The Transatlantic Relationship Has Been Irreparably Damaged

[Music] [Applause] 70 plus years that is how long Europe and the United States have held together one of the most impressive and historic strategic partnerships ever frequently it's been quarrelsome but basically it's been fundamentally a family but might not be about to change in this era of populism taking root in Europe and other places and in the United States some people using the slogan America first or is it fundamentally still sound are the fundamentals still there such as shared values and common interests and most of all trust I'm John Donvan this is intelligence squared us we are at the German Marshall Fund annual Brussels forum we will take on these questions by putting on a debate around this resolution the transatlantic relationship has been irreparably damaged as always our debate will go in three rounds and then the live audience here in Brussels will vote to choose the winner and if all goes well civil discourse will also prove triumphant first let's meet our debaters please ladies and gentlemen welcome Federative bindi Frederator you're a professor at the University of Rome tor vergata a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment director of the foreign policy initiative at the Institution for Women Policy Research you advised four different Italian government so far published a lot of books most recently Europe and America the end of the transatlantic relationship question mark thanks so much for being here with us thank you so much thank you let's meet your partner please welcome ladies and gentlemen Constance steps in with her hi Constance welcome to intelligence squared you're an expert in transatlantic relations German Foreign Policy or a senior fellow at the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings before that you're a senior transatlantic fellow and Berlin office director with the German Marshall Fund it's great to have you here thank you now let's meet the team arguing against the resolution please first welcome John Mearsheimer hi John you've debated with us a few times before so I want to say welcome back glad to be here John you're a professor at University of Chicago a political scientist and New York Times bestselling author your most recent book is the great delusion liberal dreams and international realities John's thanks so much for joining us my pleasure and your partner please ladies and gentlemen welcome Carlin Orlov your author of America's global advantage us hegemony and international cooperation you're an associate professor of political science at University of Toronto you research international cooperation with a special focus on great powers thanks so much for joining us at the Brussels forum thank you here they are ladies and gentlemen the four debaters getting ready to start on this resolution the transatlantic relationship has been irreparably damaged [Applause] let's move on to the debate we go in three rounds and round one is comprised of opening statements that will be made by each debater in turn they will be six minutes each and up to speak first for the resolution the transatlantic relationship has been irreparably damaged federated engi professor at the University of Rome tor vergata the floor is yours thank you so much to John thank you gmf I got you scare Square for having me at scoot Quebec in Brussels and the Brussels Bora I'm humbled honored and it's likely to refight I should say because for the past two days all we have been saying was yes we have problems in the transatlantic relations but we're gonna fix them Constanza myself are gonna argue exactly the country unfortunately this is beyond fixable so what we are gonna do is we split the work little bit I'm gonna dive into the past you know I'm a professor history matters I always tell my students why Constance will dig more into current times so if we look back in perspective in transplanting relations in you u.s. relationship and forgive me if I use you sometimes improperly when I should say easy or easy but if we look back we see highs and lows in the relationship example of the highs are certainly the post-world War two period or the period right after 9/11 the only time article five ever being invoked if we look at the lows certainly the 1970s stand-up Middle East has been an issue of content for long times think are the differences between they are on the arab-israeli war think of without relative little enthusiasm maybe appearance created Camp David but also think of the slowness and difficulties with which Europeans responded to the USSR invasion of Afghanistan or or martial law in Poland or Sigonella or the difference is over Moscow Olympics so there were lots of troubles which of course I know you're thinking see we had troubles before we're gonna fix them once again but no and why is no my opinion it goes back to one special year 1989 so for the little history in 1999 I was an undergraduate at Xian spa one of the very very first Erasmus it was called Erasmus free mover at the time spending the year there I was a special year you know all the unrest that was taking place during the summer in the fall so Xian spa organized these conferences every Thursday afternoon and free grocer who was a specialist or Germany would comment current affairs and it was the night of November 1989 and for those of you who has been has been a chance for imagine than fear a meal bounty two thousand kids packing Nancy and it was about few minutes before 7:00 and that free grocer was finishing his pitch and he said you know maybe maybe in today hits maybe companies won't be there anymore we don't know and in that moment the operator people stayed the door rushed in I said madam is here on Janesville what did on TV immunoglobulin and say we're gonna we're here because the Berlin Wall came down and what came down in that moment was they are feed either you know imagine two thousand kids all nationalities streaming hugging kissing the Germans were crying I mean I still have goosebumps when I think about it it was by all means the defining political event of a generation one that changed up forever and then I went on and I went to do my PhD a DUI and I started teaching American kids in Florence the Queen's were referring to 1989 as the year we won the Cold War what are you talking about there is no winner that's the end of an anomaly in history but then I went to the US and they realize that that was part of a general narrative a narrative on which near home like wall of its or or Perla jumped in to advocate for a new unilateral ward where the polar world where the US the winner of the Cold War would had a right duty to intervene and once they got the chance to go into government with GW they actually enacted that and GW realized that relationship with Europe need to be fixed in his second term but you know bridges had been tear down and then came Obama and remember his triumphal war tour in Europe organized by our former colleague Phil Gordon the Europeans loved Obama but the fact that they loved Obama the person did not mean the loved American policies by that twenty years of rather useless wars had mind what Woodrow Wilson refer to as American morale exceptionalism and what I've never been able to properly explain to my American colleagues and friends it's the American moral exceptionalism the American Dream Hollywood public diplomacy programs like GM s Fulbright the State Department visitors and you Europeans would not be no one those programs raise your hands I mean this is what made us dream about the u.s. this is what fada Morgan inning yesterday refer to as why we got in love with the US the real strength of the US is this imaginary oh and with the words imaginary was no more there and you know with people and in politics alike it takes a lot of work to earn respect ability to earn trust and it takes a chief to lose it and to rebuild it it takes a long time and I'll leave it to my friend Costanza to tell you where we are now thank you very much thank you federal indeed our resolution again is the transatlantic relationship has been irreparably damaged our next debater will be speaking against the resolution please welcome from the University of Toronto professor Carlin Orlov [Applause] thank you very much intelligence square for inviting me to this event and thank you very much to you as well it's a pleasure to be here so we are in strong agreement that the transatlantic relationship is not irreparably damaged I am going to be focusing on the American interests on depending the relationship John will be discussing European interests I think it helps to go back to defining what the transatlantic relationship is it's a political security community as own of peace in which disagreements are settled peacefully without recourse to war the primary institutional expression of this zone of peace of this community is NATO in order for the transatlantic relationship to collapse we basically need to see a collapse of NATO that's not happening president Trump is a threat and has threatened the relationship we do not deny that but he's unlikely to follow through on the most important threats because it's not in the United States interest to do so the the United States has profound security interests in maintaining the relationship NATO isn't a burden it's a pillar of us power NATO is a the blue chip in the United States vast global security network in fact it's one of the primary advantages that the United States has and will have long term against systemic rivals like China and Russia Europeans are also increasingly doing the kinds of things that the United States wants them to do it's increasingly aligning on u.s. foreign policy objectives labeling China a systemic rival for instance ramping up the fight against terrorism increasing defense spending even if President Trump wanted to pull the United States out of NATO Congress his closest advisors overwhelmingly continues to support NATO economically as well there are extraordinarily powerful links between the United States and Europe the United States and Europe are each other's main trade and investment partners in fact it's the largest trade and investment relationship in the world you will say well what about the looming trade war the United States trade deficit with the European Union is 150 billion dollars that's half the size of the United States trade deficit with China it's not worth a trade war especially not one that the United States is unlikely to easily win there's another important wedge issue and it's the Iran nuclear deal crisis which kind of blends economic and security issues Europeans want to maintain the deal the United States wants to abandon the deal and in order to pressure Europeans to abandon the deal the United States has imposed sanctions on Europeans doing business with Iran it's a form of financial deterrence that's extremely if in the short term because the United States can weaponize the dollar centered financial system to advantage in the long term however it's counterproductive it's counterproductive because it discourages the use of dollars and it encourages other countries to devise alternative payment system systems as the Germans have begun efforts to do I also want to talk a little bit in closing about a social interest that the United States has in maintaining this alliance when we talk about the transatlantic relationship we really take for granted that we're talking about America on the one hand and on the other side we're talking about countries north of Spain we're not talking about African countries also facing the Atlantic there's a strong perception of common values and a strong desire to maintain a shared European ancestry and I think that this is a very powerful generator of a we feeling that is essential to keeping this community alive thank you very much reminder of where we are we are halfway through the opening round of this intelligence weird us debate I'm John Donvan we have four debaters two teams of two fighting it out over this resolution the transatlantic relationship has been irreparably damaged you've heard the first two opening statements and now on to the third I give the floor to Constanza stove simular senior fellow at the Brookings Institution thank you very much thanks again for including me in this amazing event of this great lineup it feels disturbingly like a cross between a thesis defense and the NBA Finals so I'll do my best I have been asked here to defend together with my partner Federico bindi the thesis that the transatlantic relationship is irreparable damaged and since this room is full of people who know me I have a confession to make which of course is that I wish it were otherwise how could it be otherwise and I also don't quite think that we're there yet so what I am going to describe to you is my worst case vision of a dawning dystopia of international relations aid is ordering so profound a an unraveling of order so dramatic including its transatlantic pillar that we are incapable of stopping it and incapable of turning it back so let me first review the damage before I explain why this time is different than any other time I see an extraordinary confluence of power failures on both sides of the Atlantic in the United States I see I see high stakes high risk simultaneous brinksmanship s-- on some on several continents at the same time breathtaking on top of that I see a US administration using or threatening instruments of economic coercion tariffs and sanctions like no administration has done before not in this quantity not in this quality not as far as we can see with so little of an ultimate plan and I don't see America winning in fact for now I see it losing what I do see is America alienating its allies and its friends and what I fear ultimately is the undermining of American credibility and American American legitimacy across the globe and that ought to strike fear into all of us now I don't think the European side is much better although I think we have a little less agency than America does still as we saw in the European elections we've managed to keep the populace at bay but barely haven't we their truth is that we have seen this continent in which we stand today gravely weakened shaken by a series of successive crises following the global financial crisis we are divided profoundly within our policies and across Europe on matters of security on matters of Social Welfare on matters of economy economic policy and growth and on matters of immigration I see a Europe that is surrounded by mounting crises and conflict and that appears to me to be speechless and powerless in the face of America first so why is this time different why is this not the same as all the other crises that Federigo just described to us I have three reasons for you my first reason is that the disordering isn't just happening in faraway places of which we know nothing sea levels rising the Seychelles or drug crises in Russian prisons know the disordering is happening at home in our own parties rising social inequality rising economic inequality political polarization and it seems to me a degradation of governance in the places where we feel them closest to home schools hospitals roads bridges and yes of course our national politics let's keep in mind that a German politician was murdered at the beginning of this month the first political murder by right-wing extremists in the history of my country since 1945 my second argument is that I think I see us all paralyzed in face of the authoritarians and the populace not the ones in Brazil and in China but the ones at home who are cheapening denying undermining the fundamental values of representative democracy and a rules-based international order and my third reason and it pains me to say this because i am i have deep affection for the country that i have been living in for the last half decade and I have many American friends in this room but my third reason is that the chief of these challengers is currently president of the United States of America so to conclude my concern is that what we are about to face is what you could call a silent spring of international governance to borrow the title of a very famous book there by the American ecologist Rachel Carson a disordering so profound that we are unable to stop it and unable to turn it back thank you and our final debater in this opening round will be speaking against the resolution Chicago professor John Mearsheimer thank you John what I'd like to do is build on Carla's excellent presentation about the importance of interest by asking a very simple question to start that I think lies at the heart of the revolution resolution and that simple question is what is the glue that holds the transatlantic relationship together what's the glue and our argument is that the principal glue our common interests Carla and I are saying is that the United States on one side and the Europeans on the other side have a common interest in keeping the transatlantic relationship intact now there's no question that values and trust matter they're part of the glue for sure but what really matters the most is the interests of the states that are involved in this relationship interests almost always Trump trusts and values that's because statesmen are mainly concerned with the prosperity and security of their citizens and they will do what is ever necessary to protect those citizens just to give you two examples that highlight the fact that interests Trump things like values in 1941 December 1941 the United States allied itself closely with the murderous regime of Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union why did we do that because it was in our interest for the purpose of defeating Nazi Germany we sacrificed values for interests think about America's relationship today with Saudi Arabia our long-standing relationship with Saudi Arabia is there any country on the planet that has values that are more antithetical to American values I can't think of one maybe North Korea but in the case of Saudi Arabia we have had remarkably close relations with them for a really long time and the question is why and the answer is very simple because it's in our interest why did we lie with Joe Stalin because it was in our interest now this is not to deny that there are certain cases where your values and your interests line up but when your interests and your values clash you go with your interests so what really matters here when we think about whether or not this transatlantic relationship is going to hold over time is the question of whether we both the Americans and the Europeans have a vested interest in keeping this thing intact now what Carla did is she explained to you quite clearly why it's in America's national interest to keep the transatlantic relationship alive now I want to do what I want to do is explain to you why it's in Europe's interest and I think the case is quite straightforward first of all it's in Europe's economic interest to continue to trade with the United States it's in Europe Central to think very carefully about how to deal with China and to work with the United States on the economic front to deal with China but I actually believe that's not the main reason that it's important for Europeans have a very close relationship with Uncle Sam the real reason is security and the fact is that Europeans have a deep-seated interest and keeping the United States of America firmly implanted on the European continent and I'm talking about the American military here many people wonder why there has been no war in Europe since the Cold War ended why has Europe and so peaceful a lot of people say it's because it's the because of the EU and the success of the EU this is fundamentally wrong the reason there's been no trouble in Europe is because the United States is here the United States serves as a pacifier I have never heard a single European leader say that he or she would like to see the United States leave Europe and in fact when I tour Europe these days what I find is that many European League leaders European elites are worried that Uncle Sam is going home why because they understand intuitively they'll rarely say it out loud because it's not politically correct but they understand we are the pacifier and keeping us here is very important for maintaining security in the heart of Europe and for those of you who believe there's a Russian threat out there and my experience is talking to European tells me that almost every one of you believes that contrary to me and I don't matter in this case right the fact is you want the Americans here you want NATO here you all understand that the American presence means NATO you want NATO you want the Americans here to deal with the Russians should they get aggressive in Eastern Europe so all of this to say the United States really matters greatly for the security of Europe not to mention economics as well and therefore Europeans have a deep-seated interest in keeping us here and as Carla said the Americans given their view of their role in the world and as you all know we're very interested running the world right and Europe is part of that whole enterprise we have a deep-seated interest in staying here so what we have here is a situation where America's interests and Europe's interests still match together to make a case for staying in Europe and keeping the Americans here and maintaining the transatlantic relationship for the foreseeable future Thank You gender sever and that concludes the first round of this intelligence squared us debate where our resolution is the transatlantic relationship has been irreparably damaged so we move on to round two and round two is where the debaters address one another directly and take questions from me and from you our audience here in Brussels our resolution is this the transatlantic relationship has been irreparably damaged on the side arguing for the resolution Federer govindy and Gaston zest Olsen Mueller we have heard them described the current situation as the silent spring of international governments the governance they argue that while there have been strains before in fact this time is different there is a significant power failure on both sides of the ocean that the tenor of discord has reached levels never seen before they make the argument that the disordering is different this time that there that that the elites are paralyzed in the face of those who are challenging the fundamentals of liberal democracy and they points very specifically to what they described as the problem of Donald Trump himself they say that the thing that held the Alliance together when it was most effective the Cold War ended in a way that the United States misinterpreted in a sort of moment of triumphalism which has not been conducive to the continuing health of the relationship they started arguing against the resolution John Mearsheimer and Carla nor LOF argue that it's not so different this time they make a very strong argument that common interests will trump values they're not saying values don't matter but in the end the common interests will trump that that that is the glue that holds together the relationship they point out that NATO is the essential skeleton of that relationship and that NATO is not going anywhere nor will the relationship dissolve ultimately they say because it's just not in the interest of either side on the United States side there are too many economic links and actually that that goes both ways but that basically Europe also needs the United States here for its security and that interest is just too strong to ultimately threaten the overall relationship so there's a lot to dig into here I want to start with a question going first to to federal herb Indy your opponents have made the case an interesting case that it's it's oh the the the commonality of interests of realpolitik interests is so strong that that will ultimately prevail and is is just too too powerful and influence to be diminished and that therefore the relationship will persist in a healthy way that you asked me this I Zenon's of years ago I've wrote my PhD thesis on the national interest and the hardest part in writing I am writing about natural interest I compared clearly to case studies but easily important at the time but the hardest part is actually defining the national interest I mean that our opponents lay down a perfect rational analysis which would make very happy some of our colleagues but the reality is that the national interest not only is hard to define not only by us academics but most of all in government and it changes across time and across circumstances and at the end of the day what counts more is not the interest per se which is an esoteric term but the perception of national interest and I completely agree that the u.s. matters that you as specifier the the question is that the perception of the u.s. national interest had been had been changing all right let me let me take a sit to to join us I actually don't think that's true Federica I think that it is quite clear that the vast majority of American policymakers and members of the foreign policy elite believe that the United States has a vested interest in maintaining peace in Europe and by staying in Europe we keep the peace and there are two reasons for that one is we believe that it is economically important to keep the peace in Europe because if a war breaks out in Europe that will have disastrous consequences for the international economy and secondly it's widely believed that we will get dragged in so why not just stay there to begin with prevent war rather than leave and have to come back you know I'm completely convinced that is in my interest to win the lottery and retire before a time but that doesn't happen doesn't mean it's gonna happen and you're playing exactly what Costanza Costanza said it's its unilateral its alienating what you're saying which is exactly what Costanza said you may want to elaborate on that well yeah so I I think that we probably do not want to get into too much of an academic debate about you know in prison we want to say the same thing for values what we mean by interest is that there are some shared goals there are security goals and there it cannot make goals and we try to put a little bit of meat on the bones to describe what those look like when it comes to values this is also a kind of morphus term right so some people think that democracy is about you sometimes values are more synonymous with something that resembles norms or principles so I think that the more specific we are about what we're talking I think that will kind of push forward the debate constants to a certain degree there's a lot of overlap and what both sides are saying but you have made this argument that what's going on is different this time it's fundamentally different so can you push that point in response to what you're hearing sorry two things I want to push back with all due respect against John's point that we need American military in Europe to stop us from killing each other forgive me John but that's ludicrous I think that that is just the least likely thing to happen did somebody start to clap because we're good we're good with that okay that was was not necessary but thank you thank you all right but but look I mean it is it is actually insulting I mean you are surrounded here by Europeans who have grown up with each other traveled in each other's countries whose parents have married each other and who were have worked in each other's countries some of us have double double nationalities and some of us have green cards to say to us that we still need GIS in Europe so that this place won't explode is ludicrous okay no no wait wait but for a different reason because you need us to and I'm coming to that so I've been reading both of your papers yours plan to fail your several one's really good both of you talk about economic interdependence you in fact point out Carla that economic independence works both ways you seem not to be willing to consider that the truth is that we are a great power economically and you need us and in fact without us you are weaker in the world with regards to China with regards to Russia and elsewhere that supports their first point no no first point no no no because you are destroying you are trying to undermine the EU or not you John Mearsheimer but this American administration the final point here is and I know that you're not going to like this one but I'm gonna make it anyway which is that you also need us in terms in security terms you have first order strategic interests in Europe that your troops in Europe protect and you would be less able to protect them you will be less able to pursue those goals if you weren't in Europe and if we weren't letting you and we're not saying you're not protecting us - but you're protesting us against external risks not internal right constants I want you to yield sit like you're is it a lot out there or little as your opponent's response some of that look I believe that the reason European elites European policymakers have been so deeply to maintaining NATO and are so afraid that NATO is going to collapse is they understand that the United States serves as a pacifier as I said when I was making my initial comments it's not politically correct to say that because they know that people like you will jump down their throat but the fact is that intuitively intuitively people understand that the United States is the pacifier and it also can deal with the Russian threat which people worry about this is exactly the Americans view that does not understand what do you feel in union is all about I'm sorry you continue to see it as something completely different so just an economic entity it reminds me when remember when we were working on the single market New York Times and other papers would write our single market was never gonna happen because he appears are unable to do it you were all the Europeans were never gonna have that Europe because the Europeans or the Europeans had worse we still have people who went through the wars and there was a commitment never to do that again and that came from the Europeans by the Europeans it was supported at the time by the American administration if you remember Atchinson came to Europe came to Paris the day before Schumann would what would pronounce his Schumann declaration but that the Schumann decoration already been agreed between the French and the German I mean this is Europeans this is what you do so I think that it's it's it's one thing to argue that that Europe does not need the United States in order to prevent war amongst European countries you fall either so so so but that's that's quite a separate question from Europe not having an interest in the United States being committed to NATO because there is the Russian threat and there are other common goals that NATO and the you know through the United States can secure and so I doesn't seem to me that you're actually addressing our main argument that there are these common security interests and we you know we've kind of addressed the American interest in property in maintaining committed to NATO because that's what's in dispute can you do a response to to what Karla just said because I know we're ready to go for absolutely so I mean I absolutely agree with you Karla and and John that we have a common interest in maintaining NATO not so that the Europeans don't kill each other but because we have shared external challenges now the problem is that this US administration not America overall but this US administration is doing things in security policy and in its trade policy that undercut the trust and cohesion of the Alliance because they are increasing the insecurity of the world and of the region around Europe thereby undermining European security and because they are undermining actively and quite malignantly one of the key factors in European stability that backstops NATO in all in a lot of important ways and that is the European Union the European Union is provides the political social and economic resilience that you need in a security environment where adversaries are using instruments short of war hybrid warfare propaganda buying politicians funding political parties all this kind these kinds of things and it's an act of self harm because it undermines American interests can you respond to that it seems to me that much of what you say concedes our point that there is a need for NATO that we have a mutual interest in sustaining NATO so that you know is mana from heaven for us now your argument that President Trump is a problem is basically correct I'm not going to defend his policies with regard to you know putting sanctions on allies in Europe his attitude towards the EU his attitude towards NATO he is definitely a bull in a china shop nobody would deny that but the question you have to ask yourself is just how much damage can he do and the fact of the matter is as Secretary Stoltenberg said yesterday if anything America is increasing its commitment to NATO the United States is not in a position to destroy the European Union it can cause some problems with tariffs but they're even limits there in the United States and president Trump are ultimately going to be forced to work with the Europeans to deal with the Chinese problem I want to ask Federica this question your opponents have have cast this side and so far we've been argue the questioning of common interests in a sort of realpolitik way but they made an opening statement that the values while they might matter don't matter that much but can you make an argument that the values issue does matter which gets us to a common common commitment to liberal democracy for example which seems to be under threat in some parts of Europe and perhaps in some parts of the United States do are you brushing aside and conceding their argument that the values are not the critical thing the values is exactly what made the u.s. attracted to us I mean what made the u.s. the beacon of hope and that everybody looks at if you take the values away there is nothing left because as I said they the interest changes across time just think of the definition national interest Mauro tiros wealth and Wilson they had fundamentally different definition of war was the American national interest the national interest is linked to the moment the values is a process that goes across across centuries and you think that is eroding as we speak and you feel the same I do let me try and make a slightly different argument from Federica just to add on to her excellent points which is that I want to I want to make both a moral argument and a more a less moral argument for values one is yes I'm sorry but representative democracy is to me the system that has proven to be best at preventing cruelty at preventing cruelty from the majority to minorities and I as a German know whereof I speak and so it is a system that I wish to preserve and if I am faced with an American president and other American officials who on a daily basis discredit those values I have a problem with my with the Alliance and and I think that that also translates into a toxic relationship with a NATO and why my didn't mean to interrupt your may I may I make the other the other point just very quickly which is that the other thing that we forget I think as we admire the authoritarians and Russia and China because somehow they seem to be keeping their countries together and we're afraid we're not representative democracies remain the best at repairing at recognizing the flaws in their systems and at repairing them that is the one thing of which I am convinced and where I'm going to contradict my own position I that is the hill on which I die that is what we are best as and if if I am faced with allies who deny that fact that divides us okay Carla before I move on to all these questions so the argument that you've just heard that it that in fact the corrosion of values which I think you might be conceding I'm not sure but whether you are or not they're arguing that the control corrosion of values is dispositive and what and and I think are saying would outweigh common interest because as they said the common interests come and go what's your response to me so I think that a lot of the fissures that you've pointed to within the United States some of those problems also exist in European countries so inequality and populism in particular extreme right populism extreme right political parties are very much a problem in in Europe and so I'm I'm not convinced that there is an erosion in the relationship between America and Europe that you've shown me what kind of values are you thinking about that have been so eroded that affect fundamentally this relationship it's so hard to know where to start look simply just look at the news images from today Vladimir Putin and President Trump sitting together and laughing about the fake news when 58 journalists have been murdered in the reign of Vladimir Putin journalists are at risk around the world and the President of the United States and the President of Russia are laughing about this how does that not under the undermine the Alliance again if you just raise your hands I'll start right in the front row and Michael come if you can stand up and tell us your name please Green from California and I emphasize California so Americans don't all look alike I questioned for we actually have a debate between two North Americans and two Europeans the question is how permanent is our the condo cultural consequences of a malignant administration which is only two years old and will not live forever great question so you're saying this time it's different the question is saying it might be different this time it's not going to last that long what's your response to that well I worry that the reason that I just described are not do not have to are not limited to leaders and their personalities and their impact I was talking about structural reasons I was talking about to prevent profound dis functionalities of our polities of our governance at home and our inability to repair them and that's why I'm concerned that a change in government or in party in 2020 in the United States won't change the situation that we're in and I also really want to reinforce the point but it is one that I made in my opening statement that we have the populist in Europe as well but they're they're only in government in Hungary and to some degree in Poland if my polish friends here will forgive me Federer Rita you wanted to join yeah well I just came back from California well totally want to move there but you know the value of the presidency in the u.s. goes beyond politics it's an example and what we are witnessing today is a total change in ethics and I can tell you as a woman a foreign woman even have been long lived in the US you can feel it on your on your skin that things have changed they're things that two years ago would be judged completely unacceptable that today nothing happens I think I mean think of the border think of the kids that have been separated think of it in kids who are dying into custody of the government I mean two years ago had it happened during the previous administration it would have been a revolution and today is just well six kid is dead so that the more our moral values are being eroded and if god forbids this last six more years there's no response as well I mean the question on the table is whether or not this is gonna lead to irreparable damage in the transatlantic alliance I mean what's happening here is we're putting being put in the position where we have to defend Donald Trump I think you were given a description that that actually clearly answered the question that's been floating around what is this dissolution of values and is it is it a cancer that's permanent era to talk about to talk about what the Trump administration is doing and that what we don't like has to be linked to the claim that this is going to undermine the transatlantic relationship and they're not making that argument at all and to the extent that they talk about the transatlantic relationship they give out arguments that support our position are you making that argument yeah no absolutely not okay Heather I want to be I do want to get two more questions so can you answer and I know it's hard 30 seconds yes thirty five look the point I'm making very simply in one line is that the actions of this government are so toxic and so disruptive and so destructive that they will undermine the cohesion and the illusions that we look at what's happening to NATO as Secretary Stoltenberg said yesterday the American commitment to Europe isn't granted but if you blow up our entire surroundings as you reinforce NATO's East wheeler and your surroundings for over a decade yeah so the relationship before this has been going on for twenty years but at least the relationship there was a decency at the level of leadership which doesn't exist anymore and it permeates the whole society is a cancer for the whole society did I feed the word cancer into this conversation as a moderator I'm not supposed to do that oh come on you step forward please and tell us who you are thank you so to get this debate going beyond the interest values Trump no Trump sort of paradigm my question really is whether you're not missing in particular you John and and Carla the broader structural story to all this now Americans may indeed have an interest certainly Europeans have an interest to seeing Americans remain in Europe and Americans may indeed have that interest too but given that their big strategic challenge is China moving forward perhaps not today or tomorrow but will the United States have the ability to remain in Europe as it is today thank you want to take that so I think that's I think that's a great question and I think that the Europeans willingness to do more on terrorism is actually enabling the United States to pivot more towards China and Europeans suspending increasingly more on defense will also free up resources for the United States to focus attention elsewhere John quickly yeah just very quickly to build on Carla I think that it is possible 30 or 40 years now from now if China continues to grow at an impressive economic rate then it will become so powerful militarily that the United States will have no choice but to pivot completely out of Europe and put virtually all its military assets in Asia but that's a long way off and for the foreseeable future the United States clearly has the capability to contain China in Asia and at the same time maintain substantial forces in Europe I want to give your opponents if you want to a chance to respond or we can move on to another question we got let me take a pass okay I'd like to take another question from this side Thanks as a Brit I want to bring brexit into this debate so we're assuming that they're just two actors but actually Europe is multifaceted and EU is a large part of Europe but it's not Europe as a whole how do you feel the UK's withdrawal from the EU will impact the transatlantic relationship you take that first two favorita well first of all we still don't know where the brexit is gonna take place we can take backs in it today and see who wins but that means said they whether the UK exit or not it's a weak actor even if it states is way weaker than it used to be which undermines the destroy the United States arguments within Europe because traditionally the the relationship has played in favor the special relationship between the two has played in favor of the US and they don't have it so this is part of the general disintegration trends we're talking about other side John yeah I just say very quickly think Britain is still going to have extensive economic relations with the European continent and with the United States and in terms of security Britain is not pulling out of NATO and that is what matters the most is Karla pointed out in her opening comments sir - almost kinda block off German Marshall Fund question - Carla and and John when the United States first entered Europe in 1917 it confronted great powers it was a great power war same thing and I in in the Second World War please adjust your argument of your interest based argument of the United States staying in Europe - the reality of European absolute decline isn't it the case that the US interest in Europe is it's much weaker than it than it used to be and couldn't America care less about Europe even if Europe was threatened by okay Russia so I I'm actually not really a decline Asst I don't think that the United States is in decline to the extent that that people presuppose that Europe okay so Europe is and decline and therefore your question is what's as I understood the question doesn't that provide less incentive for the United States to give a damn yeah what I do okay that's just so surprising to me and I assume the opposite because usually the argument is that that the United States is in decline and so Europeans can actually do more to tend to their own security okay I'm gonna go down to another question sir I'm with GM f2 the question is actually the transatlantic relationship has been irreparable damage not the transatlantic alliance the transatlantic relationship and I respectfully submit that the transatlantic that the United States much of our relationship post-1945 in the Marshall Plan was based on moral legitimacy and in Europe the United States has lost its moral legitimacy and that is what I think is the profound change and as rapidly damaged a deliberate choice of words in our resolution so thank you for doing that and I'd like to take it to John Mearsheimer yeah I don't think that the American commitment to Europe was based on moral values the American commitment to Europe from roughly 1949 forward was based on pure strategic interests the fact of the matter is we wanted to get out of Europe after World War Two and we left in good part and during the 1950s the historiography shows very clearly the Eisenhower administration wanted to leave one of the reasons that we promoted the European Coal and Steel Union was so that the Italians the British the French and the Germans could come together form a cohesive whole and they could deal with the Soviet Union and we could go home right it was pure strategic interests what thrives American foreign policy over time is nothing but naked strategic interests and we cover it up all the time with moral rhetoric that's very popular here in Europe but has very little to do with how we actually behave okay let's hear from your opponents sorry Shawn but to say that the easier the European Coal and Steel community has been promoted by the u.s. is gruffly representing history and reality the United States nerd the day before with the National visiting in the home of the den US ambassador to Paris he was informed by Schumann and Monet and what was going to happen and they supported because they saw the strength of the project because they saw it would reinforce Europe against communism but it was not initiated by a US by all means this is a all European initiative because the Europeans understood and Jean Monnet wrote in his memories really well but many others people of like spinel is well brought they understood that the only way to stop a war was to put the Europeans work together on what they wear at the time the two most important issues because coal at the time was had the same report on oil today but that was a European initiative was not promoted initiative and the u.s. supported support the process of reintegration after the Kennedy administration I did I agree I disagree on the history but I would just say to you if you're correct you're telling a story were European interest in American interests came together not values and that concludes round two of this intelligence squared us debate where our resolution is the transatlantic relationship has been irreparably damaged now we move on to round 3 and round three our closing statements by each debater in turn these will be two minutes each they will once again each debater will once again stand and address you and making her closing statement in support of the resolution the transatlantic relationship has been irreparably damaged but a ridah bhindi professor at the university of rome Tory got that thank you John thank you everybody for being with us and for asking and supporting us yeah you remember in the beginning I said I love we love the US I do love United States dearly and our former colleague Jeremy Shapiro and Phil Gordon wrote an article recently and they said that the U is like a battered wife who can't get over the fact that her husband doesn't love anymore and I don't know about that but what I know is that when we put in our analysis love and believes and we let them guide us chances are the analysis is not correct add to this the fact that we are small human beings in a much larger course of history so Costanza talked about the troubles with suppressing us that reminds me the late years of the Roman Empire in 395 when Theodore Zeo decided to split the Empire into parts and give it to his sons he thought he would doing the good thing for them for the Empire instead it doom it it was the beginning of the end but not understand it at the time fast forward I as an academic in the in the family I inherited my great-grandfather library he was a scholar of colonialism so I basically pay a rent just to keep the books there and it's fascinating to read those books at the end of a colonial empire the belief of the colonists was the colonialism was good and for good and luckily it was not the reason why they okay one of the reasons why the UK did not enter in the European colonies community is because they had Empire and they thought that would last forever but if you read historians like Niall Ferguson it was clear at the time that colonialism was doomed so what I'm saying I don't like it but a cycle is finished where we're going next I don't know thank you better govindy our next speaker will be speaking against the motion again the floor I give to car loan or law professor at the University of Toronto so I think that we've strayed somewhat from the central question which is what counts as irreparable damage and we ventured into a conversation about values and morality and I don't think that those things are irrelevant and neither my partner here nor I care to defend the particular ethics of the front administration but it seems to me that the United States has throughout the years and certainly very since the the second Bush administration we have this conversation about the moral rectitude of the United States and it's in the nature of great powers to be held to certain standards and I'm not saying that they shouldn't be but sometimes it's simply the dissatisfaction of the great power pursuing its own fundamental interest when they do not align with their partner's interests I still fail to see how the values and what the Trump administration actually the concrete steps that they have taken so far how its damaged the fundamentally strong relationship between America and Europe we might not like the way that the Trump administration and President Trump in particular is behaving or the way that he negotiates but how actually has it damaged this particular relationship to the point of it becoming irreparable I do not see that thank you very much thank you : hola our next speaker making a closing statement Constance Delton Miller senior fellow at the Brookings Institution to make her closing statement against the resolution thank you very much and thank you for this very rich and fascinating debate the reason why I closed my opening statement with the reference to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was that I think we need to begin thinking of international relations not as just great power competition not just as economic interdependence which we all consider separately but as an ecosystem where all these things flow together and they're very small events and very small failures can have ultimately catastrophic consequences that is what I worry about and I also don't want to pin the problems that we are talking about on individuals or even on one single administration whether in America or here in Europe although there would be enough to keep us going my concern is and that comes to your point Carla of who why do the values matter because of the people who are responding to the breaking of the triggers because of the people who are feeling enabled who are surging gleefully raucously and marching on the streets because they think their time has come whether it's neo-nazis in dortmund or in eastern Germany or whether it's thugs with tiki torches and charm in Charlottesville whether it is a German neo-nazi who holds a gun a pistol to the head of a German elected politician and pulls the trigger these people feel enabled by these taboos being broken and that is what distinguishes this moment in our relationship and not in the Alliance which we will not be able to keep separate from that fact thank you thank you tomorrow and now making his closing statement against the resolution John Mearsheimer professor at the University of Chicago well needless to say I disagree with Constanza I know she's shocked to hear that but the fact of the matter is that these sort of shift the shifting of the tectonic plates that she describes both in terms of the international system in in terms of domestic politics just hasn't taken place the United States remains a vibrant liberal democracy does it have problems even though Donald Trump is the president yes but the United States has had lots of problems over time when I was a young kid McCarthyism was in the air and in many ways the politics in the United States were more poisonous then than they are today I'm not denying for one second that Donald Trump is a real print as a real problem but he is one part he is one person he is one person and there is huge opposition in the United States to him and when I come here to Europe and go to places like Britain and travel around the continent I think in most places liberal democracy is alive and well reflected in the comments of you too so I think the crisis you see is just not there at least yet maybe it will be but I don't see evidence of that and in terms of the international system I think the tectonic plates are moving somewhat with the rise of China but I think the rise of China may present an excellent opportunity for the United States and Europe to work together to deal with the Chinese economic threat so let's see what happens there but the idea that the system is changing the international system is changing in ways that undermine the Alliance I find that just hard to understand so I think you know over the long term what you're going to see is a vibrant transatlantic relationship it will change somewhat for sure but I think it will remain firmly intact and it certainly won't be irreparable damage which is with the motion calls for Thank You John Mearsheimer and that concludes round three of this intelligent square us debate where our resolution is the transatlantic relationship has been era poorly damaged intelligence squared we we aim for you know we set out our our founders vision Robert Rosencrantz did put this together in order to raise the level of public discourse by bringing intelligent issues to a competitive format that energizes it but with a set of rules and expectations that keeps the whole process civil and respectful and the four of you were spectacular at that so I just want to thank you very much for that it's been such a pleasure working with the German Marshall Fund for the second year in a row and I want you to know that your team is spectacular ly good to work with amusant were spectacular ly a lot in the last two minutes but it's the truth it's been really a pleasure to be part of part of this event so we're gonna be tabulating the results and I get the results by an iPad in just a minute but while we're doing that this is not for the competition but we're we were curious about your views on the thing that I'd like to ask all of you since it came up pretty apparently throughout the course of the debate that Donald Trump is not most Europeans favorite option for president but we're in a place where two dozen people are running for the Democratic nomination is there anybody that any of you see in the current prominent Democratic lineup who you think actually might step up to the process in a way that could be good for the relationship I'll start with you you know this is really one of the cases where the passion and the love makes me less objective in analysis I have a clear preferred candidate which is Biden but so that's it's hard for me to that but what I can tell you is that when we had the elections in 2016 at the time I was commuting with North Carolina and to me it was clear that Trump was gonna win and that was completely unseen and you had these little things you know that they were not as many as many backyard signs as as you had with the previous election so you could smell it and that means I'll I am deeply worried and I would love for Democrat to close the primaries this this summer and just fight the current president crap why what would be the effect on the transatlantic relations they did it 2020 if your chosen candidate Biden won what would be the effect on the transatlantic relations I guess we're back in the debate here in but if he wins because my my bets are where I don't want the elections to be and two more years even only two more years of this could be too much Carla on the question of the Democrats on the question of the Democrats I do not have a preferred candidate I actually like to take this opportunity to address something else that was but said before which is I'm not North America and I work in North America but I'm actually Swedish so there are three Europeans and one American here John I know you're saying it's irrelevant but curious to see if you have a Democrat you would like to I don't know your personal politics I'm not asking you if you are a Democrat Republican just if you had to choose a Democrat that you'd like to see up there would you like to talk about that I actually would like to see Bernie Sanders win in in large part because I think the greatest problem the United States faces today and Europe faces his economic inequality and I think if we don't do something to address that problem let me ask you a question what would be the consequences on transatlantic actually that that's an excellent because he may be the one planet who has the most isolation that's because the cameras are turned off I have to say I have to say that because I think the reasons for for the decline of the relationship was structural it doesn't matter that much and I can imagine a democratic version of Trump although I don't see one in the circular sorry acquiring quad that is the current Democratic lineup I finally want to do a defense of Donald Trump because he's been criticized several times here including my game which is that I think that he's actually showing us our weaknesses all of us in a very important way he holds up a mirror to us and in that I see a possibility of change and of adaptation that is necessary so I'm actually somewhat grateful Thank You Donald all right so I now have the final results the final results have come in remember once again you voted before you heard the arguments again after you heard the arguments you voted again and we give victory did the team whose numbers have changed the most between the first and the second vote here are the results on the resolution the transatlantic relationship has been irreparably damaged before the debate in polling the live audience 20 percent agreed with the resolution 73% were against 7 percent were undecided in the second vote again transatlantic relationship has been irreparably damaged the team ins their first vote was 20 percent their second vote was 24 percent they pulled up four percentage points that's the number to beat the team arguing against the resolution their first vote was 73 percent their second vote was 71 percent they lost two percentage points that means that the team winning the debate is the team arguing for the resolution in favor of the motion the transatlantic relationship has been irreparably damaged patience with them thank you for me John doesn't end until the mean squared us we'll see you next time [Music]

Channel: Open to Debate

Views: 10,217

Keywords: Intelligence Squared, IQ2, IQ2US, Intelligence Squared U.S., debate, live debate, I2, nyc, politics, conservative, liberal, war, EU, UN, United Nations, German Marshall Fund, Brussels Forum, Brussels, Foreign Policy, Trump, Merkel, European Union, NATO, populism

Id: 9X86dyh4A5E

Length: 73min 24sec (4404 seconds)

Published: Thu Jul 11 2019