Niall Ferguson’s and Fareed Zakaria’s Summary Debate: The Liberal International Order is Over?

Fareed Zakaria, host of Fareed Zakaria GPS on CNN, and Niall Ferguson, historian and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, clashed in a dynamic debate on whether the liberal international order is over. It was moderated by Gillian Tett, US Editor-at-large and Chair of the Editorial Board of the Financial Times.

Zakaria argued that the liberal international order has not lost its vigour, despite the deterioration of the situation in a number of regions. In his view, the huge changes that occurred after 1945 involved more peace, stability and international cooperation between countries around the world in a way that had not happened in history until that point. He made the case for recognising that liberal capitalism has improved the lives of millions of people living in countries that benefitted from global trends, bringing peace and prosperity to previously struggling regions.

Ferguson, on the other hand, stated the world order is not even worth discussing, questioning whether it is “liberal, international, or even an order”. In his opinion, the decline in armed conflict after 1945 was due to the USA's military supremacy, not the existence of the UN and similar organisations. Such international bodies, argued the historian, have in fact helped the most powerful in society obtain greater wealth and power, rather than distribute it more evenly. He also warned even that a new Cold War has already begun, with the USA and China in confrontation in the realm of “cyberspace and beyond.”

[annbrucepineda]

I agree with Fareed about the internet. I can now just ignore CNN, leave the TV off and listen to the Hoover institution with brilliant, realistic people like Niall Ferguson and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

[nenadtomanic]

Watching at the end of 2021 I’m fairly convinced of who is right after two more years of overwhelming evidence for Ferguson.

[reuvenbisk]

The moderator doesn’t understand her role. She shouldn’t explain to the audience what the speakers are saying.

[books.reviews.pelhamhardim]

Fareed: emotions. Ferguson: facts. And, Fareed, the EU was not Europeans coming together for peace. It was France and Germany deciding they can't keep fighting over who rules Europe: let's share the rule of Europe. Germany, you do industry and banks, France, we'll do the philosophy, fund farmers, and add a little bit of fancy food.

[sid]

5 years late, yet thought it was interesting. I am from India. Have lived in the US for over 20 years and the UK for under 4 years. Indeed hilarious Farid thinks an order of sorts that brought Europe together is either international or liberal. Was neither. The bankruptcies one by one of many EU nations is sufficient evidence. Moreover, the rules imposed on these bankrupt EU nations by the economic powerhouses of the EU demonstrate the illiberal nature of that order. As far as rules go, the rules are for the less mighty made up by the mighty.

Farid also makes the fundamental mistake of equating the economic gain that led to a middle class in India or China to some sort of major emancipation the middle class in these two countries has gone through. Absolutely not! He’s also made the same mistake about Poland saying its GDP has risen 5x since it joined the EU. The EU centric order has only been able to put some money into the hands of a total of 500 million middle class people in China and India. But not been able to hand these 500 million the freedom of the sort David Hume and Adam Smith envisioned. That’s because up to this day, the supercilious liberal class that boasts of a liberal order has never really understood what “liberal” means. They’ve never tried to understand liberal from the point of view of the individual, rather they have always meant liberal as in we all must agree with everyone. Sort of like controlling an individual’s thought process, no different than the attitude of leaders such as Xi, Modi or Putin.

Lastly, Farid tends to mix things with the ease of an amateur. Perhaps, with no ulterior motives. Even so, being fully aware of the Monroe doctrine, he equates the inclusion of Ukraine in the EU to its inclusion in NATO!

Of course, Niall Ferguson was the winner hands down! I like that Niall interprets data well. Stats have to be interpreted well for what they are trying to tell us. Merely quoting them is not saying much. For example he correctly points out the incessant turmoils in East and Southeast Asia and in the third world. While Farid points to a chart that merely presents a reducing trend in the number of conflicts in terms of the killings. Think of the Bangladesh war which saw close to 10 million refugees come into India and living in dire circumstances, the genocide in Rwanda in the 1990’s, or the various wars in former Yugoslavia that lasted a decade, to name a few. Farid’s got to be kidding, sitting in the most convenient place in the world and not even able to experience the terrible sufferings of all these people. What’s worse is to clumsily misrepresent this suffering as slight deviations from the intended normal liberal rules based international order and to say that on there has been some gain on balance across the globe. No way! That’s why we got to realize the difference between liberal from the individual’s point of view as opposed to a collective agreement within a group or society.

The supercilious have all got it wrong!

[larrygerry]

Fareed is very selective in creating a narrative rather than looking at the situation as a whole

[wescolumbus]

Bravo Ferguson, what a pleasure to listen to you! I used to think that Zakaria was the only remaining CNN personality capable of analysis well worth our attention. In this debate, however, he appears to have morphed into "Salon/luxury Communist, coming across a bit manipulative and agitated in the bargain. 

Since these are, once again, precarious times, rather than confrontational debate, I wish French philosopher BHL were on this, too, for a three-way conversation. Perhaps the Q is whether Level-Headed Liberal Order is dying and being replaced by Faux, Loony Liberalism. And how can we remain Level-Headed Liberals and Conservative, as necessary, without tight media echo-chambers.

[paulmaffrett]

the last 2 years of world events seemed to prove Ferguson right.

[patriotanswers]

This was meandering. I don't really even know if they know what they were arguing about. Niall basically said the United States provides the order and Fareed said the US was bad and China was great. Weird debate. The "moderator" didn't help things.

[richardbywater]

Fareed lost when he embarked on the personal attacks. The flawed argument irrelevant.

[nathaniel]

Fareed kept attacking the man, not the point of order. If his arguments failed on his tongue, then that alone was evidence. The only compelling point he made was at the end, and that was not a call to acknowledge facts but to voice your hopes and wishes. Neil had the best of the debate.

[robertjohnston]

Fareed's arguments suffer from a lack of accuracy. The 'moderator' is a joke, and a poor one at that.

[viewst]

Two neoliberals (one of whom is under the delusion he's not a neoliberal) arguing with each other over the interpretation of some arcane point of capitalist economics: what is better, liberal capitalism or neoliberal capitalism; Chinese, Russians and Indians living on $1 a day before capitalist globalisation smashed open these countries, freeing them from the horrors of communism and socialism, or $4 a day thanks to the joys of the free market.

This is all about western imperialism versus western neo‐imperialism but with the latter being — in keeping with the woke, virtue signalling, politically correct world in which we live — more multicultural, more inclusive, China and India now muscling their way into what was formerly an exclusively all white gentleman's club of neocon fascists.

[zachjones]

A journalist arguing with a historian.

[abond]

I've seen the future. . . where vladi goes mediaevil on Fareed's modernism.

[michaelhudson]

These are obviously intelligent people. So why the hell do they think they need to debate this simple question? Make me question the idea of 'intelligence'.

[sacredsoma]

Ferguson is sharp as fuck, a delight when in form

[chuckdayiii]

I both agree and disagree with the proposition. The International Liberal Order failed at bringing in the rest of the world that never joined the Order in the first place.

[srinjansaha]

I'm an Indian. I'd just like to counter Fareed's point about the impact of the supposed liberal international order on India. The liberal international order is supposed to have begun post 1945. India went through a bloody partition in 1947. India and Pakistan have fought 3 wars post that. India and China has fought 1 war since. Where was the liberal international order all that while? And the only reason India adopted it's pro market policies post 1991 is because that was the only option left, it had nothing to do with any liberal international order. The liberal international order is a liberal myth.

[fleetyrrany]

And let me tell you Fareed of a Father in China who was working forced labor in the fields of Communist Oppressor Xi ! The family was very hungary.. One day while working in the fields, a young boy took a potatoe from the ground and put it in his pocket. A chinese military guard saw the young boy do it. The guard yanked the young boy from the field and in the presence of the forced laborers working along side the young boy, the guard called the boys father forward. The Father plead for the boys life before the guard. He explained that there were many in his family and that they did not have enpogh to feed them all, so the food was rationed. He explained that his son acted out of hunger pangs and not to intentionally disobey the law. The guard handed the father a gun and put the gun up to the young boys head. The guard told the Father to kill his son or the guard would kill the whole family. The Father cried and plead convulsively with the guard to no avail. The Father in torment ultimately pulled the trigger killing his son. Then the guard forced the Father to dig the grave of his son and bury him. Afterwords the father went out of his mind and his conscience could no longer bare the horror he inflicted on his son. The Father died 3 days later lying in the dirt of his humble home, from a broken heart. This happens daily in the Xi dictatorship of China.

You in the NWO.. International Liberal World Order..
You are Opening the door for an International Leader to step in and take total Control of this World. He will not be kind. He will tickle your Liberal ear and you will believe his lies and when he is given power.. HE WILL RULE OVER THE EARTH AND CREATE SUCH HORRORS AS THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN BEFORE COMBINED ! There will be no-one who escapes his power.
Billions will die for your Naive notion of Utopia or No-topia..