Transcripts For CSPAN3 Munk Debates Focuses On The Future Of

Brilliant minds, even mediocre minds, operate better under stimulus. Is a canadian. And you cannot barack obama has systemically rebuilt the trust of the world in our willingness to work through the Security Council and other institutions. You must not talk to anybody in the world, any of our allies. Whatever you want to call the system, a mafia state, a feudal empire its a disaster for ordinary russians. Historically Chinese Foreign policy can be described as management. Science and religion are not incompatible. Religion forces nice people to do unkind things. My conclusion to this is no, i wont let you be show me the word pretext. You can keep screaming that and it doesnt change the point. We do not want sympathy. We want opportunities. Its an appalling slander to me to the muslim religion. I never said the word muslim. It is that kind of restraint. It is that sober minded Foreign Policy that obama represents. He is sort of a clod closet canadian, vote for him for god sake. Munk debates on geopolitics. Its my privilege to once again have an opportunity to serve as your moderator. I want to welcome the north american Wide Television audience tuning into this debate on cspan and on cpac in canada. A warm hello to our online audience watching the debate live on facebook live, our exclusive social media partner and on bloomberg. Com. Great to have you as participants in tonights proceedings and hello to you, the over 3,000 people who filled Roy Thompson Hall to capacity for another munk debate. This evening marks a milestone in this debate series. This is our 20th semiannual contest. And our ability debate after debate to bring you some of the brightest minds, the sharpest thinkers on the big global issues of our time would not be possible without the generosity of our hosts tonight. A round of applause. Thank you, guys, well done. Well done. Well done. As i mention, this is a special occasion for us, our 20th debate. So for only the second time in the history of this 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, film maker and best selling author, Neil Ferguson. [ applause ] thanks. Neils opponent tonight, arguing against the motion. Be it resolved, the library rat International Order is over, is cnn anchor, celebrated author and big geopolitical thinking, fareed zakaria. [ applause ] gentlemen, thank you for being here. This is going to be an exciting debate. I want to run through a few quick predebate items with you. First, for those of you watching online, those of you in the audience, fareed, neil, if you wish, there is a munkdee bait. You can ms munkdebate. You can also vote at and we have our trusty countdown clock, a key piece of success at these debates. This clock will come to zero for each of the different segment of the debate. When you see a countdown, join me in a round of applause. That will keep our debate on time and our debaters on their toes. Now, fun and Critical Data point. 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. Yay or nay . Lets see if weve got those results for you. The preaudience vote. 34 agree. 66 disagree. Interesting. The room in play. Now, this is a critical question we asked just to get a sense of the variability tonight, depending on what you hear tonight are you open to changing your vote . Lets have those numbers, please. 93 . So, wow. 93 are open to changing. So this debate is in motion. It is fluid, and lets get it started. Were going to have opening statements. Neil ferguson, since youre speaking in favor of the resolution, youre going first. Youve got ten minutes on the clock. Well, thank you very much indeed, roger. Thank you, peter and melanie, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this extraordinarily important issue. Voltar famously said that the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy or roman noran empire. I think the same can be said of the liberal International Order. It is not liberal, international or very 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. Because were all liberal. Youre all internationals. 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. Now, were trying that in the United States at the moment. I just want to make it very clear that i am not here to defend donald trump. Im not even here to persuade you, the liberal International Order is necessarily all bad. Im just here to persuade you that it is over. Now, i think there should be some full disclosure, fareed. You and i have been amongst the beneficiaries of the liberal International Order, not quite as much as peter but some. Weve had our fun at aspen over the years. 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 it has been good for a whole lot of other people who may not be so wellrepresented in this audience tonight. Has it been good for ordinary americans, north americans, canadians and u. S. Citizens . Has it been good for ordinary europeans . Has it been good for the people in the places we come from, those glaswegians who didnt make it to toronto. Quite a lot tried. Or the muslims who didnt make it on to cnn. That really seems to me the point. I want to suggest to you tonight that we immediate to consider very seriously the possibility that globalization has overshot, that in overshooting it caused at least two major crises, the consequences of which were still living with, a financial crisis and then a crisis of mass migration. 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, the United Nations, the International Monetary fund, the World Trade Organization and so on, why must these beastly populists spoil it all . That seems to me to be an extremely dangerous narrative for us to cling to. I dont think it is even good history to explain 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 . Well, 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. 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 differential will grow by 2021. The imf says 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, you wrote a terrific article once about illiberal democracies. Well, the illiberal democracies, the ones with elections but no rule of law, also turn out to have done rather well from this system. I actually looked at some of the measures you used in that article. I wanted the see if the world had got anymore free since you wrote that article back in 97. It hasnt. The proportion of countries that count as free is about the same as it was in 1997. Some of the worlds countries are getting less freebie the day. Dramatic declines in freedom have happened in not only russia but countries like venezuela. China, the principal 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 era of globalization. It is really an interelitist order that we should be talking about, because the principal beneficiaries of the system turn out to be those lucky few who possess rare intellectual property or rare real assets, including and knows this as well as anyone commodities. Even canada has experienced rising inequality in this era of liberal International Order. The efficient has gone up since the 1980s. A third of the gains this economy made in the glorious decade before the financial crisis accrued to the top 1 of income earners. The share of income in canada that goes to the top, not. 1 today. 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. It is one of the paradoxes of globalization. And if im right about that, it is signified by the fact that it is not only populists who are trying to reign in globalization. Here in canada youve 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. 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. The order in any case 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 print. Lets not confuse these things. It is very different if the world is led by a packed americana based on american par as opposed to collective security based on the u. N. As the challenge has been made to that patch 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, nuclear proliferation, the koreans fired another missile tonight. Luckily it didnt work. This were calling order . 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. 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 spells lio. Ladies and gentlemen, is an lie. It is neither liberal nor is it truly international, and it certainly is not orderly. Folks, it is over. Thank you very much. [ applause ] powerful opening statement. Now well call on fareed zakaria. Your ten minutes will go on the clock now. Thank you all. Thank you, roger. 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 erudition, i could not have his objection forwar oxford degrees or the british accent. I thought he would have these extraordinary moments of eloquence. He began by quoting voltair. Im a simple guy, i cant do all of that. Im going to tell you a story. Im going to tell ah story of how this liberal International Order began, and it is an interesting story because it involves a canadian. About a year after pearl harbor Franklin Roosevelt decided that he wanted the try to figure out what kind of world the United States wanted to build at the end of world war ii. 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 trusted, except Mackenzie King who was a confideante of his an he asked him to come to washington. They sat down at dinner. Roosevelt had a martini, knew he was a teetotaler. They went to the oval office and frank ling roosevelt, this aging visionary man, described to him what kind of world he wanted to build. Mackenzie king kept a diary, and so 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, colonial empires, economic mercantilism and exploitation. Roosevelt said the United States cannot support the resurrection of that old order. We are going to try to do something different. We are going to try to build a new International Order. He didnt quite call it a liberal International Order, but that was clearly what he meant. It is a world in which he said first we will ask for the absolute surrender, 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 and 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 bit that allowed for a somewhat more orderly resolution of political disputes. That he called the United Nations. All of 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 talked about it throughout the war and he worked on it throughout the war. In fact, what happened was a partial creation of exactly that vision. After hundreds and hundreds of years of something completely different, perhaps thousands of years of something different, there was bit in liberal International Order. There was created a rulebased system. 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 is the world that Franklin Roosevelt created and dreamed of with Mackenzie King. It is a world of much greater order, much less Political Violence, much greater trade, commerce, contact and capitalism, and much greater 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 commonplace. And it becomes easy to attack the little flaws, the challenges, the pauses that take place, the signtiny reversions take place when you have a world like that. Look at the big picture. A colleague of neils wrote a book that we are living in the most peaceful age in history. Yes, terrorism is down 75 compared with four or five decades ago, it is probably down 90 or 95 from 500 years ago, or at least so he claims. Im not sure the data from the late middle ages is not very good, so im not sure 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 power, the endurs and tand endurance and appeal of it. It started without the great soviet empire, without most of the third world. By the 50s and 60s countries began to realize in order to grow fast you needed to be part of it, and so japan and taiwan and south korea started to come in. Then you have the collapse of the soviet union and the collapse of communism and all of a sudden the entire world becomes part of the system. So the socalled gap had 78 countries in 1970, it now has 170. If you look at the European Union, which had six countries in 1970, it has 28 now, 27 when we kick out when they kick out neils britain. But still an enormous expansion from that time. This is the way in which all of these groups have grown, and they include most powerfully of course the new rising and emerging powers in asia. Neil talks about who this order has empowered. Well, ill tell you who it has empowered more than anybody else. It has empowered the poorest people in the world. The Security Council<\/a> and other institutions. You must not talk to anybody in the world, any of our allies. Whatever you want to call the system, a mafia state, a feudal empire its a disaster for ordinary russians. Historically Chinese Foreign<\/a> policy can be described as management. Science and religion are not incompatible. Religion forces nice people to do unkind things. My conclusion to this is no, i wont let you be show me the word pretext. You can keep screaming that and it doesnt change the point. We do not want sympathy. We want opportunities. Its an appalling slander to me to the muslim religion. I never said the word muslim. It is that kind of restraint. It is that sober minded Foreign Policy<\/a> that obama represents. He is sort of a clod closet canadian, vote for him for god sake. Munk debates on geopolitics. Its my privilege to once again have an opportunity to serve as your moderator. I want to welcome the north american Wide Television<\/a> audience tuning into this debate on cspan and on cpac in canada. A warm hello to our online audience watching the debate live on facebook live, our exclusive social media partner and on bloomberg. Com. Great to have you as participants in tonights proceedings and hello to you, the over 3,000 people who filled Roy Thompson Hall<\/a> to capacity for another munk debate. This evening marks a milestone in this debate series. This is our 20th semiannual contest. And our ability debate after debate to bring you some of the brightest minds, the sharpest thinkers on the big global issues of our time would not be possible without the generosity of our hosts tonight. A round of applause. Thank you, guys, well done. Well done. Well done. As i mention, this is a special occasion for us, our 20th debate. So for only the second time in the history of this 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<\/a> since the end of the Second World War<\/a> 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<\/a> is over. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome your debater arguing for tonights motion. Hes a renowned historian, film maker and best selling author, Neil Ferguson<\/a>. [ applause ] thanks. Neils opponent tonight, arguing against the motion. Be it resolved, the library rat International Order<\/a> is over, is cnn anchor, celebrated author and big geopolitical thinking, fareed zakaria. [ applause ] gentlemen, thank you for being here. This is going to be an exciting debate. I want to run through a few quick predebate items with you. First, for those of you watching online, those of you in the audience, fareed, neil, if you wish, there is a munkdee bait. You can ms munkdebate. You can also vote at and we have our trusty countdown clock, a key piece of success at these debates. This clock will come to zero for each of the different segment of the debate. When you see a countdown, join me in a round of applause. That will keep our debate on time and our debaters on their toes. Now, fun and Critical Data<\/a> point. 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<\/a> is over. Yay or nay . Lets see if weve got those results for you. The preaudience vote. 34 agree. 66 disagree. Interesting. The room in play. Now, this is a critical question we asked just to get a sense of the variability tonight, depending on what you hear tonight are you open to changing your vote . Lets have those numbers, please. 93 . So, wow. 93 are open to changing. So this debate is in motion. It is fluid, and lets get it started. Were going to have opening statements. Neil ferguson, since youre speaking in favor of the resolution, youre going first. Youve got ten minutes on the clock. Well, thank you very much indeed, roger. Thank you, peter and melanie, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this extraordinarily important issue. Voltar famously said that the Holy Roman Empire<\/a> was neither holy or roman noran empire. I think the same can be said of the liberal International Order<\/a>. It is not liberal, international or very 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. Because were all liberal. Youre all internationals. 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. Now, were trying that in the United States<\/a> at the moment. I just want to make it very clear that i am not here to defend donald trump. Im not even here to persuade you, the liberal International Order<\/a> is necessarily all bad. Im just here to persuade you that it is over. Now, i think there should be some full disclosure, fareed. You and i have been amongst the beneficiaries of the liberal International Order<\/a>, not quite as much as peter but some. Weve had our fun at aspen over the years. 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 it has been good for a whole lot of other people who may not be so wellrepresented in this audience tonight. Has it been good for ordinary americans, north americans, canadians and u. S. Citizens . Has it been good for ordinary europeans . Has it been good for the people in the places we come from, those glaswegians who didnt make it to toronto. Quite a lot tried. Or the muslims who didnt make it on to cnn. That really seems to me the point. I want to suggest to you tonight that we immediate to consider very seriously the possibility that globalization has overshot, that in overshooting it caused at least two major crises, the consequences of which were still living with, a financial crisis and then a crisis of mass migration. If we carry on telling ourselves this story, and the story goes Something Like<\/a> this, oh, weve been so much more peaceful and prosperous since 1945 thanks to those nice liberal International Order<\/a> institutions, the United Nations<\/a>, the International Monetary<\/a> fund, the World Trade Organization<\/a> and so on, why must these beastly populists spoil it all . That seems to me to be an extremely dangerous narrative for us to cling to. I dont think it is even good history to explain 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 . Well, because the principal beneficiary of this wonderful liberal International Order<\/a> has been china. Yes, that has been the principal winner. Back in 1980 china accounted for perhaps 2 of the World Economy<\/a>, and the u. S. And canada together were about a quarter of the World Economy<\/a>. What are the percentages now . Well, today china accounts for 18 of the World Economy<\/a> and the u. S. And canada together slightly less, 17 . And on present trends, that differential will grow by 2021. The imf says china will account for a fifth of the World Economy<\/a>. How can it be a liberal International Order<\/a> if the principal beneficiary is a oneparty state run by a communist elite . And theyre not the only beneficiaries. Fareed, you wrote a terrific article once about illiberal democracies. Well, the illiberal democracies, the ones with elections but no rule of law, also turn out to have done rather well from this system. I actually looked at some of the measures you used in that article. I wanted the see if the world had got anymore free since you wrote that article back in 97. It hasnt. The proportion of countries that count as free is about the same as it was in 1997. Some of the worlds countries are getting less freebie the day. Dramatic declines in freedom have happened in not only russia but countries like venezuela. China, the principal beneficiary of the liberal International Order<\/a>, ranks 173rd out of 195 in terms of freedom today. Some liberal order. Some International Order<\/a>, too. Lets ask ourselves who really has benefitted from this era of globalization. It is really an interelitist order that we should be talking about, because the principal beneficiaries of the system turn out to be those lucky few who possess rare intellectual property or rare real assets, including and knows this as well as anyone commodities. Even canada has experienced rising inequality in this era of liberal International Order<\/a>. The efficient has gone up since the 1980s. A third of the gains this economy made in the glorious decade before the financial crisis accrued to the top 1 of income earners. The share of income in canada that goes to the top, not. 1 today. Today is as high as it was before world war ii. Thats another consequence of the liberal International Order<\/a>. The winners take all in this system. It is one of the paradoxes of globalization. And if im right about that, it is signified by the fact that it is not only populists who are trying to reign in globalization. Here in canada youve just imposed an additional stamp tax on Foreign Investors<\/a> 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. Toronto housing has gone up by a factor of three since the year 2000. Let me conclude by observing that the liberal International Order<\/a> isnt orderly. The order in any case wasnt produced by the u. N. Much less by the World Trade Organization<\/a>. It was produced by the United States<\/a> and the military and other alliances that it led, a point fareed himself has made often in print. Lets not confuse these things. It is very different if the world is led by a packed americana based on american par as opposed to collective security based on the u. N. As the challenge has been made to that patch 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, nuclear proliferation, the koreans fired another missile tonight. Luckily it didnt work. This were calling order . 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. 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<\/a>. So, the liberal International Order<\/a> spells lio. Ladies and gentlemen, is an lie. It is neither liberal nor is it truly international, and it certainly is not orderly. Folks, it is over. Thank you very much. [ applause ] powerful opening statement. Now well call on fareed zakaria. Your ten minutes will go on the clock now. Thank you all. Thank you, roger. A great pleasure to be here. I have to confess i was nervous when i was told i would be up against Neil Ferguson<\/a>. You know, i do not have his erudition, i could not have his objection forwar oxford degrees or the british accent. I thought he would have these extraordinary moments of eloquence. He began by quoting voltair. Im a simple guy, i cant do all of that. Im going to tell you a story. Im going to tell ah story of how this liberal International Order<\/a> began, and it is an interesting story because it involves a canadian. About a year after pearl harbor Franklin Roosevelt<\/a> decided that he wanted the try to figure out what kind of world the United States<\/a> wanted to build at the end of world war ii. He already could see, believe it or not, that the United States<\/a> would decisively win this war, and he didnt have somebody he could talk to and really trusted, except Mackenzie King<\/a> who was a confideante of his an he asked him to come to washington. They sat down at dinner. Roosevelt had a martini, knew he was a teetotaler. They went to the oval office and frank ling roosevelt, this aging visionary man, described to him what kind of world he wanted to build. Mackenzie king kept a diary, and so 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, colonial empires, economic mercantilism and exploitation. Roosevelt said the United States<\/a> cannot support the resurrection of that old order. We are going to try to do something different. We are going to try to build a new International Order<\/a>. He didnt quite call it a liberal International Order<\/a>, but that was clearly what he meant. It is a world in which he said first we will ask for the absolute surrender, the Unconditional Surrender<\/a> 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 and 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 bit that allowed for a somewhat more orderly resolution of political disputes. That he called the United Nations<\/a>. All of these things together in roosevelts view would justify the Great American<\/a> 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 talked about it throughout the war and he worked on it throughout the war. In fact, what happened was a partial creation of exactly that vision. After hundreds and hundreds of years of something completely different, perhaps thousands of years of something different, there was bit in liberal International Order<\/a>. There was created a rulebased system. 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 is the world that Franklin Roosevelt<\/a> created and dreamed of with Mackenzie King<\/a>. It is a world of much greater order, much less Political Violence<\/a>, much greater trade, commerce, contact and capitalism, and much greater 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 commonplace. And it becomes easy to attack the little flaws, the challenges, the pauses that take place, the signtiny reversions take place when you have a world like that. Look at the big picture. A colleague of neils wrote a book that we are living in the most peaceful age in history. Yes, terrorism is down 75 compared with four or five decades ago, it is probably down 90 or 95 from 500 years ago, or at least so he claims. Im not sure the data from the late middle ages is not very good, so im not sure 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 power, the endurs and tand endurance and appeal of it. It started without the great soviet empire, without most of the third world. By the 50s and 60s countries began to realize in order to grow fast you needed to be part of it, and so japan and taiwan and south korea started to come in. Then you have the collapse of the soviet union and the collapse of communism and all of a sudden the entire world becomes part of the system. So the socalled gap had 78 countries in 1970, it now has 170. If you look at the European Union<\/a>, which had six countries in 1970, it has 28 now, 27 when we kick out when they kick out neils britain. But still an enormous expansion from that time. This is the way in which all of these groups have grown, and they include most powerfully of course the new rising and emerging powers in asia. Neil talks about who this order has empowered. Well, ill tell you who it has empowered more than anybody else. It has empowered the poorest people in the world. The United States<\/a> United Nations<\/a> calculate also in the last 50 years we have taken more people out of poverty than in the preceding 500, and that is principally because countries like india and china were able to grow and raise their Living Standards<\/a> and allow peasants who were living on a dollar a day to move out of poverty. I know this world well because my father was a politician. His constituency was largely rural. There were 1,000 villagers in it. When you went to india 30 or 40 years ago and you went into the villages, people lived lives that looked as if they were from the middle ages. Today when you go to those places, it is a world transformed. They have food, they have medicine, they have shelter. It is not luxury by any standards, but it is the difference between living on a dollar a day and living on d 3 r 4 a day. That transformation has taken place in india, in china, in latin america, it has taken place in other parts of asia and it is beginning to take place in africa. Those are the people who have most powerfully benefitted from this new liberal International Order<\/a>. But others have as well. It is not as though the United States<\/a> has been standing still. U. S. Gdp is up 1,000 since 1970. European gdp is not up quite that much, but if you go to any of these countries you are struck by the fact that they are rich societies. There is a problem with inequality. There is a problem with how this wealth has been redistributed, and there is the reality that people are culturally anxious when they see so much change as there has been in the last 30 years. We have globalize willed very fast and we had have enormous amounts of em graduation aimmin have been emancipated. All of these things produce cultural anxiety. They want people to go back to a simpler society, to make american great again, to make britain great again. They have been great because necessary spear headed this International Order<\/a>. They found a way to allow the world to share this extraordinary dream that Franklin Roosevelt<\/a> had that he talked to Mackenzie King<\/a> about. It is a dream that brought mr. Munk fleeing kus he persecutio. It is a world that allowed Neil Ferguson<\/a> to leave scotland, britain and come to the United States<\/a> and fall in love with a woman who was born in somalia and fled to go to holland to find freedom there, and then to the United States<\/a>. It is where they have had their son, a Beautiful Boy<\/a> named thomas. Tiny thomas neil calls him. Think that thomass future rests on an open, pleural, diverse, cosmopolitan work where people think of you based on the content of your character, not the color of your skin. I think that is the world that neil secretly believes is powerful, deep and enduring. Otherwise he would not have voted with his feet and moved to the United States<\/a> and moved to palo alto because he knows that that is where they are inventing the future and he wants to be a part of it. So what i say to you, Neil Ferguson<\/a>, is come home. Come home to the liberal International Order<\/a>. Come home to the liberal International Order<\/a> that had been so good to you and that will be so good to your son, thomas. [ applause ] this is what you get when you get two just fabulous debaters on stage like this, head to head. Were going to move into two rounds of rebuttals. Each of you have three minutes on the clock uninterrupted to react from what you heard in each others opening statements. Neil, you are up first with your first rebuttal. Now hes crossed the line because hes brought my children into it. You should not have done that. That wasnt smart. Youre going to regret it. So, Franklin Roosevelt<\/a> had a vision, but what was the reality in the reality was that the u. N. N was permanently grid locked because of the veto exerted by the members of the Security Council<\/a>, the permanent members, and in practice what the u. S. Did was to dismantle other peoples empires and then build one of its own with, i think it is fair to say, mixed results. So i dont think we should fall into the trap, as i said earlier, of believing that the relative peace of the period after 1945 anything much to do with the institutions that Franklin Roosevelt<\/a> discussed after that martini with Mackenzie King<\/a>. On the contemporary, it is illusion, a fake history to credit the relative peace of the post 1945 period on those institutions. It is an incorrect inference. The reality was there was considerable violence and it was a lot like the violence before, violence between two great empires, the United States<\/a> and the soviet empire, both of whom pretended that they werent empires. Steven pinkers book will be like norman angels great allusion. Proven wrong, the First Nuclear<\/a> war that happens. The potential is there to invalidate that entire thesis in a day. Yes, people have been pulled out of poverty in china, not to mention india, but, fareed, you know as well as i do the principal reason for that is that those countries abandoned communist and embraced market reforms in their own domestic policies. Once again, it is an incorrect inference to say that they grew because of the liberal International Order<\/a>. No, they grew because they realized that state control of the private sector does not work. You mentioned thomas. You know, it means a lot to me that we live in the United States<\/a> because we we live in a society based on the rule of law, on Representative Government<\/a> and a constitution that has withstood all the challenges it faced, and will withstand the current challenges of populism and demagogue. Thats why we chose it, because my wife can be safe in that country, safer than she ever was in western europe. It is not got to do with the kind of global bologna frankly youre talking tonight. [ applause ] i thought what i would do is talk about china because clearly that is the elephant in the room as it were, the country that neil rightly says has benefitted the most from this liberal International Order<\/a>. It is not simply that it has grown fast because it has embraced capitalism, though capitalism is a core part of the liberal International Order<\/a>. The word liberal, of course, is of or pertaining to liberty. The first time that phrase has been used was by a scottish enlightened thinker, a forerunner of Neil Ferguson<\/a> in a sense, william robertson. The second man to use it was adam smith. Both used it in the specific context of capitalism and free trade. But chinas embrace has not been just that. It has been a broader embrace of order. If you think of maos china, this was a country that threatened routinely to have nuclear war blow up the world and mao said at least that way there will be a few communists left and all of the capitalists would be dead. China has moved from that place to a remarkably more realbased acceptance of the liberal International Order<\/a>. It wanted desperately to become part of the World Trading<\/a> organization. It is now desperately seeking greater and greater influence at the United Nations<\/a>. It is now the second largest supporter of Peace Keeping<\/a> operations around the world. It wants to become the second largest funder of the United Nations<\/a> in general. It has been far more involved in Nuclear Security<\/a> issues, supporting the comprehensive test band through a treaty, supporting the Nuclear Nonproliferation<\/a> treaty. Remember, these are all things that maos china believed were terrible, vicious, american imperialistic plots to keep the world down. Now the chinese actively want to be part of that. They want to try to solve the problems that arise. If you look at how theyre handling north korea, again, theyre moving to a more and more constructive coopierative approach where theyre involving regional actors, they want to resurrect regional diplomacy. This is not perfect. Of course the old politic rules still live, but what roosevelt was trying to do was put some degree of regularity, some kind of norms, some kind of procedures that might help tame some of these savage winds of war. I think if you look at the challenges we face, the extraordinary effort to incorporate the rest of the world into the system, the rise of Nuclear Weapons<\/a>, the dangers that that poses, the dangers of chemical and biological weapons and their spread, and look how we managed to deal with some of these issues. For example, the outbreak of ebola, the outbreak of other diseases, they have been through international cooperation, through greater consultation. Of course, some has involved the u. N. , some has not. Surely that is the kind of world we want, rather than one where we hope somehow the countries that have Nuclear Weapons<\/a> wont use them or that the United States<\/a> can threaten to blow countries off the face of the world. So the liberal International Order<\/a> is inevitable because the alternative is unthinkable. [ applause ] neil, you are up with your second rebuttal. I want to talk about history now. You see, what troubles me most about fareeds argument is that weve heard something very similar before. If you go back to the late 19th century, though a great many people who believed that a new International Order<\/a> could be based on what we now call globalization, the idea of an International Liberal Order<\/a> was there before the first world war. At a time when the forces that weve seen in our time were extraordinarily powerfully at work. In the period of the late 19th century, International Migration<\/a> reached levels that we have now begun to see again in our time. The percentage of the u. S. Population that was foreignborn reached about 14 in the 1880s. Free trade reached new heights, International Exchange<\/a> of goods, International Capital<\/a> flows, all of these things reached unprecedented levels. Liberal intellectuals and dont be bashful, pta reeled, i kn fareed, i know you went to use and have a ph. D. From harvard. Liberal internationals made the mistake that my friend pinker and fareed is making now. Thats that everything is awesome mistake. Everything is awesome if you are in a liberal bubble as, for example, your counterparts in the early 1900s. Globalization brought us, as john cain famously said, everything he could possibly order to his room in a matter of days, telegraphs, steam ships, international trade, norman angels book, m the great allusion said, what could possibly go wrong, there would never be something absurd as a war given this liberal International Order<\/a> weve created, and they were wrong. They were wrong because they underestimated the backlash that is generated if you allow globalization to run too far. They also overestimated the ability of International Institutions<\/a> to avert conflict. Who now rigs the hague peace conference . So theres a warning from history here. The real history we should learn is the history of what went wrong when globalization last selfdestructed. What worry me when i hear these fairy stories about Franklin Roosevelt<\/a>, the United Nations<\/a> and tine and tiny toms living happily ever after is that it is bologna and fake history. I suspect in your heart you know that. Thank you. [ applause ] for someone who doesnt want to be associated with donald trump, youve certainly used the word fake several times, neil. I have refrained from associating you with donald trump because i dont know how you feel about him one way or the other. But lett me talk about the challenges that youve raised because theyre real. Theres no question. Donald trump thinks he is a singular, unique phenomenon, and in some ways i suppose he is. His flexibility with the facts and matters like that. But in many ways he is part of a trend. There is this right wing populism that is against the liberal International Order<\/a>, and you see it everywhere. What is striking about it is where you do see it though. You dont see it in latin america much. In latin america theyre busy trying to integrate into the liberal International Order<\/a>, from mexico to brazil to argentina, populism is on the decline. If you look in asia, whether indonesia, japan, theyre trying to integrate into the order. Where you see populism is in europe and the United States<\/a>, and you see it in countries in europe that are doing very well economically. So it cant just be about economics because germany is powering ahead. It cant even just be about inequality. Northern europe has not had much of a rise of inequality. For example, the dutch have not had a rise in their coefficient, the way you measure inequality in about 20 years. Sweden is growing very robustly. All of these places however do have immigrants, and that is causing an enormous amount of cultural anxiety. Lets be clear, that is true and there are some legitimate concerns. By the way, there have been periods in the past when immigration has been restricted, even in the United States<\/a>. The liberal International Order<\/a> still continued to grow. What it tells you though is that these things can be managed. You can find ways to address inequality. You can find ways to deal with immigration. In fact, we are in the one western country that is not going through a great rise of right wing populism, canada, and i would argue it is in large measure because canada has managed immigration quite well. This is not something endemic to canada. It was not in your dna. Canada had an immigration system that had its own problems and then it changed under trudeau and then maroni. There was an enlightened reform in it, a certain emphasis on multiculturalism and assimilation. Now youre in the extraordinary position where you watch the rise of this illiberal antiglobalist populism but youre not feeding it. Theres almost none in canada today. I look at that and it gives me great hope because it tells me there are policy solutions to the very real challenges that Neil Ferguson<\/a> has brought up, and it reminds me once again that we should all around the world be a little bit more canadian. [ applause ] were now going to move into the moderated portion of this, which im going to do very lightly. I want to just start, gentlemen, by refocusing this debate a little bit. Lets remember that resolution is, be it resolved the liberal International Order<\/a> is over. I think it is a secondary concern whether it is good or bad. People may choose to vote on that prerequisite, but many people in this room are trying to figure out is it over or not. Neil, i want to pressure test you a bit. Give us some concrete examples why you think, not that it is bad, but that it is over, that its time has come . Well, fareed has just said some extraordinary optimistic things about europe, but i would say that the European Unions<\/a> Current Crisis<\/a> is a perfect illustration of why the liberal International Order<\/a> is over. Remember, it is precisely one of these institutions that fareed has held up as an example of what can work. But the truth is, it isnt working and thats one reason why a majority of british voters opted to leave the eu. I was very ambivalent about brexit last year, but i came to realize why so many people in britain felt that way. They felt that way because they discerned that in two fundamental respect the European Union<\/a> had become dysfunctional. It wholly mismanaged the financial crisis, massively amplifying the negative impacts on the other Member States<\/a> of the european monetary union. Britain felt very relieved not to be a part of that, and then it massively mismanaged the migration crisis caused by a crisis in north africa, in the middle east with the European Union<\/a> had a hand in causing, although european politicians like to pretend the migration crisis is a sort of natural disaster. But at every level the most basic roles that we expect a state to perform, from Economic Management<\/a> to defensive borders, were flunked comprehensively by the European Union<\/a> over the last ten years, and the british response was we need to take back control. Thats a really important idea here, because control by sovereign states is vital if they are to retain legitimacy. What is scary in europe is to see populists gaining strength from the failure of fareeds beloved International Institutions<\/a>. Thats the argument im trying to make tonight. If youre complacent as fareed im afraid to say has become in your elite bubble on the Upper West Side<\/a> of manhattan, imagining that everything is awesome and going to sweden to another bubble there and then presumably to a bubble in london, you dont realize how disaffected ordinary people in the provinces are, in peripheral france, in the provincial parts of central and Eastern Europe<\/a> that have swung sharply away from your liberal International Order<\/a>. Thats the problem. The populism that fareed alludes to is not something that im here to legitimize or defend. My point is precisely that it is a symptom of what is malfunctioning in this liberal International Order<\/a>, and i think ultimately the European Union<\/a> will fall apart because it simply is not possible to pursue a military policy for an entire continent and have borderless travel for an entire continent. It is not compatible with the stability and legitimacy of the nation states themselves, and the brits have been the first to realize that. Fareed, lets have you come in on that. In effect, europe is the canary in the coal mine and it is close to death. [ applause ] im so glad that neil is mingling with the people in palo alto where my my home would probably be buy you a garage. But i think it is important to remember the history here when we talk about the European Union<\/a>. For the 400, 500 years before World War Ii Europe<\/a> was racked by wars, the kind of which almost no contest nent had ever seen before. Religious wars, for example, onethird of all germany was killed. France and germany went to war three times between 1850 and 1950, dragged the world in on two of those occasions. And when you look at the European Union<\/a> today, the principal achievement is that it is unthinkable that these countries that routinely went to war for hundreds of years will ever go to war again. Yes, they have problems about Border Control<\/a> and, yes, when they meet they have debates about Monetary Policy<\/a> and, oh, yes, it is very difficult to have Monetary Policy<\/a> move in one direction and fiscal policy move another. It is a very different world from germany invading france, belgium, from the horrors of world war i, world war ii and all of the wars before that. So i look at the European Union<\/a> and i know it is fashionable to decry it and to talk about the bureaucracy and talk about the sclerosis, but it is an extraordinary achievement of political and Economic Cooperation<\/a> that should be a model for all countries in the world. That is how we want to solve problems. That is how we should. And those great liberal internationalists of the 1900s, norman angel and such, did not predict, by the way, perpetual peace. Norman angels book did not say there would be peace forever. He said that will a war within europe would be so costly that it would make no sense economically to wage it, that the victor would lose economically so much by plunging the continent into chaos that it wouldnt be worth it. He was proven absolutely right in that because of the interdependence that had been achieved by this order. Now, why did britain leave . Britain has always disliked europe. I mean if you read john coynes speech in richard ii written by shakespeare, it is about britain as this sectored isle set against the scheming, disastrous, warlike europeans. This is the way britain has thought of itself. It has seen itself as a country set apart in all kinds of ways. Theres the famous headline you saw in britain in 1900 which said fog over channel, continent cut off. That is made up, fareed. That is part of just to be clear, that is fake. As we say i mean it is a good story, but it is just not true, thats all. Stories are too good to check. [ laughter ] but let me i thought that neil might bring up might bring up the brexit issue, and i dont know if i have it here or not, but i was struck by teresa mays declaration of independence from the European Union<\/a> in which she said, we are doing this because we want to be a global free trading britain that embraces the world, that embraces greater international commerce, cooperation, you know, wants to remain in all of the International Organizations<\/a> and institutions were in. We see it as a path to global free trade and greatness. Now, you might ask why you would then exit the largest free trade body in the world at a process of getting to free trade, but my point is if you look at the way in which britain has exited the European Union<\/a> as some kind of harbinger for what is happening, i would argue youre looking at the exception that proves the rule. Europe has gone from six countries to 28. There was a line of countries desperately trying to get into europe. Why . If britain is the one country that wants to get out, why do all of the other countries want to get in . Because they understand the virtue of this stability, of peace, of cooperation, because they see the beforeafter picture in europe like you have never seen anywhere in history. Can i just push back a little bit . Yes. [ applause ] because if you ask yourself what exactly the European Union<\/a> is, calling it a free trade area is a stretch, fareed, because what the European Union<\/a> has become and this has been true since the treaty of mastrate, is an endeavor to create a federal republic of europe. In some ways when you look closely at how europe works, at brussels, meet the people who run it, they live very good lives. Eurocrats dont even pay tax. You discover it is a wonderful product of mid 20th century thinking. It is extremely bureaucrat. They use the word subsidiary, but they never devolve anything they can retain control over. It is predicated on an extraordinarily complex system of regulation, and, most importantly to my mind, those people who run it have become almost completely disconnected from the ordinary people in what ill call provincial europe. Now, fareed sneers at the fact that i live near, but not in palo alto. I mean really, fareed, i wouldnt make jokes about real estate prices in toronto if i were you. It is a reminder that the canadians themselves just as in trudeau has realized globalization has over shot. I dont think it is wrong to draw distinction between what the European Union<\/a> has become, which is a kind of failed centralizing fade ralist state and what teresa may and others in london hope to achieve, because what we must wish for is a stable International Order<\/a> based on democratic and rule of lawbased sovereign states. Yes, they can certainly reach trade agreements, but those trade agreements arent etched in stone. It is time unquestionably to revisit nafta. It is far from clear that it is perfect. That is exactly what i would regard as a stable International Order<\/a> is. Canada, the United States<\/a> and mexico, look at a trade agreement and establish whether it needs to be updated. That is not the situation britain was in. Britain was in a position where rulings made by the council of ministers could be imposed on the British Parliament<\/a> regardless of what the british people wished. Theres a huge difference in my mind between that which seems to me the essence of fareeds liberal International Order<\/a>, and the more conservative nationbased order which historical experience shows is far more likely to produce stability. Let me fareed, i want we have a lot of terrain to move through here and i want to, again, keep this debate focused on the proposition, is it over or not. You know, we can discuss whether it is good or bad, but ultimately the 3,000 people in this room need to make up their minds on the question, is it at its end. Lets go back across the atlantic to the United States<\/a> because, as neil said in his opening remarks, some might argue that the liberal International Order<\/a> has a fatal crisis of legitimacy, that by impoverishing broad sections of its own voting publics in western democracies it now no longer has the social consensus within the nations that it needs to further itself to advance. How do you respond to that specific argument that this is, in fact, over because of a crisis of legitimacy that it cant recover from . Sure. So lets think about that. That was much talked about after brexit and donald trump, and what i would point out is that we seem to be in a slightly different moment right now, right . You have just had the french elections in which the person who seems likely to win is emmanuel macron, a former rothchild banker, a proud believer in all of these things. The person who seems to be likely to win in germany is Angela Merkel<\/a>. But if she loses, she is likely to lose to a social democratic more pro european than she is. You can see why im leaving. You can look at donald trump and the United States<\/a>. While it is true that he won the presidency, it is true that Hillary Clinton<\/a> won almost three million more votes than he did and he now has the lowest Approval Ratings<\/a> of any president in history at this point in the presidency. So it is important for us to remember that there are many forces within this societies. That there are lots and lots of people who are in favor of the liberal International Order<\/a>, this kind of world, the world we live in, as i say. What is most telling, and the reason that i think it is not over is because the one common factor in all of these countries is that young people are overwhelmingly in favor of the kind of world im describing. It is because not only do they understand that it is inevitable, you cant stop china from growing, you cant turn technology off, you cant stop the cooperation and interdependence that comes from trade and capital flows, but they also understand that it is beneficial. They want to live in a world that is open, that is connected, that is pleuralistic, that is tolerant, that is diverse. That is why you see the extraordinary numbers, when you look at young people in the United States<\/a>, when you look at young people in europe, and even when you look at young people in britain. Had the vote been, you know, an under 40 vote brexit would have lost dramatically, and that tells me something very important, which is that the future lies with this kind of work. We are going through a period where people who are older, who have less education, who live in rural parts of the United States<\/a> and europe understandably feel anxious. As i say, there are policy remedies for that which we should employ, and theyre across the board, they involve things from immigration to economics. But dont forget that the future belongs to this liberal International Order<\/a>. Democrat graphics graphics i. [ applause ] you should always be wary of people who say that the future belongs to them because the reality is, to answer your question, roger, the peak globalization, peak liberal International Order<\/a> is already in the rearview mirror. You can show this with some very simple measures. Trade is no longer growing at the rate that it grew prior to the financial crisis. In fact, it is significantly less important as fareed well knows as a driver of global growth. International capital flows have been reduced, too. Notice also the crisis of migration continues to expose the fundamental weakness of a liberal International Order<\/a> that cant even achieve stabilization of a common oligarch civil war in a state like syria. Right now we have 65 million displaced people in the world, 21 million classified by the u. S. As refugees. This is not a succeeding liberal International Order<\/a>. It is an increasingly illiberal, elitist international disorder. That is why there is so much disaffection and that is why we see support for populists on both the left and the right. Because, remember, populism comes in two flavors. It is like ice cream in communist country. You can have raspberry or chocolate, just as last year we had Bernie Sanders<\/a> who of course would have been the democratic dom any if they hadnt rigged the democratic nomination system. If one looks at the french election, fareed, macron got almost no support from younger french voters. They were behind the communist. So lets not pretend the center is holding when it is not. What in fact we see, and this is clear from a range of studies published recently youre too busy with cnn to read, that the politicals i mean i know how that is. But if you actually do academic research, you find that one consequence of the financial crisis well, you know, this seems to me very important if were going to get the historical record straight. What is very striking is one looks at all of the elections all the way back to 1870, financial crises lead to backlashes against globalization that erode the political center, and it is eroded from both sides, the far left and far right. What we see in european politics at the moment is really a regrouping of deck chairs on board the titanic. You can manning how this will play out. Macron will doubtless win and meet Angela Merkel<\/a> and they will tell one another everything is awesome, and the alienation will continue. If you havent read it, i do remember michelle wellbecks wonderful book submission. What bellbeck says in submission, yes, this election in france will go pretty much as it has gone. He got that right. At the next election in order to keep out the far National Candidate<\/a> le pen there will be an islamist candidate. Thats the critical point that we need to focus on, not the here and now. Not this weeks poll, but where europe is headed. It is very clear to me that it is on an unsustainable path. If it cannot even secure its own borders other than by making deals with yet another illiberal pseudo democratic, mr. Erdogan in turkey, if it cannot ensure even the most elementary Financial Stability<\/a> in peripheral conditions in Southern Europe<\/a> remember, the italian gone away as a problem. All of this talk of liberal International Order<\/a> is just what they do at aspen to keep their spirits up as ever slowly and inexorably ever smaller shrinks the deck on the titanic. [ applause ] fareed, just to have you respond to i think some of the symptoms of the demise of the liberal International Order<\/a> that many people in this room might think about, we could look at the annexation of crimea, the violation of another nations sovereignty, something that was never supposed to happen after 1945. We see as neil has mentioned declining trade, but maybe more importantly more recently weve seen the use of chemical weapons on defenseless civilians in syria, responded to by little more than a cosmetic military attack. Again, why are these things in your mind not significant events that foreshadow or state that the liberal International Order<\/a> is in fact in demise . Look, you can point to every bad thing that happens in the world and find a trend out of it. But the plural anecdote is not data. When you figure out what is actually happening around the world you have to look at the aggregate data, and the aggregate data shows Political Violence<\/a> by which i mean war, civil war and terrorism is down. It has had a modest up tick last year, but over the last 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 years, the chart goes way down. Can i correct you, fareed . This is a really important point because we are talking about whether theres been an inflection or not. If you look at the data on Armed Conflict<\/a> or terrorism, there was a clear upturn from 2010, which is pretty much the low point. I agree with that. And everything that has happened since the miss named arab spring has caused terrorism and Armed Conflict<\/a> to escalate. You cant claim that the liberal International Order<\/a> is in great shape. It hasnt been in great shape since 2010. So let me just talk about that for a second. If you look at 20 or 30,000 people a year are being killed by islamist terrorist groups like Islamic State<\/a> and boca haram. Im sorry, i dont find that comforting because they would like to kill my wife. 30,000 americans die of handgun violence every year. But theres a difference, fareed. And that is terrible, too. [ applause ] theres a difference, fareed. Let me, again, broaden the scope and remind you that if you look at the world of violence right now, a striking thing happened this year. The colombians announced a ceasefire with the farq, the insurgency that had gone on for five decades, killed 300, 400,000 people, displaced millions of people, and the reason was striking to me, was it marked the end of any kind of Political Violence<\/a> in the western hemisphere. Half the world in other words now does not have a war, a civil war, an armed insurgency of any kind. If you say tou yourself, thats latin america. When i came to the United States<\/a> latin america was very violent. Armed insurgencies in five or six latin america countries. The United States<\/a> invaded grenada and panama. There was a lot of stuff going on now and that has essentially come to a close. Violence in the world is essentially restricted to a band of places that want to call the crescent of crisis from nigeria to afghanistan. It is almost an islamist belt. It is worrisome, and i think neil and i probably agree on some of the causes of it, but notice how restricted it is. You dont see it in asia. You see it almost not in africa, which is extraordinary. My point here is not bad things arent happening in the world. There were bad things happening in the world in the 19 40s, you might have noticed. There were bad things happening in the world from 1914 to 1919. There were a lot of bad things happening in the 19th century. But the trend that we are looking at, this broader trend is unmistakable. Let me make one more point because neil keeps talking about the European Union<\/a>. I think it is important that we understand that the people who want the European Union<\/a> the most are not people who go to davos and aspen but people on the ground in the poorer countries that surround europe. So look at ukraine. Why is ukraine trying to break free of russias embrace and russia has as a result engage willed in an act of imperialism against it . Ukraine is trying the break free because it wants to be part of this liberal International Order<\/a>. Why does it want to do that . Ukraine and poland in 1990 faced a choice. Poland chose to be part of the European Union<\/a>, past of the west, part of this liberal International Order<\/a>. Ukraine was not allowed to become part of that order. They had the same per capita gdp in 1990. Today ukraines per capita gdp is onethird of polands. Poland is three times richer than ukraine, having started in the same place in 1990. So when people look at that, it is those ukrainians, ordinary ukrainians, ordinary poles who understand this and who understand, by the way, that the European Union<\/a> provides them with political stability. It provides them with all kinds of economic assistance. It provides them with the Worlds Largest<\/a> market to which they go grow, and it provides them with some sense of order and protection in fleeing a world that they have known for so long. Those are the people who i look to when i ask myself does the European Union<\/a> have a future. I couldnt care less about the bankers at davo. [ applause ] weve got about five minutes left in this exchange before we get to closing statements, and i want to come to you, neil, on the point of technology. Youre living not in palo alto but nearby. We are living in an age of rapid Technological Advancement<\/a> and change, and i guess many people here might wonder why isnt the technological revolution that were living through underpinning, a bulwark to the liberal International Order<\/a> . Because its thrust of intention in many ways, Networks Connecting<\/a> people, allowing people to talk across linguistic and national divides, would seem to super charge liberal internationalallism, not hold it back. It is funny how that turned out, isnt it . Not quite what Mark Zuckerberg<\/a> intended when he created facebook, that he would unwittingly create the engine that probably did more than anything else to get donald trump elected last year. If one looks at the impact of social networks on not only domestic but international politics, you cant really claim that it has done a great deal to help fareeds beloved liberal International Order<\/a>. Thats not entirely surprising actually because the unfettered growth of Companies Like<\/a> facebook, not to mention google, has without question made us a more interconnected species. We really are far more interconnected than ever before. But has that promoted the values that fareed has been pitching tonight . Actually, no. It has turned out to be a tremendously powerful engine, not just for the notorious fake news but for fullblown cyber warfare. Fareed ducks your question about ukraine i thought rather feebly. What happened with the invasion of ukraine was a complete failure for the liberal International Order<\/a>. It utterly failed to uphold not only the u. N. Charter but also the budapest agreement and the annexation of crimea by the Russian Federation<\/a> is essentially now accepted by the liberal International Order<\/a> as just one of those things, never mind. Ukraine is in a state of more or less civil war. It would be wrong to call it a frozen conflict because it is really quite hot and there are periodic outbreaks of violence. The picture that fareed paints of latin america is kind of baffling. I dont know, heard of venezuela, following events in ka caracas . It may be on the retreat in argentina, but it is putting up a ferocious rear guard action in vennes wallace right now and people are being killed in the streets of caracas. My sense is we probably all have overestimated the benefits of creating a completely interconnected world. We didnt realize that it would actually be former kgb operatives who would best understand how to unleash troll armies to try to influence democratic elections. We under estimated the extent to which a interconnected world would be a great opportunity for the islamic terrorists to prop gate their message. Really, radical islam is contained . I havent noticed that when people were murdered in san bernardino, in london, in paris, you know, there have been attacks. This is a global threat. Unfortunately, the technology that we dreamt up in Silicon Valley<\/a> has proved to be essentially morally neutral. Can i just interrupt you for one thing, neil . I think it is important to point out the incidents of terrorism and deaths by terrorism in europe in the 1970s was three times higher than it is today. I know it is easy to scare people because these are muslims and they look different and they sound different and there are ways in which unfortunately they are dangerous, but lets not forget that europe went through very bad stretches with terrorism. It is easy to get people all riled up about this, but the reality is we have been through periods of violence. We have been through periods of terrorism. Yes, the russian annexation of crimea was a terrible thing. So was the soviet invasion of czechoslovakia. So was hungary in 1956. So was the soviet invasion of afghanistan. It is not as though we have not had during the what you call the heyday of the liberal International Order<\/a>, it is not as though we didnt have bad stuff happening. The point is on balance where are things tilting. You know, if you look at Martin Luther<\/a> kings great line, he said the moral arc of the universe bends slowly but it bends towards justice. I would argue that the arc of history bends slowly and zigzags and curves, but overall it is moving towards a greater degree of freedom because your great hero, neil, margaret thatcher, said, when people are free to choose they choose freedom. I believe thats true even if you dont. Plauls plaus. Well done, gentlemen. [ applause ] well, we have come up against the clock so were going to move now to our closing statements. These will happen in the opposite order of the opening remarks. Were going to put five minutes. You see, i told you i was worried about being up against this brilliant, wellredman wad who reads academic papers and has this posh accent but i will try to tell you what i know. I will tell you the scene from my favorite movie. It is lawrence of arabia. Theres this moment where lawrence is convincing the arab tribes to go up against the ottoman empire, and to do it he has to get them to take the turkish port. They have to go through this terrible desert. They ah all say, cant be done, never been done before. He gets them to do it but they leave behind a very important arab soldier everybody loves, gasim. And he tells lawrence, you cant do anything about it. The desert has swallowed him up. It was his fate. It was written. Lawrence goes into the desert for a second time and manages to bring him back, and he brings him back alive and presents him to sharif ali and he says to him, nothing is written. What i want to remind you is that this is active, ongoing history in the making. Nothing is written. Yes, there are all kinds of challenges to the liberal International Order<\/a>. There are people who are celebrating its demise, from donald trump to Marine Le Pen<\/a> to nigel faraj, all of these people who want it to fail, who believe they are on to something, who are exploiting the anxieties of people, who perhaps dont understand the complexity of the forces and telling them something very simple. Donald trumps message, after all, to americans, to particularly the kind of americans who neil is talking about is your life sucks and it is because of mexicans, muslims and chinese people. The mexicans take your jobs, the chinese take your factories, the muslims endanger your lives. I will beat them all up and you will be great again. It is a powerful, seductive message. That was, by the way, the entire campaign in two minutes. [ applause ] but the truth is you arent going to get very far by beating up foreigners. You are not going to get very far by building walls. You arent going to get very far by closing yourself off to the world. I feel as though ive lived through this movie. The india that i grew up in was an india that very much beleaved in rejecting this liberal International Order<\/a> because it believed it was a western plot, it was another version of british colonialism so they shielded themselves from it and said they were protecting their industries and protecting their workers and protecting their cultures. What you instead got was corruption, decay, stagnation and a sense of being completely isolated from the world. You lacked the technological progress. You lacked the","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia801507.us.archive.org\/25\/items\/CSPAN3_20170503_024600_Munk_Debates_Focuses_on_the_Future_of_Geopolitics\/CSPAN3_20170503_024600_Munk_Debates_Focuses_on_the_Future_of_Geopolitics.thumbs\/CSPAN3_20170503_024600_Munk_Debates_Focuses_on_the_Future_of_Geopolitics_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240628T12:35:10+00:00"}