Intelligence Squared Debate Notes

**disclaimer: These are copied from notes I took during the debate. As I noted phrases and fragments, the whole arguments presented are not captured here and the notes below are paraphrased rather than quoted.**

The Motion: Obama's Foreign Policy Spells America's Decline (May 11, 2010)

The Speakers:
(For the Motion)
Dan Senor and Mort Zuckerman
(Against the Motion)
Wesley Clark and Bernard-Henri Levy
(Moderator)
John Donvan

D: Dan Senor
M: Mort Zuckerman
W: Wesley Clark
B: Bernard-Henri Levy
(-): John Donvan

(Is Obama respected world-wide?)
M: Not in Asia. Otherwise he is respected but not effective.
W: He strives to build a foundation of understanding. Consider the nuclear weapons summit.
D: What came of that? Iran still has weapons. No agreement was reached at the summit and there is no one who will force Iran to stop collecting arms. Obama's speeches are good, but the world needs to see results.
B: He acknowledged Pakistan as a problem when the last president thought the nuclear weapons were all in Iraq. Bush's policy in Iraq seemed to be based on the idea that the best way to keep friends is to disarm the enemies of friends. That's what he implied at the Speech of Cairo.
D: So what is Obama doing about Hamas, Syria, Iran? Don't tell the moderates we are with them; show them we will stand with them. Why was he silent on the dissident movement?
W: The movement was inspired by his saying in a speech that he would like to believe that America could cause a change in regime in Iran.
M: The one area that we frankly have to worry about is the Middle East. Scud missals are going to Hezbullah? Obama's rhetoric needs to become policy. Pakistan has 120 nukes!

(So are we in decline?)
D: We are in the early stage of decline. We were when Obama took office. The question is whether Obama is slowing the decline. Which leaders back Obama?
B: Are the leaders more important than the masses?
D: Polls don't make policy. Governments make policy.
B: Governments don't make history. People make history. Suffering people...
W: What a naive question. Leaders can't support the US based on their personal relationships with our president. Political leaders act for their own survival.

(What is the relevance of this for Obama?)
W: He needs to make it easier for foreign leaders to support him.
D: Politics matter. Security matters. Policy makers make policy.

(What do we say about his trip to China?)
D: The press coverage was censored and no agreements were made. How embarrassing.
W: Our relationship with China is a mutual-need relationship.
M: The trip left the impression of and sense of weakness. China is important, whether they agree with what we want to do or not. And our politicians arrived without knowing how to play the game.
B: So will we see a new cold war or a new partnership? The icon of modern democracy partnered with a totalitarian state?

*Audience questions*
Audience member: Unfortunate timing aside...jargonjargonjargonjargon...
(Can you translate please?)
Audience member: How can you judge the strength of his missal defense plan when he hasn't released the plan?
W: We know the weapons.

Audience member: Our support for the Euro in Europe shows that we support them and won their support for Obama.
M: Yes, support. But in that situation the US had to help keep the European banks from collapse.

Audience member: What about what he's done to get the law about women and sexuality changed in Iran? I think that was good.
Suddenly I recall how painful Q&A sessions can be when audience members are ill-informed, inarticulate, or more concerned with being long-winded and talking about themselves. The version of the question presented above is the result of much editing...
D: How about Russia? Iran? How about the dissident movements he has left on their own? So Iran would have demonized us...They do so anyway! Look at the arms race in the Middle East. Your remarks are important, but he is not doing nearly enough.
W: Iran is pivotal. Nuclear weapons are important. We will see what the verdict of history is, but think of the nuclear non-proliferation summit.

Audience member: He campaigned on policy you, Mort, oppose: engagement. And he hasn't been engaging.
Mort: Engagement is not enough because allies don't think he is tough enough to act on engagement.
B: There are not so many critiques of Obama in Europe. He engaged the troops with concrete results. US troops are now mentoring Iraqi troops. I've seen it myself.
D: I support his support of General (I didn't catch the name) in Afghanistan. I do worry about the organization of these civilian troops. And when human rights are subordinated by the government, Obama won't meet with the dissidents!
B: Obama separates fanatics from democratic Muslims (He starts speaking too quickly for me to follow). 
W: The nation has not moved under Obama away from its commitment to human rights in all countries. Do you work behind the scenes or make a scene? He chose to work behind the scenes.

Audience member: If public opinion is so important, why did it take two letters from Congress to convince Obama to apologize for Israel?
B: Politics are moved not just by the American public but by the international public. He has done good for the women of Afghanistan. He is, in his foreign policy, anti-Bush. You have a new flag with Obama; people are proud to be American again.

Audience member: What should Obama do?
D: Pass a petrolium bill.

Audience member: Thinking on Budapest and Hungary, encouragement of the Iranian rebels would have led to more bloodshed if we had spoken for them without being able to protect them.
M: Who knows--it's a fair argument.
D: It's always difficult to prove the counterfactual, but there was bloodshed even though we were silent.
W: Don't adopt a feel-good foreign policy. Then everyone ends up as actors instead of politicians. We can't do it all by ourselves."