Intelligence Squared

India, a democracy of over a billion people, has a rate of growth almost as impressive as China's, a burgeoning middle class, a highly skilled work force and an abundance of raw materials. More important still, it operates under the rule of law not the rule of the politburo. Could it be that India ends up the dominant power of the eastern hemisphere? Arguing in favour of the motion are Deepak Lal, Sir Mark Tully, and Gurcharan Das. Arguing against the motion are Lord Powell, Danny Quah and Sir David Tang.

Andrea Palladio freed European architecture to the full glories of the classical Renaissance, founding a style that is fresh and vigorous to this day. To John Ruskin he was a hidebound traditionalist who buried the soaring inspiration of European Gothic in out of date rules and pagan temples. Who was the most influential architect? Arguing for Palladio are Robert Adam and Dr Manolo Guerci. Robert Adam begins the defence of Palladio by criticising the way in which Ruskin prioritised architectural theory over architecture itself. Adam sees this as the main reason why architects are now marginal figures in the construction process. He argues that it is the 'practicality' of Palladio's architecture that has ensured Palladio's place as the 'Godfather of the greatest period in British Architecture'. Palladio's four books, Adam argues, contain a combination of lessons in classical architecture, examples of ways to design up-to-date classical buildings, and a method of using these principles for any design. Dr Manolo Guerci declares that Palladio has been misunderstood. Beginning with an examination of who Palladio was and his beginnings in 16th century Veneto, Guerci emphasises that he epitomises a balance between practice and theory, while Ruskin represented theory only. That he invented a formula was a reason for his success, but his architecture was hardly ever formulaic. According to Guerci, Ruskin's charge that Palladio's architecture does not work in its context is wrong: without the context you can't have Palladio. Arguing for Ruskin are Robert Hewison and Simon Jenkins. Robert Hewison begins the defence by criticising Palladio's desire to impose his own vision on the world, when he himself often deviated from his own strict rules governing that vision. Whilst Palladio was just an architect, he argues, Ruskin was also a critic, an artist, a geologist, a botanist, and a naturalist. But above all, Ruskin saw the Classical architecture that Palladio championed as an attempt to cut mankind off from ‘God's creation’, and tried to use Gothic architecture to reconnect people with nature. Simon Jenkins explains how he has never looked back since his personal discovery of Ruskin's Venice. He says the debate is not about whether Palladio is a bad architect, but about preference. For him, Palladio is unexciting, dreary, and rule-bound, and is about the mathematics, not the magic, of building. Jenkins uses Parliament Square as an example of gothic imagination, excitement and liberation. It is not rule-bound like Palladianism, which is at its best only when the rules are broken. He ends with the suggestion that Palladio is the forbear of the least exciting elements of architecture, and asks that we vote for Ruskin and beauty instead. The Final Vote was declared a draw

The panel debate the idea that beauty has lost its value in British society. Championing the motion are David Starkey and Roger Scruton. Arguing against the motion are Germaine Greer and Stephen Bayley.

Rory Stewart OBE provides an insight into the richly varied cultural and architectural history of Kabul, created by its prominent position along the Old Silk Road. He describes how the great heritage of Kabul has been decimated over the course of history, not only by figures like Genghis Khan in the 13th century, but by the British occupation in the 19th, and then by the Soviets in the 20th century. Stewart’s courageous solo walk across Afghanistan in 2001-2002, combined with his existing expertise in the politics, history, art and architecture of the region, has made him one of the foremost authorities on Afghanistan. Having given a brief outline of the history of Kabul, including the Afghan revolt against the British, Stewart brings us all the way forward to the present, to the Turquoise Mountain Foundation, the hugely successful urban regeneration programme that he founded in 2005. The project operates exclusively within the Murad Khane district of Kabul, and aims not just to improve the living conditions of Afghanis, but to enhance their own sense of cultural and historical identity, by repairing old buildings and restarting the teaching of traditional Afghan trades. At one point, Turquoise Mountain employed every man of working age in the Murad Khane district. Stewart’s message is clear: in order to give Afghanistan any chance of successfully developing in the future, we must be aware of of the responsibilities we bear from the destructive British engagement there, and should encourage a natural, gradual reconnection of Afghanis with their cultural identity. Any approach which is heavy handed, or oversimplifies the sheer complexity of creating a climate conducive to legitimately rebuilding this nation, is bound to fail. Following his lecture proper, Stewart fields questions on the culture of Kabul, as well as on US and British strategy in the region. He refers to troop surges as “positively noxious”, and insists that we must try to find a political solution in Afghanistan, but that it requires the international community to create a realistic space for that to happen

In this discussion on the future of Afghanistan, seven politicians and journalists offer their thoughts on the current situation in Afghanistan and suggest the strategy that Coalition countries should pursue in the future. Matthew Parris begins by arguing that Afghanistan has nothing to do with Britain – that it is beyond our sphere. He believes that the money spent on waging war in Afghanistan would have been more effectively spent, and Britain would be safer as a nation, if we had invested in anti-terrorism projects and policing. Lord Inge believes that we must have clearer aims for what we are trying to achieve in Afghanistan. He believes that the aim should not be to create a democracy, merely a more stable nation. Therefore, we must increase western military levels, and improve the Afghan army. Clare Lockhart argues that the ‘war’ was supposed to be a global partnership. She states that western governments funded the aid effort rather than the Afghan government. She believes the West must invest money in developing the skill of the local population, improving and developing their universities, and equipping Afghans to establish their government and civil society. Rory Stewart states that the West lacks power, knowledge and legitimacy in Afghanistan. He believes the approach we should take involves a light footprint, fewer troops and less money – as this is more sustainable. Christina Lamb now believes that we must not increase troop levels, but argues strongly that Afghanistan is the West’s problem. She states that Afghans are stuck between a vicious Taliban, who they fear and respect for their swift justice, and a slow, corrupt and useless government. She believes that if we cannot send enough troops then we need to think about other ways out of the situation. Anatol Lieven argues that Pakistan is more important than Afghanistan, due to their population, army and nuclear weapons. He believes that the main driving force of radicalisation is our presence. We should study the Russian experience in Afghanistan, train their army and then get out. He believes that if we do withdraw troops from the country, the Afghans will start thinking about what they need to do to secure their own future. Paddy Ashdown strongly disagrees that it is nothing to do with Britain - he believes it is about our security. If you turn your back on a lawless state, where the destroyers of peace can operate, then retribution is possible. Our aims must be consistent with the desires of the people of Afghanistan, even if we feel that the society that they create is somewhat offensive to our values. Furthermore, we must speak to the Taliban. At the end of the debate, chair Richard Lindley asks the audience to vote, with a show of hands, for each of the following propositions: 1. All foreign military forces should leave Afghanistan now; 2. Foreign forces in Afghanistan should negotiate a deal with the Taliban; 3. Foreign troops should remain in Afghanistan until the Taliban have been defeated. Interestingly, all three propositions are defeated, with the third garnering only a few votes

The panel discuss the theory that the era of America's role as the 'World's Policeman" is coming to an end. Arguing in favour of the motion are Oliver Kamm, Pankaj Mishra and Professor John Gray. Oliver Kamm begins by arguing that the financial crisis has affected America’s desire and ability to play their traditional role as head of the international order. He believes that there will soon come a point where Asia will no longer invest in low yielding dollar assets, and the dollar itself will be rivaled by the Euro. He states that the factual reality of the motion far outweighs its desirability. Pankaj Mishra argue that America was never really dominant in Asia and India, as dominance requires consent – which was never present. He believes that the Chinese economy will rebound much sooner than America’s, specifically because it is less capitalistic. Finally, Professor John Gray argues that America will remain the most dominant power, but less dominant than it has been in the past. The decline will be both bad and good, he claims, as we move into a world without a dominant power. The likely outcome of this is a far more dangerous world. Arguing against the motion are Sir Christopher Meyer, Sir Lawrence Freedman and Felipe Fernandez-Armesto. Sir Christopher begins by arguing that the world economy cannot improve until the American economy does, as no other nation has the consumers and resources to protect the global economy. He argues that other global economies are intrinsically linked to America’s, and that their economies are currently faltering. Sir Lawrence continues by stating that American dominance never began, so it cannot be over, as an external force has always contained US power. He believes that no one else is going to take over the role of defining the world order, as there is no potential challenging ideology. Finally, Felipe Fernandez-Armesto states that we should not judge America by the iniquities of its government, but by its people. American dominance is actually intellectual, due to their investment in learning, research and culture. Therefore, he states that American dominance is increasing. First Vote: 223 For, 334 Against, 162 Undecided Final Vote: 103 For, 527 Against, 89 Undecided The motion is defeated

Clive James delivers a lecture on Florence, the city he calls his third university, and the place that opened his mind to European culture and history.

Bernard-Henri Lévy discusses the meaning behind his book Left in Dark Times (2008)

The panel discuss the moral and legal aspects of prostitution. In favour of the motion are Joan Smith, Jeremy O’Grady, and Professor Raymond Tallis. Arguing against the motion are Germaine Greer, Rod Liddle, and Belinda Brooks-Gordon

A decade on from Kosovo's declaration of indepence from Serbia, the panel debate whether or not 54 out of the UN's 192 member states - including America, Britain, France, and Italy - were correct to recognise their declaration. Arguing in favour of the motion are Sir Ivor Roberts, Mischa Glenny, and Dragan Županjevac. Sir Ivor Roberts begins by criticising the US for removing any incentive for a Serbian-Kosovan consensus before their talks had even begun, by telling Kosovo that the US would support it whatever the outcome. President Bush’s argument that this support was necessary to bring stability to the region was also specious, given that Serbia’s democratic government was clearly destabilised by international support for the Kosovan declaration. Finally, Roberts argues that multi-ethnicity has failed in Kosovo, and that temporary partition would be the best interim policy. Misha Glenny argues we must accept the political reality that European countries will not reverse their decision to accept Kosovo’s declaration of independence, but he criticises the flawed process by which this acceptance was made. The resulting confusion caused by European disunity means that Kosovo has not even been properly recognised by FIFA, let alone the UN. Glenny even suggests that the recent territorial adventurism from Russia in Georgia is linked to Kosovo’s treatment: that their actions have been legitimised by the free-for-all created by countries recognising Kosovo’s independence without full agreement from Serbia or the UN. As the only Serb on the panel, Dragan Županjevac wholeheartedly supports the motion. He insists that any recognition of Kosovan independence without agreement from the UN directly contravenes international law. He supports the notion that the ruling on Kosovo is a “toolkit for separatism worldwide”, and draws attention to some often “forgotten” victims of the conflict: the 200,000 Serbians who have been forced to leave Kosovo to live in refugee camps. Opposing the motion are Wolfgang Ischinger, Paddy Ashdown, and Veton Surroi. Wolfgang Ischinger insists that, with all other options exhausted, Kosovan independence was the only satisfactory course of action remaining. Subjecting Kosovo to Serbian rule once again would have been unthinkable after the horrific events of 1999. Ischinger rejects Ivor Roberts’ support for partition within Kosovo, insisting that Europe must remain true to an ideology that always permits multi-ethnic spaces. Paddy Ashdown argues that there are important parallels between the secession of the Republic of Ireland from the UK and of Kosovo from Serbia: through prolonged misgovernance and finally brutality, both ruling countries lost the moral and practical right to govern. Ashdown strongly rejects the parallels drawn by Misha Glenny between Kosovo and South Ossetia, as well as Roberts’s idea of creating partition in Kosovo. Any attempt to impose mono-ethnic regions in the Balkans will, he says, lead inevitably to conflict and further bloodshed. Veton Surroi brings to bear his personal experience of Milosevic’s regime on this debate; he explains exactly how Milosevic divided up different ethnic groups into first and second class citizens in Kosovo, and how this discrimination even extended into the classroom. He praises the intervention of the UN, who for the first time in the 20th century, actually prevented genocide from occurring. First Vote: 171 For, 184 Against, 275 Don’t Know Final Vote: 311 For, 364 Against, 22 Don’t Kno

The panel discuss the merits and pitfalls of the proposed third runway at Heathrow. Arguing in favour of the motion are Tom Kelly, Lord Soley and Colin Stanbridge. Arguing against the motion are Mark Lynas, Sir Peter Hall and Vince Cable.

The panel debates the motion that Georgia and the Ukraine should be allowed to join Nato. Arguing in favour of the motion are Oleg Rybachuk, Denis Macshane and Giorgi Kandelaki. Arguing against the motion are Lord Skidelsky, Alexey Pushkov and Sir Christopher Meyer.

The panel debate whether it is possible to achieve a resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. They discuss the measures that can be taken, who should be involved in brokering peace, and what kind of a peace can be achieved. Dan Gillerman begins by stating his optimism that the Israel-Palestine conflict can be resolved, and cites the 2007 Middle East peace conference in Annapolis as a turning point. He suggests that Islam has been hijacked by fundamentalists and that the only way for peace to be negotiated between Israel and Palestine is if the Muslim and Arab worlds can unite. Dr Hanan Ashrawi is also optimistic, she states that unilateral or bilateral negotiations will not work, and that a multinational approach involving third parties is the only way forward, and stresses the need to include the Arab countries if they are prepared to be involved. Efraim Halevy is less optimistic about the chances of reaching a settlement in the near future. He first lists the conditions that are necessary for a resolution to the conflict and then how far we currently are away from them. He diverges from the previous speakers in saying that this is a problem that is to be solved bilaterally - by Israel and Palestine together, without third party intervention. Mustafa Barghouti cites a lack of political will as the main reason why the Israel-Palestine situation has not been resolved. He suggests that a one state solution will result in a state with unequal rights for Palestinians and Israelis, and suggests that in resolving the situation we should go back to basics - the Israeli occupation must end, Arab initiatives must be discussed, and there must be an international peace conference. Yael Dayan begins by saying that she doesn't want to talk about who is to blame, but instead wants to focus on the future. However, she believes that there is no way that Israel can justify a 40 year occupation, and suggests the only way forward is a two state solution, with Israeli forces ending their occupation of Palestinian territory. Sir Malcolm Rifkind suggests that we have good cause to be optimistic about resolving the conflict - firstly because of historical precedents such as the settlements reached between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan, and also because the majority of Palestinians and Israelis agree to a two state resolution. He also cites the 1955 treaty that saw Austria, by pledging to remain neutral, become an independent nation, as a possible model for a Palestinian peace treaty. This would allow Palestine to become an independent state whilst guaranteeing Israel's security. A show of hands at the end of the debate showed that the overwhelming majority of the audience did not think a settlement could be reached within the next five years. However, a show of hands among the panellists revealed that they were more optimistic, with five out of six of them believing a settlement could be reached in that period.

An Intelligence² debate with the RIBA Trust, as part of the London Festival of Architecture 2008. Speakers for the motion: Simon Jenkins, Leon Krier and Roger Scruton. Speakers gainst the motion: Sean Griffiths, Stephen Bayley and Alain de Botton. Chaired by Anna Ford. Roger Scruton opens the case for the motion arguing that the debate concerns the rule not the exception - the modern office and apartment block are not made for the city but against it. Simon Jenkins reaffirms the motion highlighting the changing history of modern architecture; Le Corbusier and the Utopian 1960's-70's new society were a form of social engineering through architecture; examples of which are being demolished across the world. Finally HRH The Prince of Wales' Poundbury architect, Leon Krier, defends the motion, and calls for a return to tradtional architecture. In opposition to the motion, Stephen Bayley warns against HRH's criticism of advancement, and describes him as fearful for the future and dismissive of the present. Alain de Botton defends modern architecture on its cultural and social merits celebrating design and architecture's great achievements. Finally, architecture professor at Manchester University Sean Griffiths proclaims the motion as the swan-song of a debate that has been running for 24 years, calling for a closer examination of important issues concerning the government of Britain over the last two decades. First Vote: For 199, Against 365, Don’t know 119. Final Vote: For 266, Against 391, don’t know 29

The panel, under chair Evan Davis, debate whether imposing higher tax rates on Britain's highest earners would be an appropriate solution to increase revenue for the state. Arguing in favour of the motion are John Kay, Polly Toynbee, and Anthony Hilton. Arguing against the motion are James Bartholomew, Lord Anthony Jacobs, and Kelvin MacKenzie.