>> imagine you need a world without religious fate, not just no place of worship, no prayer, no scripture, but no men or women because of their faith, dedicating their lives to others. >> once you create a plan, it makes us objects in a cruel experiment, and in order to supervise this, has installed a celestial leadership, a kind of divine north korea. >> ladies and gentlemen, welcome. welcome to the munk debates on president obama's foreign policy. my name is roger griffith. it's my privilege to be the organizer of this debate series

and once again serve as your moderator. i want to start tonight by welcoming the north american wide radio and television audience tuning in to this debate everywhere from the canadian broadcasting corporation to cpac to c-span across the continental united states. a warm hello also to the online audience watching this debate right now on munkdebates.com. it's terrific to have you, as virtual participants in tonight's proceeding and hello to you, the over 3,000 people who have filled roy thompson hall to capacity for yet another munk debate. this evening, we engage with the geopolitical debates of the moment. has the administration of barack obama through inaction and incompetence as its critics will claim, fanned the flames of global conflict and encouraged the very forces that want to

roll back individual rights, the rule of law, economic globalization. or, and it's a big or, has this president wisely, courageously, disavowed the role of global policeman for the united states, a role embraced by his predecessor, in favor of alliance building and a limited targeted use of military power? these, ladies and gentlemen, are the battle lines of tonight's contest. and the presence on the stage in mere moments of four outstanding presenters, would not be possible without the public spiritedness of our host this evening. please join me in the warm round of appreciation, the chairs of the aurea foundation.

thank you for another great debate. bravo. now, the moment we've been waiting for. let's get our debaters out here on center stage and our debate under way. speaking first for the motion, resolved president obama has emboldened our enemies and made the world a more dangerous place, is one of america's most prominent writers and thinkers on all things foreign policy. he's a brookings institution's senior scholar, robert kagan. let's get you out here. joining bob kagan on the pro side of the debate is a pulitzer prize winner writer, the international affairs columnist for the wall street journal and former editor in chief of the jerusalem post. brett stevens, come on stage.

now, one great team of debaters deserves another. and i would like you all to join me in welcoming a woman of singular accomplishment to the munk debates. a renowned scholar of international affairs, a former senior official in the u.s. state department and currently the ceo of the prestigious new america foundation. anne-marie slaughter. ms. slaughter's debating partner tonight is no stranger to this series. brain cell for brain cell, he is one of the most formidable debaters to appear on this stage. please welcome best selling author and the host of cnn'ss g,

fareed zakaria. now, before we call on our debaters for their opening remarks, i need your help, all of you in the hall, with three simple tasks. first, power up your smartphones. we have a wi-fi network throughout the building. you can engage with this debate through twitter at th the #munkdebates. second, and this includes those people watching online right now, we have a url, www.munkdebates.com forward slash vote. you can interact with a series of questions about tonight's proceedings. vote often. americans did it last night with some consequence. we'll do it again tonight. third, our countdown clock, my favorite part of the evening, this will appear on the screen at farias times of tonight's debate. for opening and closing statements and for our timed

rebuttals. when you see it count down to zero, please join me in a round of applause. this is doigoing to keep our speakers on their toes and our debate on schedule. now, finally, let's find out how this audience voted on tonight's resolution. be it resolved president obama has emboldened our enemies and made the world a more dangerous place. let's have the results of the first audience vote. interesting. 43% agree. 57% disagree. almost a tie vote. our second question, depending on what you hear during the debate, are you open to changing your mind? let's see how much of this room is in play. whoa. 93%. this is a crowd of debaters who can be wooed. you have your work cut out for you. it's time now for our six minute opening statements. as per convention, the pro side

will speak first. brett stevens, it was agreed the floor would be yours first. your six minutes begins now. >> ladies and gentlemen, do you remember? do you remember the first time? no, i don't mean that first time. i mean the first time you heard barack obama. the first time you were spellbound by his promise and by his promises. we were going to defeat al qaeda. we were going to win the war that must be won in afghanistan while getting out of iraq. we would reset relations with russia. we would have a new beginning with the muslim world and mend frayed ties with our partners in europe and the americas. we would reassure allies in asia, save the climate, stop iran from getting the bomb, and prevent atrocities like chemical

weapons being used against defenseless civilians and acts of genocide. that seemed like a very long time ago. does it not? six years on, there's one thing that we can say for sure. not one, not one of those goals has been achieved. the number of jihadists, according to a rand corporation study, more than doubled between 2010 and 2013, and that doesn't include the rise of isis. we are not out of iraq. we are back in iraq. relations with russia have been reset to about 1956. a syrian dictator continues to gas his people with impunity, the only difference is he switched from sarin to chlorine. iran is far closer to a bomb today than it was when obama took office. america is now more hated and

distrusted in countries like pakistan and egypt than it was even when george w. bush was president. and the war in afghanistan, for which so many young americans and young canadians gave their lives, has not, to say the least, been won. but here you say, ah, this isn't -- it isn't all obama's fault. he's been dealt a tough hand. the world is a complicated place. ladies and gentlemen, presidents are often dealt a tough hand. roosevelt got a tough hand from hoover. reagan got a bad hand from carter. what makes a good president is the ability to meet the goals he sets, define events more than he is defined by events, and leave the united states stronger and better respected in the world. this is not, to say the least, been the mark of obama's tenure.

indeed, such is the gap between expectation and delivery that one might say to paraphrase a famous line, that never in the field of political self-promotion have so many been promised so much by someone who delivered so little. now, why is this? i think there's a competence problem. remember, this is the president who was busy called isis the jv team right up until isis took mosul. this is the president who didn't bother out just who the national security agency was wire tapping among our allies, but the larger problem is this is a president who thinks that speeches are a substitute for action. a president who has compiled a record of being harsh with his allies in the world, while going out of his way to accommodate america's adversaries. this is a president who talked about the importance of rules and then fails to enforce those

rules. quote, when dictators commit atrocities, they depend on the world to look the other way. if we fail to act, the assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. other tyrants will have no reason to think twice. that was barack obama explaining why the world hasn't punished syria for their chemical weapons before he explained why he wasn't going to punish syria. as a result, lairjs, under obama, america is no longer feared by its enemies and we're no longer trusted by its friends. now, why is this uniquely dangerous? first, because perceptions shape actions. our enemies take the message that they can do whatever they want as long as they have the capability and the will to do so. quote, if the u.s. meets bullets with words, tyrants will draw their own conclusions. that is not dick cheney talking. that's my colleague, anne marie slaughter in an aup ed earlier

this year. the second reason is rogue regimes have an incentive to work sooner rather than later because they know obama still has two years in and office and they may suspect the next president may have more spine, and the third reason is if america's allies can't trust us, they will go their own way. we will live in a world not only of dangerous rogues but equally dangerous free-lancers. this is a world of unprecedented or nearly unprecedented unpredictability, at least in our lifetime. when your enemies are tempted to strike and our allies are tempted to preempt and all the while as a global superpower you're still on the hook, even while you're losing control. let me close by reminding you that barack obama won a nobel peace prize in 2009 in the expectation of making the world a safer, better, more peaceful place. as you follow our debate, ask yourself this question with a benefit of hindsight, would you

still give him that prize? thank you very much. >> three seconds to spare, bret. that was pretty impressive. anne-marie slaughter, you're up next. >> thank you. so blaming barack obama for a state that the world is in right now is like blaming a caribbean island for a hurricane. think very carefully about what our opponents have to prove. not only do they have to prove that the world would be less dangerous if barack obama were not president. but they have to prove that the world is as dangerous as it is because he has emboldened our enemies. so two-step thing they have to prove, not just that it's more dangerous than if someone else

were dangerous, but the causal account is he's emboldened our enemies. that means they have to prove that putin would not have annexed crimea or invaded ukraine but for obama's actions. in fact, putin hardened when yanukovych, the ukrainian president, fled. at that moment, putin's advisers who have been telling him the united states seeks only to overturn regimes, at that moment, putin decided it was time to get serious, that there was no way of dealing with the united states. so it was actually when he thought we were more hardlined that he slipped, or take isil. isil is not responding to barack obama's lack of action. isil is responding to the fact that barack obama refuses to pay ransoms and is bombing their

troops. if that is the moment in which they are more likely to take action against us. so it is not that he has emboldened our enemies. so you've already heard. i am known for some criticisms of our president. i have disagreed with him strongly and strenuously on syria. but my criticisms have not been that he emboldened assad to take the actions assad is taking. it's that once assad decided for his own good reasons to obliterate the opposition, obama could be doing more to try to bring the parties to a peace table. now, that's like saying, to go back to my caribbean island analogy, if a hurricane is coming, you can certainly criticize leaders of a country for not doing things to mitigate the damage or making it easier to rebuild, but you cannot blame them for the fact that the hurricane came in the first place. again, obama, i think, could do

different things in response, but i don't think there's anything obama could have done that would have stopped assad from doing what he did, and assad wanted the syrian conflict to be between his government and terrorists, and that is exactly, in fact, what he has gotten. now, let's look at how obama has actually worked to make the world a safer place. the single greatest threat we face, that we face under george w. bush and still face under obama, the single greatest threat is the danger of a terrorist group with a nuclear wipen. stopping nuclear proliferation is absolutely essential. sam nunn, bill terry, all agree right and left that stopping nuclear proliferation is the single biggest thing we can do

otherwise we risk a world facing a world with some 10, 20, 30 nuclear nations. barack obama has worked doggedly for a deal with iran. he's been extremely tough when he's had to be tough. he's imposed sanctions. he's made clear that he will take no measures off the table. and he is closer now than anyone has been in 20 years to that deal. we don't know that he'll get there. but even i think for all my criticisms of obama on syria, he has been focused on doing something that if he gets it, could reshape the entire region. he has decimated al qaeda. he took out osama bin laden. and he is working very hard and successfully to contain isil, not to eradicate it. that's extremely difficult to do, but to contain it so that it cannot spread beyond the middle east. he's also strengthened regional and international organizations,

contrary to what it looked like when he came into office. nobody now acts without the united nations. he's reestablished the rule of multilateralism at a time when it's very important to restrain china and russia. and those are just the state to state problems. right? what about the deeper problems? if you're reading the headlines about why the world is such a dangerous place, you're not just reading about russia or isil. you're reading about ebola recently. you're reading about ungoverned spaces all over the world that give rise to disease, to violence, to wars that spill over borders, that ultimately fuel extremism of all kinds. the answers to those problems are slow and complicated. they can't be plotted out on a chess board, but they focus on things like development, poverty eradication, rebuilding

governance, working on the longer term problems that ultimately we have to address. like climate change, right? the thing that's causing those hurricanes i'm talking about with those caribbean islands. he's trying. and has done more than any president in the past certainly decade, to work on those longer term problems. thank you. >> thank you, anne-marie. bob kagan, you're our next opening statement. >> thank you so much, and thank you all for being out here to listen to a debate about foreign policy. i would like to think we could get as many americans out as we have gotten you out. maybe some day. anyway, it's a pleasure to be here. i know my colleagues are very pleased to be here. this is an excellent day to be defending barack obama in canada.

i suspect it might be a little tougher back in the united states. we all saw the results of the election. you may know what the approval ratings of president obama are. what you may not know is that his general approval rating is significantly higher than his foreign policy approval rating. his general approval rating among the american people is between 40% and 45%. his foreign policy approval rating is between 30% and 35%. that's george w. territory, folks. okay? that's george w. in 2006. and you know, you canadians may not trust the american people's judgment, and i would accept that. and maybe they're wrong now and maybe they were wrong in 2006 with george w., or maybe they were right both times.

that's another possibility. the other thing that's interesting in regard to this debate is that the american public when asked is the world a more dangerous place, has it gotten more dangerous in the last few years, 65% say yes. they're not in any doubt about whether the world has gotten more dangerous. again, you can either trust their judgment or not. are they wrong? are they wrong that the world is more dangerous? anne-marie is right, there are two points to this. is the world more dangerous and does barack obama have anything to do with it? i think the world clearly is more dangerous. you know, fareed, who has written some brilliant articles over the years, a few months ago wrote an article saying the world is actually in pretty good shape, better than it had been in years, and he talked about statistics that harvard came up with, noting that violence had declined. pinker's answer is people had just gotten nicer.

i have a different answer. pinker's study begins in 1945. violence had declined from 1945 steadily over the decades. why is that? what happened in 1945? well, what happened in 1945 is on the ruins of the greatest world catastrophe that we had ever gone, world war ii, after a period of global disorder, the democratic nation, the united states, canada, european nations, japan, got together and built a liberal world order. that was strengthened over the decades. and achieved three extraordinary things. one, an enormous spread of democracy. another, an enormous increase in global prosperity the likes of which we had never seen before, and finally, an end to great power conflicts, the kinds we saw in the first part of the 21st century. if the world is more dangerous,

it is because that is what is at risk today. now, i don't know what the future holds, and maybe things will even out, but i see areas of reason for concern that this world order is at risk. one element is we see the number of democraciy ies around the wo has been declining steadily. we sue what happened to the global economy, and now for the first time in europe since 1945, we see crossborder aggression by one nation for the purpose of changing borders. something that we thought we had eradicated in europe. now, is all of this barack obama's fault? of course not. has barack obama's policies made these things, this situation worse? of course they have. of course they have. anne-marie is reading into the mind of isis what they think, what they want to do.

we know how isis got to be what it is today. it was because the united states withdrew prematurely a limited number of troops from iraq. it was because the president did not listen to anne marie, who repeatedly said, if we can support a moderate opposition in syria, we may be able to avoid having the vacuum filled on practically quoting anne-marie here, by jihadists. lo and behold, it has been filled by jihadists. iraq has begun to fall apart. are we supposed to say that barack obama had nothing to do with any of this? he's a caribbean island sitting here watching the hurricane go by? american presidents are not all powerful, but they're not lacking all power, either. in east asia, we have a situation of increasing tension. china, of course, is growing more aggressive or at least

willing to flex its elbows a little bit. that's not barack obama's fault, but now we see japan increasi increasingly independent, increasingly nationalalist, increasingly perhaps taking steps which if we're not careful could lead to a conflageration in east asia. why is japan doing that? i'll quote from anne-marie again. because japan is wondering whether barack obama can be trusted. his unwillingness to use force in syria after he said he was going to use force, did echo around the world, raised doubts among our allies about whether we could be relied upon. more to come. >> well done, bob. the final opening statement goes to fareed zakaria. the floor is yours. >> thank you so much. ladies and gentlemen, i very much hope you will be persuaded by bob kagan because he is so

persuaded by my colleague anne-marie slaughter, and i thought you will vote the way anne-marie slaughter is voting in this res lug. clearly, she's a fount of good wisdom and judgment. let me address the proposition very simply. the question is what has happened to the united states's enemies. enemy number one, osama bin laden, is dead. last i checked. al qaeda, the organization that launched the 9/11 attacks, that was the principal object, decimated. entirely decimated to the point at which it is unable, it has been unable for years now to even pretend to launch some kind of major terrorist operation or even minor one. it used to plan terrorist attacks. now it releases video cassettes. wh that is what osama bin laden's successor has done for the last five or six years.

it explains the problems that al qaeda is facing. enemy number two, iran. we have good data on this. you will hear culminations on the other side, you will hear facts from ours. we have very good data on this. in 2006, saudi arabia, egypt, and jordan were polled. they gave 75% favorability rating, because iran was seen as standing up to the united states, the great aggressor in the middle east. 2012, the same poll was done. the number was 35%. iran's favorability rating has dropped in half. why? barack obama assembled an international coalition, put in place tough sanctions, gathered the arabs together, and right now you have the unprecedented situation where the moderate aybar states are in alliance with israel against iran. the third great the united states has had has been russia. yet we watched this interesting

control experiment. russia invaded another country during the bush administration. you may remember, georgia. the consequence was zero. the bush administration did absolutely nothing. george bush was at the olympics, you know, spent some time palling around with putin. nothing happened. this time around, russia does something similar, barack obama assembled a coalition of western nations. you have nato, you have the european union for the first time getting tough, putting in place real sanctions. the united states put in place even tougher sanctions. what you see in russia right now is growth has slowed to zero, the stock market has collapsed, the rubal is down 25%, russia has had to jack up its interest rates, just yesterday, by 150 basis points. if you're wondering where to park your cash, you can get 9.5% in russia, but i still don't think any of you are going to do it. so those are the three principal

adversariy ies that the united states has faced and that's what barack obama has been able to do. you also have the reality of the pre-emptive moves that the obama administration has been able to do. in this administration, there has been a recognition that if the united states is going to play the kind of role bob kagan wants it to, as the guarantor of spublt for the 21st century, the place where the action is is asia. in two years, three years, three of the four largest economies of the world will all be in asia. if the united states is going to be the superpower of the 21st century, which i believe it can be, it has to be a pacific power. the obama administration has zealously pursued a pivot to asia and it has been able to reopen american bases in the philippines, something even the sainted ronald reagan hasn't been able to do. he has been able to put in place a symbolic but important base of sorts in australia, he has strengthened relationships in

japan, making sure the islands would be covered by the defense treaty with japan. he has been able to offer a kind of vision of trade and opportunity to asia that certainly president bush was not able to do. all of these things together have created a reality that the united states is now much more able to play that role of balancer and stabilizer in asia than it was before. it may not be enough. i would myself like the administration to do even more in this regard, but the basic strategy is correct. some of the poor implementation has been done properly. there's a final point i want to make about the world being so unstable because really what you have is a world in which the middle east is deeply unstable. the rest of the world is in pretty good shape. and the middle east, by the way, has been unstable for a while, in case you haven't noticed. the american intervention in syria is by the scholar discounts, the 14th american military intervention in syria

since 1982, since reagan sent marines in to lebanon. how has that worked out for us in terms of stabilizing the situation there? not so well, but of course, bob kagan tells us things are terrible. we're in a terrible, terrible situation. the world has become a much more dangerous place and the american people are figuring this out. the only word to describe the administration policy is appeasement. that was 1999 bob kagan about the clinton administration. my mistake, my mistake. i'm so sorry. the future of american foreign policy is going to be one of curtailed commitment, gradual withdrawal, and appeasement. this is an isolationist's dream. for everyone else, a nightmare. no, this is bob kagan about the bush administration before 9/11. restretchment is now certain. again, the bush administration before 9/11. he now tells us we're in 1930s, but we're always in the 1930s for robert kagan.

>> terrific opening statements. we certainly have a debate on our hands. now we're going to do a quick round of rebuttals. we'll have the pro side speak first, and then bob kagan, you're up to respond. >> okay. >> well, fareed is right. i'm always worried about the world order that we have created collapsing. and i was worried in 1999. i was worried about what iraq was up to and what might happen in iraq. i was worried about terrorism. and some awful things did happen. and i hope you appreciate the fact i have been critical of both administrations, republican and democrat. i am worried. i will honestly fess up to being worried about whether if we're

not careful, we will through lack of action, through misunderstanding, through foolishness, lose control of a liberal order from which we have all benefits so much, and let me tell you, it is fragile. fareed thinks this liberal world order will go on forever. in his book "the post american world" even as the united states declined, the libual world order will continue. you know why, according to fareed? because china will step up and uphold it, because russia will step up and uphold it, or india and brazil, the west will come up and withhold the liberal order even after the united states has lost the power that he thinks that it's losing. i do worry about it. i don't want to ring incredible alarm bells. key can overcome the situation we're in right now. but the task that i had today is to ask the question as to

whether barack obama's policies have taken a dangerous world and made them better or made it worse. now, to listen to our colleagues here, barack obama has accomplished miracles. i cannot believe what he's accomplished. well, actually, in fairness, what he's going to accomplish. if you listen to anne-marie carefully, he's going to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. well, i'll take that on face. right now, to me, it looks like that's a question. global warming. i'm really impressed by the incredible agreement that we have all pulled together, the united states and china and india and europe, which is finally solving or even addressing the problem of climate change. maybe he is going to be able to do that in his last two years. what he was not able to do in the previous six years. if you look at the record of what is actually occurred, i am

thrilled that osama bin laden is dead. i think that's a great victory. i just wish we weren't now in a situation where we're not facing individual terrorists operating in failed states, but we're actually facing a terrorist organization which plans and is achieving the ability to create its own state. that is what isis is trying to achieve. >> bret will now have your rebuttal, thank you. >> listening to anne-marie, i was reminding of one of my favorite movies "the life of brian." you remember the bitter disputes between the people for the liberation of jew daya and the jew dayen people's front. she's just told us, as has fareed, that al qaeda is

decimated. and yet we have al qaeda in the arabian peninsula taking over the southern half of that country, we have al qaeda nearly take over the country of mali, only stopped by a french intervention, which by the way, the obama administration initially opposed. we have isil, which, you're right. it's not al qaeda. it's more extreme than al qaeda. nobody doubts the great tactical victory of killing osama bin laden, but i don't think any intelligent person here would dispute the idea that al qaeda or jihadist groups that threaten our interested both in the middle east and around the world, are more powerful today than they used to be. now, another movie that i'm very fond of, dear to your hearts, is quast austin powers." you heard fareed talk about the sanctions which have decimated the russian economy. as a matter of fact, the russian economy has mainly been decimated by the fall in oil

prices which has happened since june. a remarkable contrangz thanks to the energy revolution that is happening in canada as well as the united states. a story in the wall street journal just a few days ago talked about the effects of sanctions on vladimir putin's favorite bank. it says the bank, the effect of sanctions has been nearly $21 million. remember that scene in austin powers where dr. evil said we will make a ransom of $1 million? $21 million is pocket change for any russian oligarch, and this is trusted as the great achievement. anne-marie talks about nuclear proliferation and what president obama has done to stop it. what is she talking about? north korea may be on the eve of another nuclear test? the saudi arabians come to our offices regularly and threaten they will develop or purchase

nuclear weapons if iran gets closer to a bomb. with respectareed saying that about iran, the fact is in 2008, iran had 3900 centrifuges and today is has 19,000. admittedly, they're frozen. we'll see how long that lasts, but i think it's a little early to trumpet that achievement. you mentioned the pivot to asia. reuters in 2013 noted that three year after the pivot was announced, there were zero troops in australia. the tpp, the transpacific partnership agenda is dead, so i would love these achievements, if they were real. >> the outlines of this debate are emerging quick and fast. ms. slaughter, you're up next with your rebuttal. thank you. >> so, we have definitively established one thing. without any question.

barack obama has emboldened the republican party. so i just want to ask you again to remember what they have to prove. because they are witty. and they are deft at quoting me against me. but they have to prove that the world is more dangerous now than it would be if barack obama were not president. that's a heavy counterfactual. it has to prove it's more dangerous now than it would be if he were not president, and one of the major reasons we got there is that he emboldened our enemies. so instead, what we have heard is he has not achieved all the goals he laid out in 2009. that is not exactly unique to barack obama. that is pretty much the way of politicians. he had high hopes. he did not achieve them.

we have heard he his not reagan or roosevelt. i'll accept that. he's not reagan or roosevelt. we have heard that he's not comp tent. we have heard he gives speeches. what we haven't heard is how any of that emboldened our enemies and led to making the world a more dangerous place than it would be if he were not president. so you can like him or not like him. you can think he's not -- he gives more speeches, he doesn't take action, but you have to show that it is his lack of action or actions that makes the world a more dangerous place. what we have also heard are attacks on the good things that both fareed and i say he's done. and we can debate that. perhaps he has not yet achieved a deal with iran, and he may not, but he has done more than any other president. we are closer than we have ever been. and our opponents agree that that is absolutely central

because if iran gets a nuclear weapon, saudi arabia will also get a nuclear weapon and then turkey and egypt will want to get nuclear weapons. that's what's at stake. that's the stakes he's playing for. the worst thing i have heard, and it was actually me against me, is that he may have made the japanese government nervous. okay. i'll take that, too. as far as i know, we're doing quite well with japan. tpp is not yet dead. let's see what happens with the republican congress. and frankly, if he did make the government of japan nervous by not following through on his threatened strikes against assad, it was because he reasoned that leevan chemical weapons in syria, where as we now know, isil or any other group get hold of them, would have been a worse threat.

>> fareed, we're going to give you the final rebuttal. three minutes are up on the clock. please proceed. >> a central premise here that we have to try to figure out is, is the world deep, dark, dangerous, and disordered? or are we in pretty good shape. bob kagan correctly quotes me as saying i think the world is in pretty good shape. as i say, if you look around the world and simply don't look at the crisis dejure and the execution dejore in the middle east, you see a latin america that 30 years ago was ruled by dictators and the economies were run in a quasi-fascist fashion. today, latin america is a transformed continence, democracies everywhere with the except of cuba, venezuela, bolivia. free market orientation for the most part, to a large extent, what is the most remarkable degree is the extent

anti-americanism has waned. i was interviewing the new president of mexico, and he was remarking how extraordinary it was that it has transformed into a party that is fundamentally pro-american. you can see similar things happening across the continent. you go to asia and asia is a different continent than it was 30 years ago. think of the asia of the 1970s with mao and guerilla movements with india, with the pro-soveiant stance. all of that has been transformed. todayer asia has just elected a new pro-growth, pro-american minister initia. ind niesha has a similar experience. japan has a similar experience. you're seeing extraordinary opportunities. look at africa again, compared to 30 years ago. if you want to ask yourself, what did all this along like, what do people think of the american president? it turns out we asked this question a lot in the world, and again, let's move to facts.

so this was the approval ratings of the president, not the united states. how much confidence do you have in the u.s. president? when they were asked this question in the last year of the bush administration, the germans said 14%. today, that number is 71%. today. 2014. france, 13% under bush. 83% under obama. indonesia, 23% under bush. 60% under obama. israel, 57% under bush. 71% under obama. not the people you talked to, bret, but most israelis. china, 30% under bush. 51% under obama. i can go on all night. this is a long list of countries. i will close with one near and dear to your heart. canada, 28% in 2007. 81% in 2013. >> the table has certainly been

set by our opening statements and our rebuttals. and now is an opportunity for us to get these two teams of debaters engaging with each other directly. in our exchange. and bob, we're going to start with you. fareed brought up an interesting statistic. 14 interventions 6 the marines went into lebanon. why do you think that more intervention, if this president had chosen that course of action, would have made the world a safer praise when the record itself looks atrocious? >> well, first of all, the president has chosen more intervention. so he obviously thinks it's the right thing to do, anne-marie thinks it's the right thing to do. the problem is that in this case, he has ignored the advice of his own hand-picked chairman of the joint chiefs, generals, as to how to go about carrying out this activity. whether it succeeds or not, i hope it does succeed.

you know, you can make a list of all the things that have gone wrong in american foreign policy. it's a longer list than fareed likes to read. the question is, has the broad thrust of american foreign policy produced a better world or hasn't it? i think, i doubt anyone up here on this stage would disagree that what has been accomplished since 1945 has been extraordinary, despite all the mistakes, and i must say, if i could just answer one of anne-marie's points, i like the way she wants to frame this question. i understand that she wants us to say that barack obama would have done worse than some other president, and i now know that what fareed wants to say is that barack obama, we have to prove that barack obama did worse than george bush. unfortunately, that's not the question we're being asked. if you want me to say all the things that george bush did wrong, i would agree he did a lot of things wrong. but i also, in the context of this debate, in answering the

question, has barack obama made things better or worse, given the state of the world? i have not heard a single way other than what they hope obama might achieve, how he's actually made things better. >> anne-marie, give us some specifics. >> on something that barack obama has done up to this point in his presidency that you think has improved -- >> he has strengthened our alliances with all of asia, particularly with southeast asia, such that we are now present, none other than yew said the united states is not there. we're there, we're committing, we're working on a trade agreement, we're actively present in east asia in a way that george bush was not, and i want to answer specifically your point. you are said that the world order than the united states and canada and all the allies in world were ii built are at risk.

george w. bush did more to do in that against the will of the skufrt council and pretty much the world than anyone else. barack obama has systematically rebuilt the trust of the world in our willingness to work through these councils and other institutions. >> that's nonsense. first of all, i do think that everyone should know that everyone on this stage supported the iraq war. fareed, anne-marie, bret, and i. okay? as long as we're talking about the iraq war, but in terms of him systematically rebuilding, you must not talk to anybody in the world, any of our allies, in order to believe that. if you talk to japanese officials, they are worried about the extent of america's commitment. if you talk to officials in saudi arabia, in the uae, in israel, they are worried. sikorski, the polish foreign minister, they don't say these

things publicly so it's not too easy to find it, but he said it on the telephone, he said the american guarantee is worthless. that's our polish friend. >> the europeans -- >> what did he say? >> he said it's [ bleep ]. >> i don't like to use that kind of language in a friendly debate. >> fareed. >> this is one of the things dick cheney has been saying for a while. when he goes abroad, all his friends tell him that the united states can't be trusted. and of course, that's true. the monarchs of saudi arabia and the united arab emirates live fat off the hog from u.s. security are terrified we're actually asking them to protect themselves so they sent in a few fighter planes to fight isis, tugging at our coattails for the most part. the number of senior officials who had a cozy administration with the past administrations feel that way. let's look at japan, if i may,

since you brought it up. 25% under bush trust the u.s. president. 60% under barack obama. you can make these kind of, you know, you can pull these arguments out of yourhat, but where you say the world has lost faith in obama, we actually have very good data on this. the real question, you asked a wonderful question right here, what would you like to see instead? we know the one administration bob did not have many objections to was the bush administration, and he -- >> the bush administration? i had the same objections you had, fareed. >> but he loved the aggressiveness, he loved the expansionism, he loved the high gem mini. bob's problem with the syrian intervention is that it is 23409 vigorous enough. the problem is not barack obama has invaded syria, he needs to do it more wholeheartedly, lots of troops, more ground forces like we did iraq and that worked

out so well. yes, i was one of the people who thought getting rid of saddam hussein was a good idea but $2 trillion, 175,000 troops, 5,000 troops dead and 400,000 iraqis dead and wounded later. i learned something and i don't want to replicate that lesson in syria, the neighboring country. >> you're applauding because it's fun and because it's easy to switch the subject. they would like nothing more to make -- than to make this debate a referendum on the bush administration. you notice how we've somehow slowly worked our way into a conversation about bush. this is not a -- >> wait. >> you can't -- i mean, who are we comparing him to? >> we have 43 predecessors to barack obama. surely you can find a george h.w. bush or ronald regan or other presidents who proved they

were able to be effective. now when it comes to military intervention, again, i would love to just quote a little piece here from ann marie's piece because it's so wonderful. >> vote her way in the vote. >> this is just the irony because i think she should really be -- she secretly -- she was type cast on your side of the debate but she has a kind of split personality here and i'm just bringing the other -- the hawkish side of her out where she talks about together with as many countries as will cooperate we can use force to operate. aerial bombardment would still likely continue via helicopter but such a strike would announce immediately that the game has changed. after the strike the u.s., france and brittain should ask the security council's approval of the action taken as they did after nate tows' intervention in kosovo. the hard military strike that

you want to carry out against the assad regime. i couldn't agree with you more, ann marie. this is -- you've heard this quote before. it deserves to be said again. as daniel patrick moynihan said, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, they're not entitled to their own facts. to make the case that this administration has pushed its democratic allies in congress to bring about a free trade agreement is simply not true. the free trade agreement, free trade agenda under obama has been dead and by ann marie's own admission earlier, maybe now that republicans, free-trading republicans are running congress, maybe something will be done. the suggestion that our allies, japan and south korea, are reassured by the united states again is false. interesting story in the jap japanese newspaper not long ago. because of the military cuts in the united states we will have a

four-month stretch where there is no u.s. air craft carrier in the western pacific. why is japan -- by the way, why is japan building -- >> last word. >> why is japan building a nuclear plutonium facility for $21 billion that will produce 9 tons of weapons usable plutonium a year if they are not having serious doubts about the reliability of barack obama's security guarantees? why would they spend the money? >> yes. >> okay. >> turn to ann marie so you can have you respond and, fareed, you'll get a follow-up. >> i will be completely frank. when i was originally asked to be on this side of this debate i did wonder because i have been very, very vocal, as you've heard, on -- in terms of what i think this -- the obama administration should have done in syria, and i don't think they responded correctly, but when i

thought about it, when i really thought about it, i said, wait a minute, i disagree with this president on a number of issues, but do i actually think he's made the world a more dangerous place? no, i don't. in the first place, most of the things we're describing, like china rising, which is why japan is really nervous, happens completely independently of barack obama. the question is, what does he do in response. the answer is he at least tries to get a trade agreement which is certainly more than any other president. >> he does not. >> he launched the pcc and he launched it in europe. he's pushing it. he was waiting to do it from the beginning. >> when was the last time barack obama gave a major foreign policy address saying, my fellow americans, like bill nafta? he didn't because he capitulated the labor backed allies in congress. that's what happens. cite me the speech where he stood up as clinton did or

al gore. he sent him to debate what's his name, ross perot on the giant sucking sound. he has not. he has simply not -- >> he has been -- >> we have this fantasy, you all have this fantasy about barack obama. he was the savior. he was a jesus. you have the feeling. but it didn't work out. >> brett -- >> brett is now sounding like the college republican at the cocktail party that you're trying to move away from. look, i wanted to -- by the way, since we're at it, i haven't mentioned this, but i have a reading suggestion for you if you're enjoying this debate. brett has a book out, american retreat, the new isolationism in the coming disorder. wonderfully written, vivid. it has all the things you look for in a good work of fiction.

i really suggest -- i really suggest that you pick it up on your next long beach vacation. but what i was going to actually say is this, let's try to broaden this topic out one beat, which is foreign policy surely is also about rebuilding american strength because i think all of us would agree, the only way the united states can play the pivotal role that we wanted to play is for it to be fundamentally strong at home, particularly economically. and here we have a good control experiment again. europe, the united states, japan, the three large industrial events and blocks coming out of the great recession. the obama administration in coordination with the federal reserve had an aggressive monetary response, an aggressive fiscal response and an aggressive regulatory response, by which i mean the banks were given a stress test until we basically made them more like canadian banks. the three things worked

brilliantly. the united states is the strongest economy out of the -- this great recession. there is no question on this front. you ask any economist in the world to judge the performance of those three blocks and it is clear that because of public policy the united states has come out of the global financial crisis in much better shape. it has also come out because of other public policies where, again, the obama administration deserves some credit, for example, fracking, but leave those aside. the fundamental reality of where the united states stands economically compared with a europe that is disunited, dysfunctional and now stripping into its third recession with a japan that continues to try to simply monitor stimulus because it doesn't have the guts to do the other hard things it has to do, with a united states that is demographically, economically in energy terms vibrant, this isn't at the end of the day what isn't going to allow the united states to power forward --

>> that's not the post american world anymore? >> if you read the book, bob -- >> i read the book. >> the united states was going to be the most powerful country in the 21st century by far. >> that must be what the post american world means. >> the question we have to ask ourselves is are we strengthened by more interventions, your question. i will tell you one of the things i think obama has done in solid terms that he deserves a lot of credit for is being somewhat restrained in terms of the foolish adventurism, the misguided adventurism that has taken place. he takes a page from dwight eisenhower. eisenhower is asked by the french, prit tisch and israelis to intervene in the suez. there are reports that the french asked him to use nuclear weapons. he was asked by the taiwanese twice during the straits crisis to intervene, he said no. at the time people like bob

kagan -- >> people like hillary and eisenhower. >> my god, that's what i call power. >> people like bob kagan. dwight eisenhower. the reality is these were wise exercises in restraint. sometimes as all of you in business know, saying no is the hardest thing to do and obama has said no in many, many important cases. >> by the way, the policies of eisenhower was to cut the legs out from all of our allies which i'm sure you know, fareed, from your historical knowledge. i hesitate to keep quoting ann marie but -- >> just vote with her, bob, that's all we ask. >> here's what i really think. i think this has all been quite unfair. we basically have been asking -- he's an extremely formidable person, but we've been asking fareed essentially to hold up this argument all by himself -- >> i'm doing fine. >> -- since effectively ann marie should have been on our side as she originally thought. let me read you something that

ann marie wrote in april 2014. the solution to the crisis in ukraine lies in part in syria. it is time for u.s. president barack obama to demonstrate that he can order the offensive use of force, close your ears, fareed, please close your ears, another intervention, the offensive use of force in circumstances other than secret drone attacks or covert operations. the result will change the strategic calculus not only in damascus but also in moscow, not to mention beijing and tokyo. another statement that -- >> he's doing it now so putin must be trembling because obama has now, what is it, 400, 500 strikes in syria. whether or not the world starts quaking. >> let's talk about something for a second. we've been talking about putin and i think it's worth talking about. ann marie is exactly right, that putin went into crimea because of what happened toian know could he vich in ukraine. the question is what about since

then? the point of ann marie's piece about syria was how do you deter putin from going further than he had already gone? fareed is talking about all the incredible suffering that the russian economy is going through and certainly it is, the only problem is, every day put continue continues to pour weapons into ukraine, continues to pour troops into ukraine in violation of his own agreement and the west only response is possibly we'll think about more sanctions in a few weeks. we couldn't be bothered to provide the ukrainians with some capacity to defend themselves, some weaponry, some training? that is -- that is the least that we ought to be able to do to help ukraine not intervene, not put troops on the ground. >> let's stop a second here. it's great. i'm not doing any work tonight and i love that. you guys are doing a fabulous job. i think ann marie has a right to respond. >> two seconds. >> remember when woody allen says -- he has all the theories

about marshall mcclune here. he can answer these questions. and marshall mcclune says, you are an idiot. you know nothing of my work. ann marie. >> ann marie, answer to this group. is the response to the obama administration to putin's aggression sufficient? >> yes. >> you didn't answer. >> yes. >> let her answer. >> yes. so this was about syria. so -- i mean, we're all here in a debate and we actually believe in reasoned deliberation and we believe that if you hear facts and well-expressed opinions based on facts, it can change your mind. that is the premise of this evening. i knew you would quote that against me and i did believe it when i wrote it. i absolutely thought this is critical in terms of sending a message to putin.

i have since spent half the summer talking to russian experts talking about what in fact is driving putin and i absolutely think at this point that had we done what i was suggesting, it wouldn't have changed putin's calculation. >> so don't do what you're suggesting now. >> no. >> wait a minute. >> but equally -- equally importantly, it might have changed -- it might well have tore pea deed our negotiations with iran. much as we should be actings differently, i fully understand barack obama's calculus that says this is the single most important thing in the region and i am not going to do anything that gets the iranians -- that strengthens iranian hard liners and jeopardizes this deal. i might make a different decision, but i respect that as a foreign policy calculation that is absolutely focused on an extremely dangerous threat and he is in that way certainly not

enticing putin to do things that putin wouldn't otherwise do and he may well be playing for what is the biggest success of all. >> can i -- >> yeah. >> i just want to step back for a moment to syria. first, i want to take a further step back and just a clarification for the record because fareed said something that was very hurtful to me and also quite frankly hip critical, okay? i was certainly no college republican. i voted for bill clinton in my first election. fareed, fareed was head of the party of the right at yale. >> true. true. >> he's the college republican. more substantively. more substantively. >> true. >> what we're talking about here, ukraine, syria, iraq, we're talking about intervention, and let's be intelligent adults. there are some interventions that work, there are some interventions that fail. you have to as a leader be

pragmatic, prudential, think things through, and every president should do that when confronted with various crises, when you don't interfere in say a sudan but you do interfere in a somalia, for example. for better or for worse. now let's think about syria. for the first six months of the syrian uprising when we failed to lift a finger, when the united states failed to even call for assad's removal there were peaceful -- it was an almost entirely peaceful up rising of syrian citizens saying enough to their tyranny, an effort to replicate what had happened in tahrir square in egypt which has inspired the world. only then did elements of syrian civil society responding to massive brutality by the assad regime start forming a free syrian army.

we refused to support them because we said, we don't know who these people are. it's all very complicated. obama, after all, liked to say that he was the man who ended wars, he didn't start wars. so things became worse. next thing you know you have 10,000, 50,000, 100,000, 200,000 human beings slaughtered. nothing happens. 1,000 people are killed in a saran gas attack and we said, that is our red line. guess what, now you're going to talk about we removed a lot of the chemical weapons. there are still chemical weapons in syria by the admission of the u.n. organization or the n.g.o. that is responsible for this. in the meantime, the tragedy of the syrian people, why we have not intervened, has been extended to a million refugees in jordan and the security of jordan as a state. another million in lebanon. 2 million in turkey.

the rise of isis. the mere collapse of the iraqi state. its division into fears of evil between hesbollah and it's easy and fareed will play the trumpet. there are consequences, he's right, but there are consequences to nonintervention. do yourselves, it's a brutal favor, but do it. look at the pictures of the syrians who have been starved to death by the assad regime while we sat on our hands and talked about the possibility -- the difficulties of any kind of interventions. syria has gone from a local crisis to an international catastrophe because we wouldn't intervene. >> okay. so, fareed, in the conscience of time you can have the last word on this section of the debate

and then we're going to move into closing statements. >> i think it's a fundamental misreading of syria to look at it as a tale of democrats rising up against a dictatorial regime and being able to support them. syria is really the third of the three great minority regimes that existed in the middle east. the first was the christians in lebanon. in the 1970s what happened is you began to see a mass uprising against that minority regime. it turned into a brutal 15-year civil war. one out of every 20 lebanese were killed and finally war weary, they came to a deal which has held in fragile ways, but it has held. the second great minority of the middle east was iraq. we kindly got rid of the sunni minority but they fought back in an insurgency which continues to this state. iraq is the second most violent place in the world and it's had huge consequences.

syria is the third. 12% alawites ruling over 85% sunnis. what you are seeing is exactly that rebalancing take place. it has now turned into a ferocious sectarian conflict but it is at its heart, it always was. he was an alawite that had brutally suppressed the sunnis. that opposition had become violent and highly religious from the 1980s. remember the hamas massacre which took place 25 years ago. that process bubbled up again and what we are now witnessing is the result of that. it is a 20 corner civil war and we in america are sure that, a, there are good guys there somewhere, b, we know who they are, c, we can find them, support them, and they will win and, d, they will set up aever zonian democracy at the end of this whole process. i think this is unlimited. i met with the political wing of

the free syrian army two years ago in istanbul. a lovely man who talked about an open pluralistic syria in which everyone would participate. it was heartening to hear him. i asked him, when were you last in syria? he said, not for a while. i said, when? . 31 years ago. where do you live? stockholm. he's a scholar, a very good one, i gather. that's the problem with the moderate syrians. it's not that they're not moderate, not really syrian. the current head of the syrian opposition has not been there in 24 years. he was an engineer. so my point is -- >> can i jump in. >> the point that's been made many times is that the syrians are getting killed, it's their own damn fault. >> no. no, no, bob. >> it's none of our business. >> i'll tell you a wonderful example of how we've helped. if we had a lot of troops there

we could establish some order, we could try to help create and help support a government, a moderate government, the good guys. well, we did that in iraq, right? we had 175,000 troops. we supported the government there. we thought we had political stability and power sharing deals, and here's what happened in iraq. these are the pictures you should also take a look at. 2.5 million people fled iraq never to return. 200,000 to 300,000 people died. christian iraq has essentially been extinguished. something like 500,000 christians have fled iraq. that all happened while we were there occupying the country. so now we're sure that the solution to syria is that we do another one of those because that's going to make it work, and i only ask you, don't we ever learn something from those pictures of the iraqis who have been killed, maimed, wounded, dispossessed, in large part because of the misadventures of

american intervention? >> we're now going to move to closing statements, 6:00 each. i'm going to change up the order because fareed just spoke. ann marie you're going to go first with your closing statements. we're going to give you three minutes on the clock starting now. >> okay. so, debates are funny and whitey and we've heard lots of reparte and lots of laughs but there are actually some very serious issues at stake here. i agree more with brett on syria than i do with fareed, but fareed and i have debated this issue repeatedly, and there's no certainty. it's all -- as fareed says, if we intervened, we might well end up with an iraq. if we intervened we might well

end up at war directly with iran. there are arguments on both sides. which way you come out can be a prudent decision that you don't want to take that risk or a more risk acceptance position that you're going to try because you believe in the end it may, it may make a positive difference for the syrian people. our opponents have an old-fashioned view of history, a great man view of history, a view of history that says once bismarck was dead, then world war i broke out because kaja wilhelm was instrumental in bringing it out. or nevil could have stopped hitler. i'm not sure that was ever an honest account of history, but i am very sure it does not apply today. we are no longer in a world where you can plot out moves

states men to states men like a chess board. we are an extraordinarily complex world, a world in which we have government, individuals, networks, corporations all jumbled together in ways that make it almost impossible to predict what is going to happen if you take a certain move. in that world barack obama is playing a prudent hand. he knows maybe he could deter putin and maybe he could put the world at the brink of nuclear war. i do not think you can blame him for making the world more dangerous because he decides not to risk nuclear war or to risk war with iran in the middle east. you can say he may not have made the world a safer place or as safe a place as he would like it, but i put to you, you cannot charge him with having brought about the dangers that we find

ourselves in because he has emboldened our enemies. thank you. >> concise and powerful closing statement. bob kagan, you're up next. >> okay. look. i'm not going to quote ann marie. that's my first contribution. i'm going to play a little game with you. when the president of the united states draws a red line, the credibility of the country is dependent on him backing up his word. who said that? >> ronald regan. >> leon panetta. secretary of defense of president obama. here's another quote. i think when we stepped out of iraq, in many ways we created this vacuum in which not a lot of attention was paid to what was happening in iraq or what

was happening in syria with the extremists who were developing a base of operations there and that combination, i think, is what produced the isis that we're confronting today. leon panetta. great nations need organizing principles and don't do stupid stuff, which is also fareed's approach to the world, is not an organizing principal. this is like wait, wait, don't tell me. do you listen to that? i can actually ask fareed to go on and on. there's been an extraordinary thing that happened over the course of this obama administration. senior officials, cabinet officials, bob gates effectively a nonpartisan government servant who served presidents i believe going back to nixon and was named barack obama's secretary

of defense, leon panetta, a democrat's democrat, long-time democrat in the house named as secretary of defense. hillary clinton, not anyone's idea of a college republican. secretary of state. civil servants, foreign service officers that ann marie knows well like robert ford, frederick hoff who were the syrian experts for the obama administration, when they left this administration they all did something extraordinary. they really laid out some very serious critiques of how this administration -- how president obama handled foreign policy. very strong critiques, and you know they were accused of disloyalty. i don't know how you can accuse him of disloyalty. given this team of analysts that was created. they all effectively criticized

in very strong terms president obama's leadership. what explains it? what explains it is their interest is the united states playing a better and more effective role in the world. they were willing to come out and criticize their own president in order to make that point. listen to them more than you listen to us. >> fareed, your closing statement. three minutes is up on the clock. >> you know, i want to just reiterate something that ann marie said. this is important. this is not -- i mean, we've all had a lot of fun and it's been a great pleasure and i've been outed as a college republican. i wasn't actually a republican because i wasn't a sit sen of the united states. what i want to talk about is the world that robert kagan and

brett stevens wants. i think that's a world that we all believe has been vastly beneficial for the united states, for canada, but for by and large the whole world. it's allowed the transformation i talked about in latin america. the question is the image you should think about is franklin roosevelt. after winning decisively in world war ii decides that he wants to create the united nations, an institution in which all countries will be represented and try to make a systematic and institutionalized effort to produce a new kind of global politics in which other countries are respected, their vows heard, and that is really what the united states has at its core been trying to do since 1945. it's not really because the united states has gone into lots of third world countries and intervened and beaten up people

and killed leaders that global order has been secured, it is because of this positive vision of building institutions of peace and prosperity that the united states has been able to preside over this world. and a crucial part of that has been an element of restraint that the united states has had, not using its awesome powers to get its way on everything. trying to do things multi-laterally. trying to find ways to do things diplomatically rather than militarily. that has been so much a part of the american tradition. yes, the united states has intervened in some places. by the way, it is not clear to me that sending half a million troops into vietnam really held -- upheld the global order, but it is clear to me that creating the u.n., the world bank, the imf, the bretton wood system, the world trade organization, all those institutions have been a crucial part of it. what obama represents really is that liberal international tradition. i think it should find a voice

in canada because you understand it. look at how you responded to this recent horrible terrorist attack. you were resilient, you bounced back. you didn't go in and invade two countries. god knows you've got a pretty good army. it is that kind of restraint. it is that kind of sober-minded, sensible, intelligent foreign policy that obama represents. so i guess what i'm telling you is he's sort of a closet canadian. vote for him for god's sake. >> brett stevens, you're going to get the final word in this epic debate. >> last i checked canadian cf 18s were bravely joining coalition forces to bomb isis. i commend canada for being such a core member of a western alliance which has held peace, prosperity and freedom for the past 70 years. now fareed mentioned my book,

and i'm glad you are enjoying it so much. i want to talk a little bit about what my book is about, because what's clear to us here is that the united states needs to find a goldilocks recipe between the axis of idealism which typified, say, johnson in vietnam, george w. bush in iraq, trying to be the world's priests, to change hearts, to save souls, to make the world safe for democracy, that wilsonian tradition. then what i would call the cold hearted realism and the timidity that has typified the obama administration. you've heard a wonderful universe described today about this peaceful world where only -- our only problems are sort of in the middle east. there's that little thing in ukraine but, you know, whatever. air defense, investigation zones, south china sea,

whatever. it's a scary world. how do we chart a course between the bush axises and the lack of imagination, vision, courage, and initiative that i think is typified the obama administration? that's what my book is about. now, something amazing happened in america in the last 25 years. what happened is our crime rate, our murder rates which were so staggeringly high in the 1970s and 1980s went down. they went down because american police departments adopted what was known as broken windows policing. they observed that if a single window was broken in a neighborhood, it's a sign that nobody's in charge, and so it's an invitation to break all the rest of the windows and to create disorder. disorder, criminality, they're not just causal, they're environmental. the argument i would make to you tonight is that something like that is happening in the world, too. there were no consequences for

assad in syria. there were no consequences, really, for putin in georgia or in ukraine, and the rogues of the world sense that we now live in a place, where no one's in charge, where the united states is afraid to intervene in all circumstances and they can do what they want. we're entering into a broken windows world. we need a foreign policy that understands that the role of the great power is to maintain order as a policeman, not as a priest. to be the man on the corner who is reassuring the good, deterring the tempted and punishing the wicked. i look forward to a president who does that. >> strong closing statements, all. debaters, wow, what a meaty, significant, and important debate we've had tonight. let's give them a big round of applause.

fabulous discussion. and, again, a big thank you to the aurea foundation. this is our 14th consecutive discussion. all here in toronto. peter, mallory, thank you, guys. great to do this again. okay. now, the piece de resistance this evening, the second audience vote. before you go out and do that as a group, we're going to review, again, how you voted at the beginning of tonight's debate. so the supports, agree/disagree on the motion. i call that a split house, 43/57, bit of support there on the concede. then the percentage that would change their minds, sky high. i've never seen that before here at the munk debate.

this room is really in play tonight. and the final outcome, ladies and gentlemen, your hands is in the ballots that's attached to each of your programs. for those of you watching online, you can vote on our app wwwmunkdebates/vote. let's go to the lobby and we'll release the results shortly after 9:00 p.m. ladies and gentlemen, thanks for a great debate. >> thank you, guys. ♪ ♪ ♪

tonight from the white house, president obama is expected to announce that he may issue executive orders to allow between 4 and 5 million undocumented immigrants to remain in the united states. we will have live coverage of the president's comments at 8:00 p.m. eastern on cspan, cspan radio and cspan.org and follow that with your reaction as well. on this morning's washington journal we spoke to the head of the national constitution center about possible congressional and legislative reaction. >> jeffrey rosen joining us on

the phone. he's with the national constitution center. he's a george washington university law professor. mr. rosen, good morning. >> good morning. >> how did the constitution provide for what president obama is about to do tonight? >> the constitution gives the president executive power. defenders say this has been understood to give him a lot of discretion about how to allocate law enforcement resources. the supreme court in a case in 2012 called arizona versus u.s. recognized that the president does have broad executive discretion and they said this is an inherent constitutional power. the court said that a principal feature of the removal system, decision to remove immigrants, is a broad discretion exercised by officials who must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. now the case on the other side says that the president has an obligation to take care of it that the laws are faithfully

executed, that he can't pick and choose among the kinds of laws to enforce or the numbers of immigrants to deport. the critics say that it's true that presidents ronald regan and george h.w. bush had temporary stopgap deferrals in deportation but that's different than complete decision to giver amnesty and, therefore, this is a violation of the take care clause. we can talk about the options for the senate -- for the president's gop critics, which may be limited, but broadly those are the arguments on both sides. >> as far as legal challenges, how does history tell us about these type of decisions, executive action, and how they've stood up to legal scrutiny? >> well, it's a pretty tough road because, first of all, it's hard to find people who have what's called so-called legal standing to bring the suit. there are a bunch of options and the constitution center's great blog daily, constitution center.org lays them out today.

first the president could turn to the supreme court. senator rand paul said they might do that, but it's very rare that the court intervenes in disputes between the president and congress like this and it could take a long time. the house could file a lawsuit as it's trying to do on several fronts. the states could sue president obama. maybe the most immediate possibility is the house could try to defund the parts of the government that implement actions demanded by the executive order. that's under the gop's power of the person in the house. congress could try to repeal the executive order but that would be tough because it needs 2/3 vote to override a veto. finally the nuclear option is impeachment which seems to be off the table at the moment. broadly those are the six options. >> so you talked about republican responses. what are you hearing from the approaches that possibly might take on the republican side here in congress and as far as a strategy, what do you think of them? >> well, i think people are waiting to hear exactly what the

president's legal justification is tonight and the administration's expected to be pretty strong and to say really there's no wiggle room here because the statute itself allows discretion. the key words in the statute are any alien in and admitted to the united states shall upon the order of the attorney general be removed if it's within a number of classes and the key case according to the president's defenders is the alien shall be removed but only if the attorney general orders it but if he doesn't then they don't have to be removed. but i think as the house lawsuit against the president in the area suggests, they want to press this legally if possible. the success of the latest challenge to the affordable care act suggest that even legal theories seem a little adventurous in the courts so i

would imagine we will be seeing a lot of lawsuits filed pretty soon. >> jeffrey rosen anything about this lawsuit you want to add as well aside from the conversation we've been having, things that our audience may find interesting? >> it's a wonderful example that there are arguments on both sides and i would invite people to visit constitution.org and hear the liberal scholars debate the constitutional aspects. >> jeffrey rosen with the national constitution center. also george washington university. thanks for the perspective. david cohen, the under secretary of treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence says they're able to combat isis. later former government officials and experts testify before the house financial services committee about treasury's efforts and outlined additional steps that could be taken. representative jeb henselman chairs the committee.

the committee will come to order. without objection the chair's authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. before we begin, if you think you are in a strange room, you are. we did not change the portraits. as i've announced previously to the committee, our hearing room i think is the last hearing room in the rayburn building to receive a sound upgrade and other modifications to make the room ada compliant. so as a reminder to all members, we will be a nomadic tribe between now and theoretically the end of march. we hope that doesn't mean mid may. we will take whatever committee room our friends will allow us

to have so if you see chairman shuster on the floor, please thank him for his kindness in allowing our committee to use his committee room. i wish to advise members who are unaware, we have two panels today. we will coordinate meetings for the congress that are ensuing. we'll release the administration witness, secretary cohen. at noon. the second panel at that time and then the hearing will be gavelled down at 1:00. please know this will be our first hearing on this vitally important topic. it will not be our last in the next congress. ask questions. if need be, we'll have witnesses

back in the future. at least for those on the republican side of the aisle, the panel has gbegun. those that didn't have the opportunity to ask questions. the first panel, we will start with you on the second panel. i now wish to recognize myself for 1 minute for an opening statement. the 9/11 commission estimated that al qaeda's brutal evil attack on 9/11 cost the terrorists approximately a half a million dollars. so for half a million dollars terrorists were able to murder almost 3,000 of our fellow country men and inflict immeasurable suffering upon our nation. today we face another terrorist enemy for which half a million dollars appears to be pocket change. an organization that reportedly

raises between 1 and $2 million a day. and unlike al qaeda and other terrorist groups with which we are familiar and rely mainly on private donations in state sponsorship to fund their activities, isil is almost internally financed, rather, and apparently is sitting in assets of almost $2 billion. so today's hearing continues this committee's ongoing efforts to ensure our government is doing everything possible to stop the islamic state from using that. it will demand constant innovation. the tools we have used in the past may not be suitable from all the witnesses on what may be necessary to upgrade, innovate and improve our capabilities.

>> thank you very much, mr. chairman, for scheduling today's hearing. i would like to thank undersecretary colin and each of our witnesses for being here today. i'm looking forward to hearing about the administration's efforts to degrade isil's financial capability and to review the effectiveness of our current legal framework in deterring terrorists, financing and money laundering. the islamic state also known as isil or isis is an incredibly violent organization that has shown a particularly calloused disregard for human life, employing shocking tactics, that include beheading, mass murder and rapes and more recently allegations of chemical weapons

use. it's a destabilizing force along large swathes of iraq and syria and its brutal campaigns have approximately drawn the condemnation appropriately -- appropriately drawn the condemnation of the broader international community. in addition to the horrific massacres, kidnappings and decapitations, officials believe that isil is one of the richest terrorist groups to ever exist with estimated assets in excess of a billion dollars. unlike most other terror groups which tend to rely heavily on foreign sponsors, isil raises its funds internally limiting the opportunities traditionally available to the treasury department to cut them off from the formal financial system regardless. treasury's ability to sanction and block assets remains vital to ensure that over the long run the united states and our allies could shut downie funds to have

oil sales and kidnapping foran some. as we make progress in curtailing isil's funding schemes, it may be forced to rely heavily on types of funding that would most likely have to flow through the formal financial system. to guard against this and all other efforts to finance terrorist activities, treasury, our financial regulators, the department of justice as well as congress must work diligently to strengthen the enforcement and deterrent value of our -- of our counter terrorism and antimoney laundering laws. due to concerns that the department of justice and regulators have not met the task of holding banks and their executives sufficiently accountable for blatant violations of law designed to stop the flow of funds to terrorist groups, i joan with my democratic colleagues earlier this congress in introducing

legislation that will close loopholes, encourage the flow of information related to illicit activity and strengthen civil powers to hold bank executives accountable for their role in safeguarding our national security among other things. so i hope that as part of this committee's discussion of the adequacy of international banking policy we take a hard look at the proposal that democrats have put forth but has yet to be considered by this committee. i yield back the balance of my time. >> chair recognizes the view of our subcommittee. mr. garrett for one minute. >> i thank the chairman for holding this important hearing today on terrorist financing and isis. isis inherits the rightful claim to the evil legacies of senseless brutality and inhumanity. there's no doubt that if given the opportunity at this point, isis would try to harm americans here in the homeland. as a member of congress who represents the district across

from the river what once was the world trade center twin towers, i know that we cannot be cavalier about security threats such as isis. you be for unfortunately, our commander? chief hasn't appreciated this. i am concerned how seriously our commander in chief, president obama, has taken this threat, so i look forward to today's hearings and today's witnesses including an administration official. i hope to get a better understanding of what has been done and what must be done to not only to degrade but actually to eliminate this terrorist threat. thank you, mr. chairman. >> chair now recognizes gentleman from california, mr. sherman for 1:30. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i spent a substantial amount of time on these issues at our terrorism and nonproliferation subcommittee over on foreign affairs. we've learned that qatar is a major source of funds, both at the governmental level but also allowing its citizens to donate

to his bola, hamas and isis. isis is now much more internal funded at one point it relied more on donations. we -- there are those that attack the president's -- who i think have an overly simplistic view of the situation. isis is evil. many of isis's enemies are just as evil and more dangerous than isis. given this complicated circumstance, simplistic attacks on policy don't really further the -- our situation. i'm concerned that the electricity continues to be on in all the cities that isis controls. this means that either we are providing that electricity from damts under the control of the iraqi government or we are allowing isis to operate electric generation facilities. either way, isis is able to celek trelectricity because we'

unwilling to turn the lights off. we live under isis's rule or to some extent hostages and to some extent supporters of isis. we did not hesitate to bomb strategic targets and occupy europe and we can't be afraid to do that in northern iraq and eastern syria. finally, we've learned that the control of the new york fed and its ability to clear dollar transactions is perhaps the most powerful sanction that we have against terrorist states like iran and i'll be interested to see whether that would play a role in isis. in any case, it has brought iran to the point where they're willing to pretend to negotiate with us in geneva. i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the vais chairman of our oversight investigation subcommittee. mr. fitzpatrick for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this past month i had the

opportunity to travel to the region to investigator ror financing. meetings in qatar and turkey to round out my understanding of terror financing and specifically the threat posed by isis. i look forward to working with my colleagues on this committee to provide oversight over the government's response to isis and ensure that we have all of the tools necessary to meet this very unique challenge. isis is an enemy unlike any other that we've faced up to this point. they have their roots in al qaeda and iraq, they've not only learned from their previous experiences, they have in fact evolved into not just an organization committed to acts of terrorism but have designs on establishing their own state and are, in fact, currently governing a large area in the region. the structure creates a unique challenge. while that means we traditional employ to combat terrorist threats to go after their money and resources.

this mission to degrade and defeat isis, this requires action between the legislative and executive branches. it transcends all other considerations and i look forward to hearing how we can work together to protect the american people. i yield back. >> chair now recognizes gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, for 1:30. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to thank the secretary and the other panelists for working with the committee in helping us with our work. as co-chair of the congressional task force on anti-terrorism financing along with my colleague, mr. king from new york who's the republican co-chair, we've done a lot of work in this area and the traditional sense where we're trying to block terrorist organizations from using the legitimate financial system. this problem presents a different type of issue where a lot of revenue are being -- is being generated internally by

isis and it's a totally different scale. we're talking 1 to $2 million a year as the chairman -- excuse me, 1 to $2 million a day in terms of their revenue. i would be very interested in hearing from the secretary on what we're doing in turkey along the border, the northern border of syria there. like my colleague, i just came back from irbil and look at the situation in northern iraq as well as in turkey and we're very concerned about the poorest natun -- porous nature of that border and how shipments are being handled through turkey and parts of syria. so i'll be interested in hearing the secretary's comments on that. i do want to -- i do want to say thank you for the work you've done so far. i think it's been commendable in

terms of the anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist work that you've done. thank you. >> chair now recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. ross, for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. i also want to thank or distinguished panelists for their testimony today. as you pointed out, mr. chairman, it costs the terrorists who targeted and murdered thousands of american citizens on 9/11 $500,000 to plan their attack. in a single day isil brings in that amount in illicit business practices. we must dismantle and destroy this terrorist organization before more american lives are put at risk. they tax and extofrt local businesses and kidnap foran some. is sill is an organization that has numerous resources. i look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure the federal government uses every tool at its disposal to prevent

is sill and all terrorist groups to provide the funds to continue their rein of terror. i yield back. >> yields back. the chair rec >> the chair yields back with the gentle late from ohio. >> we have an important topic in the united states known how the terrorist group grown as i till obtains and deploys resources to further their operations in iraq, syria and the mideast. each night we turn on the news and find reports of isil's acts against religious minorities, women, aid workers and journalists. this must stop and the financing is the kill switch. the military is supporting aid to moderate rebels and legitimate governments, we must also highlight the efforts of

other agencies within the administration and how they eradicate isil. attempting to choke off sources in related organizations. mr. chairman and my other colleagues here, i look forward to working with you because the hearing on this topic not only protects our financial interest, but national security interest as well. thank you and i yield back. >> the chairman recognizes the gentlemen from indiana for one minute. >> thank you for calling this important hearing. mr. chairman, islamic state is one of the most well armed and well financed terror organizations the world has seen. they are potentially the most barbaric as well using tactics that include torture and beheading american people james foley and since 2013, they

recruited thousands of fighters and swept through iraq and syria taking over cities and killing thousands of people who do not conform to their ways. it is reported that the state controls around 60% of the oil fields that are bringing in massive revenues. one of the most effective ways they disrupted terrorists in the past is to cutoff financing limiting their ability to plot and plan attacks. multiple revenue streams and the ability to spend money may require new tactics. i'm looking forward to hearing how they are identifying and blacking financial intermediaries. our current work group and doing all they can to coordinate the effort. i look forward to the conversation. i yield back. >> last but not least the gentlemen from north carolina for minute. >> the threat from isis seems to be growing exponentially and

there were about 15,000 soldiers and between 40 and 80,000 soldiers. we are training right now. the best hope and the best opportunity appears to me to be intercepting from the sale of oil. of course the ex-portion and ransom and other means. another is with data mining upon equipment. also many national software companies and with the very sophisticated software available, i hope the department is making every effort to utilize the software to thank you, i yield back. >> the under secretary for

terrorism in financial intelligence to which he was confirmed in june of 2011. that leads to intelligence functions and identifying the lines of financial support to international terrorist organizations prior to current service. we welcome you and your written statement will be part of the record after oral remarks. you are recognized for the summary of your testimony. >> can you pull the microphone closer to you, please? >> good morning.

>> i thank you for testifying on this important topic. it will undermine isil's financial strength as part of the comprehensive strategy to disrupt, degrade and ultimately defeat isil. not just because of the atrocities, but because it threatens core u.s. interests. isil threatens american personnel and facilities and the regional allies and if left unchecked, it could pose a direct threat to the u.s. homeland. that's why under the leadership of president obama has come to stop this threat. isil has grabbed the world's attention for the astounding brutality, but as this committee knows for substantial wealth. i would like to outline how we are focused on undermining isil's financial foundation. our work is one of several

complimentary lines of effort being undertaken by the coalition. these include military operations and training and additional humanitarian assistance and stemming the flow of fighters into and out of syria and iraq and exposing the hypocrisy of propaganda. the military components are bolstering our work in attacking isil's foundation. as with the rest of the campaign, the efforts to combat financing will take time, patience and collaboration. as long as they terrorize the people and perils the mideast and threatens u.s. interests, we remain committed to the financial strength. the strategy involves three mutually supported elements. the first is to cutoff the main sources of funding. i till raised a significant amount of money from selling oil that it ex-tracks from the fields in iraq and syria.

from mid-june until recently, isil's daily oil revenue was approximately $1 million. it is now likely lower thanks mostly to coalition air strikes. to further disrupt this market, we are targeting anyone who trades in stolen oil. it is true that they move in elicit networks outside of the economy. at some point that oil is acquired by someone who makes use of the financial system and is thus vulnerable to sanctions. we are also working with the turkish and kurdish partners and regional companies to clamp down on isil's smuggling.

we urge them to subscribe to a no ransom policy. re2350uzing to pay ransom to terrorist organizations not only makes it less likely that isn't civilians will be kidnapped, but dedrives terrorists of those critical to deadly aspirations. i till takes in some funds from financial reporters and will continue to target them for tarchgzs. donations will not become a more significant thing to isil as we squeeze other revenues. s the refugee demands cash at gunpoint, shutting down this source of funding ultimately will require breaking i till's hold on territory. treasury still has a crucial roll to play and that brings me to the second element of our strategy. restricting access to the international financial system in order to impair the ability

to collect the funds. to make the most effective use or fundrations depends on the access to the banking system. we are working with the authorities and iraqi banks and international banks and regulators to prevent isil from using branches located in territories where they operate. the third element aims to dismannedle the financial foundation on the leadership and financial facilitators. this will make it harder to conduct activity and clearly identify where they stand behind this evil organization. before concluding, we should not conclude the financial strength. the overall strength turns not just on the income, but also on

the expenses and ability to spend money freely. in that regard, isil faces significant burdens. paying the fighters and attempting to govern territory is expensive and they don't have the monmeet costs. as we make progress in diminishing them, we will exploit this vulnerability. thank you and look forward to addressing your questions. >> the chair recognizes himself for five minutes. secretary, my understanding is that the ability to block terrorist funds derived from executive order 13224 issued by president bush shortly after 9/11 is part of that certain entities and individuals can be designated as specially designated global terrorists. i