clock now. Thank you all. Thank you. A great pleasure to be here. I have to confess i was nervous when i was told i would be up against Neil Ferguson. You know, i do not have his air addition and his oxford degrees and i certainly do not have his british accent. I thought he would have these extraordinary moments of eloquence and they began by quoting voltaire. Im a simple guy. I cant do all that. Im just going to tell you a story. Im going to tell you a story of how this liberal International Order began and its an interesting story because it involves a canadian, and about a year after pearl harbor, Franklin Roosevelt decided that he wanted to figure out what kind of world the United States wanted to build at the end of world war ii, and he already could see, believe it or not that the United States would decisively win this war, and he didnt have somebody he could talk to and really trust it, except Mackenzie King who was a confidant of his and he asked him to come to washington and king took the train from ottawa, went to washington and they sat down at dinner and roosevelt had a martini and didnt offer Mackenzie King a drink because he knew he was a tea totaler and they went to the oval office, and franklin, and described to him what kind of world he wanted to build. Mackenzie king kept a diry and it is one of the rare instances where we have recorded roosevelts vision and it basically was an understanding that the world had so far been characterized by war, great power conflict and colonial empires, and economic america n mercantilism. They cannot support the resurrection of the world order. Were going to try to do Something Different and build a new International Order. He did not call it a liberal International Order, but that is clearly what he meant and it is a world where we would ask for the Unconditional Surrender of the axis powers. We will also ask the british and french to understand that they cannot reconstruct their great empires, that we need a world in which freedom, liberty and selfdetermination has a much greater scope. He wanted a world of open trade and open economics. He wanted a world of greater commerce and contact, but he also wanted a world that had more rules and so there was some political structures that would be built that allowed for a somewhat more orderly resolution of political disputes and that he called the United Nations, and all these things together in roosevelts view would justify the Great American effort and involvement in world war ii. Now at the end of world war ii, roosevelt did not live to begin to build that vision, but he talkeded about it throughout the war and he workeded on it throughout the war and in fact, what happened was a partial creation of exactly that vision. After hundreds and hundreds of years of something completely different, perhaps thousands of years of Something Different there was built this liberal International Order and there was created a rulebased system and there was created an open economy with greater commerce and contact. It wasnt perfect. There were many, many flaws and there were lots of countries that were not part of it. The soviet union and its allies being the most important exceptions, but it did create a new world, and if you think about the world we live in it was the world that Franklin Roosevelt dreamed of with Mackenzie King. Greater order, much less Political Violence and much greater trade, commerce and capitalism and much better broad, sustained prosperity than has ever been true before. Thats the world you live in. Thats the world we live in, and that we take for granted because it has now become so common place, and it becomes easy to attack the little flaws that, and the challenges and the pauses that take place and the tiny reversions that take place when you have a world like that. So just look at the big picture. Stephen pinker and the professor who was a colleague of neils wrote a book in which he meticulously calculated where, violence, Political Violence and war, civil war and terrorism is down 75 compared with four or five decades ago and its probably down 90 or 95 from 500 years ago so he claims. Im not sure the data from the late middle ages is not very good, so im not sure that one can speak with confidence about that, but hes a harvard professor so i trust him. I think that when you look at the expansion of this world you see the endurance and the appeal