What do you think?
Rate this book
The Munk Debates
The Munk Debates: Volume One
The Munk Debates is Canada’s premier international debate series, a highly anticipated cultural event and feast of ideas. Launched in 2008 by philanthropists Peter and Melanie Munk, these debates bring together some of the world’s greatest thinkers to discuss the most pressing political, social, and cultural issues that are shaping the course of world events.
This volume includes the first five debates in the
British historian and bestselling author Niall Ferguson, top-ranking American diplomat Richard Holbrooke, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, and human rights scholar and Pulitzer Prize–winning author Samantha Power discuss global security and the 2008 U.S. presidential election
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, former Foreign Minister of the Australian Parliament and President and Chief Executive of the International Crisis Group Gareth Evans, actor and humanitarian Mia Farrow, and former Chief of the Defence Staff of the Canadian Forces General Rick Hillier debate the pros and cons of humanitarian intervention
Professor of Economics Paul Collier, economist Hernando De Soto, former UN Secretary-General Stephen Lewis, and bestselling author of Dead Aid Dambisa Moyo explore the opportunities and hazards of foreign aid
Former British politician and bestselling author Lord Nigel Lawson, adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School and bestselling author Bjørn Lomborg, environmental activist and Leader of the Green Party of Canada Elizabeth May, and journalist and bestselling author George Monbiot tackle one of the great public policy questions of our how should the world respond to climate change?
Governor Howard Dean, President and CEO of University Health Network (UHN) Dr. Robert Bell, Professor of Business and Medicine Dr. William Frist, and physician and award-winning author Dr. David Gratzer cover the controversial issue of health care.
Intelligent, informative, and entertaining, The Munk Debates is a lively forum of ideas and opinions that aims to reinvigorate public discourse and civic dialogue, and captures the prevailing moods, clashing opinions, and most imperative issues of our time.
This volume includes the first five debates in the
British historian and bestselling author Niall Ferguson, top-ranking American diplomat Richard Holbrooke, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, and human rights scholar and Pulitzer Prize–winning author Samantha Power discuss global security and the 2008 U.S. presidential election
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, former Foreign Minister of the Australian Parliament and President and Chief Executive of the International Crisis Group Gareth Evans, actor and humanitarian Mia Farrow, and former Chief of the Defence Staff of the Canadian Forces General Rick Hillier debate the pros and cons of humanitarian intervention
Professor of Economics Paul Collier, economist Hernando De Soto, former UN Secretary-General Stephen Lewis, and bestselling author of Dead Aid Dambisa Moyo explore the opportunities and hazards of foreign aid
Former British politician and bestselling author Lord Nigel Lawson, adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School and bestselling author Bjørn Lomborg, environmental activist and Leader of the Green Party of Canada Elizabeth May, and journalist and bestselling author George Monbiot tackle one of the great public policy questions of our how should the world respond to climate change?
Governor Howard Dean, President and CEO of University Health Network (UHN) Dr. Robert Bell, Professor of Business and Medicine Dr. William Frist, and physician and award-winning author Dr. David Gratzer cover the controversial issue of health care.
Intelligent, informative, and entertaining, The Munk Debates is a lively forum of ideas and opinions that aims to reinvigorate public discourse and civic dialogue, and captures the prevailing moods, clashing opinions, and most imperative issues of our time.
- GenresPolitics
400 pages, Paperback
First published November 26, 2010
38 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
August 21, 2018
Rhetoric, Flourishing
Good issues oriented debate are an essential element of the decision making process of a robust society. The book consists of transcripts of public debates that took place in Toronto between 2008-2010 and were broadcast by the CBC.
Global Security: Be It Resolved that the World is a Safer Place with a Republican in the White House. (May 26, 2008)
For: Niall Fergusson, Charles Krauthammer
Con: Former Ambassador Richard Holbrook, Samantha Power
Makes for an interesting 4 year retrospect on the promises made by both US political parties dominated by a discussion on the wars in Iran and Iraq and the issues of dealing with rogue states. Ms. Powers stressed the importance of working through the UN whereas Krauhammer pursued McCain's notion of a League of Democratic Nations to bypass what he considers to be an ineffective body subject to the whims of a non-democratic majority
Be It Resolved that if Countries such as Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Burma Will Not End Their Man-made Humanitarian Crisis, the International Community Should.
For: Gareth Evans, Mia Farrow
Con: John Bolton, General Rick Hillier (Dec 1, 2008)
What to do when one's humanitarian impulses conflict with one's ability to take action was at the core of this debate. While I do not doubt Ms. Farrow's sincerity and depth of commitment as a moral voice and wish her to continue, Hillier's practical assessment of the available capability of military force, international will to assert it became the most compelling argument. Ms. Farrow's best points however were that full intervention was not the only course of action giving UNAMID as an example. Hillier's response was that intervention alone could not solve the problem. While risking their own soldier's lives may seem to be morally uplifting, without the international will to both plan, back and provide lasting solutions they are feel good recipes for disaster.
Be It Resolved that Foreign Aid Does More Harm Than Good
For: Dambissa Moyo, Hernando de Soto
Con: Paul Collier, Stephen Lewis
WOW!!! The focus was on Africa, the topic of Ms. Moyo's book Dead Aid. Stephen Lewis began by arguing that the good done by halting the spread of AIDS, malaria, providing education and relieving poverty outweighed the cost of corrupt government. Moyo responded that aid to Africa had undermined the rise of an entrepreurial class. De Soto felt the missing ingredient was stable and verifiable property rights without which there was no basis for creating capital markets. More than anyone else he made good use of comparable situations such as Haiti vs the Dominican Republic, the poverty on native reservations in Canada, citing the inability to value property on the open market as a key factor.
The role of China was especially vexing. Moyo felt that China's involvement in the continent was positive due to investment in infrastructure whereas Lewis and Collier were sceptical wrt human rights, attributing China's thirst for resources was what was sustaining the genocide in Darfur
The most intriguing assertion of all was by de Soto who offered that in the West it is people on the Left that administer programs related to human welfare and that economic investment is handled largely by people on the Right, which works because both Left and Right manage to reach a consensus, whereas the developing world, Africa especially, is still working out the difference between sovereignty and property.
Be It Resolved that Climate Change is Mankind's Defining Crisis and Demands a Commesurate Response (Dec 1, 2009)
For: Elizabeth May, George Monbiot
Con: Lord Nigel Lawson, Bjorn Lomborg
Coming from a position of support for the resolution I was sadly disappointed by the poor showing of George Monbiot and Elizabeth May who lost ground from the initial vote to the final. Though I love the idea and format of verbal debate this is an issue that requires solid data and visualization. Lawson's science was poor and thinking was short term, but his main point of affordability struck accord from the audience. Lomborg's argument of relative cost effectiveness of decarbonization to other measures to improve the human condition made over the time frame of the next century is what made the difference. Climate change will produce both winners and losers, as does any set of events that change the status quo. Recent warm weather should be convincing but environmental advocates need to figure out how to appeal to a range of interests and different time frames, and recognize that not everyone need be convinced of the need for action.
Be It Resolved that I Would Rather Get Sick in the United States Rather Than In Canada (June 7, 2010)
For: Dr. William Frist, Dr. David Gratzer
Con: Dr. Robert Bell, Dr. Howard Dean
Taking place after shortly after the passage of Obamacare on March 21st, this was an excellent exchange of views on the relative pros and cons of both systems. The answer of course is it all depends on who "I" is. The US has a hodgepodge of public and private approaches, most of which taken individually are larger than the Canadian system taken as a whole. If you can make it to age 65 (Medicare), employed with benefits or financially well off or are a veteran or and elected member of the federal government the US system is pretty good in terms of coverage and responsiveness. If you are member of the non-working or underemployed poor and you have cancer you are more likely to merit free treatment but only in the later stages of the disease where it does less good. The US free market excels in innovation but also in costs time consuming HMO bureaucracy and paperwork and while fear of lawsuits leads to unnecessary testing, the profitability of various drug regimes can generate excessive treatment. On the other hand the Canadian government acts as one large HMO, limiting patient choice, time spent per patient and assigning fixed costs to variable needs.
All 4 participants had experience as medical practitioners and all brought up good points.
=======================================================================
The 5 debates were a pleasure to read, but the debate on foreign policy outshone them all, raised my rating from 4* to 5* and alone is worth acquiring the book.
Good issues oriented debate are an essential element of the decision making process of a robust society. The book consists of transcripts of public debates that took place in Toronto between 2008-2010 and were broadcast by the CBC.
Global Security: Be It Resolved that the World is a Safer Place with a Republican in the White House. (May 26, 2008)
For: Niall Fergusson, Charles Krauthammer
Con: Former Ambassador Richard Holbrook, Samantha Power
Makes for an interesting 4 year retrospect on the promises made by both US political parties dominated by a discussion on the wars in Iran and Iraq and the issues of dealing with rogue states. Ms. Powers stressed the importance of working through the UN whereas Krauhammer pursued McCain's notion of a League of Democratic Nations to bypass what he considers to be an ineffective body subject to the whims of a non-democratic majority
Be It Resolved that if Countries such as Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Burma Will Not End Their Man-made Humanitarian Crisis, the International Community Should.
For: Gareth Evans, Mia Farrow
Con: John Bolton, General Rick Hillier (Dec 1, 2008)
What to do when one's humanitarian impulses conflict with one's ability to take action was at the core of this debate. While I do not doubt Ms. Farrow's sincerity and depth of commitment as a moral voice and wish her to continue, Hillier's practical assessment of the available capability of military force, international will to assert it became the most compelling argument. Ms. Farrow's best points however were that full intervention was not the only course of action giving UNAMID as an example. Hillier's response was that intervention alone could not solve the problem. While risking their own soldier's lives may seem to be morally uplifting, without the international will to both plan, back and provide lasting solutions they are feel good recipes for disaster.
Be It Resolved that Foreign Aid Does More Harm Than Good
For: Dambissa Moyo, Hernando de Soto
Con: Paul Collier, Stephen Lewis
WOW!!! The focus was on Africa, the topic of Ms. Moyo's book Dead Aid. Stephen Lewis began by arguing that the good done by halting the spread of AIDS, malaria, providing education and relieving poverty outweighed the cost of corrupt government. Moyo responded that aid to Africa had undermined the rise of an entrepreurial class. De Soto felt the missing ingredient was stable and verifiable property rights without which there was no basis for creating capital markets. More than anyone else he made good use of comparable situations such as Haiti vs the Dominican Republic, the poverty on native reservations in Canada, citing the inability to value property on the open market as a key factor.
The role of China was especially vexing. Moyo felt that China's involvement in the continent was positive due to investment in infrastructure whereas Lewis and Collier were sceptical wrt human rights, attributing China's thirst for resources was what was sustaining the genocide in Darfur
The most intriguing assertion of all was by de Soto who offered that in the West it is people on the Left that administer programs related to human welfare and that economic investment is handled largely by people on the Right, which works because both Left and Right manage to reach a consensus, whereas the developing world, Africa especially, is still working out the difference between sovereignty and property.
Be It Resolved that Climate Change is Mankind's Defining Crisis and Demands a Commesurate Response (Dec 1, 2009)
For: Elizabeth May, George Monbiot
Con: Lord Nigel Lawson, Bjorn Lomborg
Coming from a position of support for the resolution I was sadly disappointed by the poor showing of George Monbiot and Elizabeth May who lost ground from the initial vote to the final. Though I love the idea and format of verbal debate this is an issue that requires solid data and visualization. Lawson's science was poor and thinking was short term, but his main point of affordability struck accord from the audience. Lomborg's argument of relative cost effectiveness of decarbonization to other measures to improve the human condition made over the time frame of the next century is what made the difference. Climate change will produce both winners and losers, as does any set of events that change the status quo. Recent warm weather should be convincing but environmental advocates need to figure out how to appeal to a range of interests and different time frames, and recognize that not everyone need be convinced of the need for action.
Be It Resolved that I Would Rather Get Sick in the United States Rather Than In Canada (June 7, 2010)
For: Dr. William Frist, Dr. David Gratzer
Con: Dr. Robert Bell, Dr. Howard Dean
Taking place after shortly after the passage of Obamacare on March 21st, this was an excellent exchange of views on the relative pros and cons of both systems. The answer of course is it all depends on who "I" is. The US has a hodgepodge of public and private approaches, most of which taken individually are larger than the Canadian system taken as a whole. If you can make it to age 65 (Medicare), employed with benefits or financially well off or are a veteran or and elected member of the federal government the US system is pretty good in terms of coverage and responsiveness. If you are member of the non-working or underemployed poor and you have cancer you are more likely to merit free treatment but only in the later stages of the disease where it does less good. The US free market excels in innovation but also in costs time consuming HMO bureaucracy and paperwork and while fear of lawsuits leads to unnecessary testing, the profitability of various drug regimes can generate excessive treatment. On the other hand the Canadian government acts as one large HMO, limiting patient choice, time spent per patient and assigning fixed costs to variable needs.
All 4 participants had experience as medical practitioners and all brought up good points.
=======================================================================
The 5 debates were a pleasure to read, but the debate on foreign policy outshone them all, raised my rating from 4* to 5* and alone is worth acquiring the book.
April 16, 2012
At the moment, I am past the actual debates and into the interviews with each participant that Rudyard Griffiths conducts. Although I don't know who he is, David Daokui Li brings a viewpoint typically unheard of in Canada.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews