Rabii Malik | Trump's Foreign Policy is NOT Preferable to Obama's (2/6) | Oxford Union

Rabii Malik | Trump's Foreign Policy is NOT Preferable to Obama's (2/6) | Oxford Union



I now look to ravi malik the union senior access officer sans college to open the case for the opposition good evening everybody and thank you so much madam president for the opportunity to speak once again in this or gas chamber and Thank You honourable members for taking out your evening to watch what I'm sure will be a very interesting debate if Cameron's speech was anything to go by let us not be complacent today the motion will require a lot of work to unpack my speech this evening ladies and gentlemen will consist of three distinct parts first I'm going to establish the framework by which we can understand the motion at hand I'm going to define the events that we should consider as constituting foreign policy and ultimately argue how we should judge sorry and ultimately outline the framework for how we should judge whether we should prefer transfer on policy or Obama's second I'm going to take a deeper dive into Trump's record on trade Trump's progress in this domain has been a joke a literal meme for voters who expected otherwise this has got to be the worst trade deal in the house in the history of trade deals maybe ever and you thought Spencer's jerks were bad I'm sorry guys sad and finally I'm going to I'm gonna shed some light on Trump's floor record on immigration and its engagement with the circle Muslim world and argue that he has been unnecessarily hostile discriminatory racist and of course ultimately rather unsuccessful where Obama may have been complacent as Cameron is pointed out multiple times Trump has been downright dangerous today I hope that the house will vote explicitly against the motion and confirm that this house would indeed prefer Obama's foreign policy to Trump's ultimately this evening I will be arguing that's at every turn Trump's foreign policy has been more hostile more reckless and less successful than that of his predecessor but before I get onto these points it falls upon me to introduce the proposition speakers for tonight's debate with a Cameron and a Blair on the proposition side you might be confused and wonder whether this is actually just the UK's new coalition this this is a coalition I would vote for myself but let me let me shed some light on the speakers that we have on the proposition side for this evening so we've just had a wonderfully eloquent speech from Cameron bhavo from first historian at st. Edmund Hall and the senior logistics officer at the Oxford Union very prominent position that's not my dog don't worry guys there's no prior to this debate I was actually quite perplexed as to how Cameron expected to balance this without coming across as a white supremacist or something like that you know I gave it some hard-fought and I realized that Karen and Trump actually have quite a lot in common you know they were both privately educated they they both Harbor a deep desire to lead their respective nations and apparently they both have trouble securing the popular vote it seems that at this point Cameron just needs Trump's hairdresser and we'll be good to go so next up we had the pleasure of hearing from Admiral Dennis Blair former US Director of National Intelligence retired US Navy admiral and former student here at the University of Oxford Blair served on the Carter Reagan and Obama before resigning or shall I say being asked to resign in May 2010 a polish resignation however President Obama did issue a glowing reference he said that Blair served with great integrity intellect and commitment to the values we hold dear apparently he didn't hold these values enough because he couldn't hold on to the job but luckily enough for him these are values we already do here at the Oxford Union so he'll be okay this evening and finally to close up the proposition speakers we'll be hearing from Rebecca Heinrichs especially nuclear deterrence missile defense and at current senior fellow at the Hudson Institute she was also key individual in the formation of the bipartisan missile defense caucus Heinrich is also a regular correspondent on Fox News regularly attending regularly attending Fox and Friends so I guess you could add senior advisor to President Donald Trump to that list as well you know it was quite tough to discern which side of the debate should be on this evening but I'm glad to hear that she is in fact speaking in opposition of the motion Madam President these are opposition speakers and they are truly most welcome so to begin with we need to establish the framework by which we can judge this debate the proposition have very eloquently reminded us multiple times in my ad that the motion today is not as simple as preferring Obama to Donald Trump Cameron referred to our preconceptions that we might have and he's right this will of course be too easy no the motion before the House today carries a dip in nuance the motion for the house argues that Trump's foreign policy should be preferred to Obama's focusing on foreign policy does help us narrow the debate but you have to remember that foreign policy foreign policy covers all of Trump's interactions with nations globally he is however useful to highlight the fact that these are the actions for which Trump is most directly culpable while I'm sure that the proposition will remind us of Trump's bold claims how he's defeated Isis and you know how he is tough on foreign policy globally we must take a holistic view of foreign policy and judged the motion based not off of defense or the environment or as interactions in specific countries but really as a whole in particular the Birdland proposition is to argue that Trump's approach to trade negotiations with China nuclear policy in North Korea and Iran the peace in Israel and Palestine are preferable to the policies pursued by Obama the proposition was argue that Trump's approached in reformed border control the environment are preferable to those put forth by Obama the proposition tonight must argue that transformed policy including his ignorance towards NATO as Cameron pointed out as a point in proposition for some reason and his suspicious relations with Russia are better for America and the world at large than Obama's in short the proposition must take a holistic view of foreign policy and sell argue that they would prefer trump to lead the United States than Obama members of the proposition will in doubtedly cherry-pick case studies and offer exceptions with Trump's erratic nature happen to pull through actually me and secretary Johnson haven't had a chance to discuss our speeches but little look at his notes and I hope you'll forgive me for saying this but at the top it says very clearly sense out of mountains and I think this is a key theme for the debate ahead crumbs policy has been erratic and we can cherry-pick cases and we can you know say it's been successful here but we really do need to take a broad view never will the proposition be able to concretely concretely argue that Trump's foreign policy agenda as a whole has been preferable to that of Obama's so with that let's get into Trump's record great Trump has claimed to take an America first first approach as Cameron has nicely highlighted Trump has repackaged some of Obama's existing trade deals called on his own and made broad claims based off of these these trade deals however his negotiations with China offer a valuable insight into the way Trump works lots of rhetoric but very little substance quite similar to some of our speeches if I if I do say so myself repeatedly Trump has exaggerated claims of trade talks progressing but still the trade war rages on but some commentators making occur that Trump's use of the trade war to force Chinese concessions is an effective use of America's standing in the world today it is important to note that Trump himself seems surprisingly complacent and almost okay with these tariffs becoming the day-to-day norm between relations between the US and China more specifically Trump fails to recognize the gains from trade and supply chain integration that has developed through the private businesses that were developed during Obama's administration's one estimate argues that Trump's extension of tariffs to 25 percent across all imports between China and the US could increase the cost to households across the US by over two thousand dollars yet Trump still claims to put America first Trump focuses on the collection of direct tariffs while intentionally ignoring these missed gains from trade while it's true that Obama didn't make significant gains in this domain he didn't destroy the global political order while he was at it while it may be admirable that Trump has attempted to defend IP IP theft in China he has undoubtedly gone too far he has failed to appreciate the tact required to enter trade negotiations with an authoritarian regime Obama's approach through the development of the TPP fostered positive relations in the Pacific while applying indirect pressure to China but Trump's approach is violent at best recent extensions to tariffs on may the fit on May the fifth on Trump's pot have failed since May the fifth China's explicitly said they will not back down and Trump repeatedly ignores the projections and portrays the us-china trade war as an easy win for the USA while failing to understand that the Chinese administration has the ability to outlive Trump's administration many times over the case of China is emblematic of trumps world view and the problem at large Trump believes that brute force will always prevail and his grossly misguided Trump overlooks the reality of diplomacy that Obama knew so well next I want to move on to trump's view on immigration and his policy towards the Muslim world at large comps approach to immigration has been equally weak as its stance on trade Trump is heatedly racist in his immigration policy describing Mexicans as rapists and executed a presidential order to nullify the path for dreamers to acquire American citizenship a policy which was extended through the Obama administration on these fronts Trump has been unnecessarily brutal and of course we can't forget Trump's promise that he will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it yes I see no wall and Mexico is yet to pay for it once again this unnecessary alienation of Mexican people's has been discriminatory and ineffective many migrants entering along the southwest border today are seeking asylum due to violence persecution and ongoing instability in Central America yet Trump's response to this is to cut aid to these very Central and Central American countries who could benefit from it the most this policy only results in worsening conditions on the ground and it continued exodus of asylum seekers out of the region it seems that a common theme in Trump's administration is to alienate the globe and the people who he expects to be the leader of remember it was Trump who drove the birther movement against Obama alluding to conspiracy theories that Obama was a Muslim it's almost as if Trump thinks that his so-called Muslim bands would somehow exile Obama from the United States some of the guests at today's dinner might have noticed that I wasn't in attendance and that's because I've been observing Ramadan Ramadan is a month where Muslims across the world fast for up to 16 hours a day and Spencer thankfully passed me some water as I opened my fast just before my speech and as a Muslim not not an American citizen but as a Muslim nonetheless I feel very unwelcome by the United States I think this is important as it provides a very nice segue into Trump's understanding of how the world works you see Trump does not necessarily see many of these individuals who may be American citizens on paper as American he emboldened white supremacists and elsewhere in the Muslim world Trump has capitalized on his attacks against Muslims domestically Trump domestically Trump has emboldened white supremacist but if we look internationally we can see that Trump is done the same across the Muslim world consider for for a second the executive order that Trump put in place to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel now this is undone decades of trust building in the Middle East and essentially has flushed damp drain the a lot of the successes that actually the Obama administration put in place these are very very fragile governments and the trust-building process is decades long I'm sure speakers will allude to the fact that very little progress was made on paper but as I'm sure some of the ex members of the government can testify many of these talks to take place behind closed doors for many decades before any actual peace talks are great and Donald Trump effectively said goodbye to any of this progress so today I've laid out the framework by which we should analyze this debate we should look at foreign policy holistically we cannot take single issues I'm sure Rebecca will talk a lot about nuclear policy and Trump's limited successes there but we need to look at this as a whole we easily look at Trump's record on immigration my colleagues will talk about the environment we'll talk about Trump's nuclear policy we'll talk about transparency on security and we have to understand that this evening we are voting against the motion that that this house would prefer Trump's foreign policy to Obama's I urge you this evening to vote against the motion thank you so much you

18 thoughts on “Rabii Malik | Trump's Foreign Policy is NOT Preferable to Obama's (2/6) | Oxford Union

  1. Watch the full debate here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayw3VIqDpU4&list=PLOAFgXcJkZ2wY2dWZROErjUuxIdFSr0qV

  2. I thought this man was a debater? Orange man bad is not an argument!

    He's also as about charismatic as a cheese grater!

  3. Rabii failed miserably. His material was purely emotive hyperbole – devoid of objective facts and entirely reliant on "orange man bad"-meme-like arguments. An irony is that Rabii used the line "lots of rhetoric but very little substance, quite similar to some of our speeches" with an implied hit on the supporters of the proposition – but failing to be self aware enough to realise the line applied better to his own material than to anyone else's contributions. Rabii is very obviously a confident and competent speaker, but he needs to spend more time analysing effective debate techniques and how to bring substantive data to his side of the argument – without this he will never win debates as his arguments are easily dismissed and debunked (some of his argument didn't even address the proposition, but instead addressed US domestic issues).

  4. Well I guess merit is secondary to skin colour, this poor chap was utterly outclassed by the first proposer of the motion.

  5. Also…
    Always the same story…
    Democrates blocking the new policy and then blaming Trump for not getting the job done!

  6. He says absolutely nothing solid!
    Just memes…
    As to be expected from a muslim as they are using 'taqquiya' to create a global califate.

  7. Rabii's argument seems to based on the fact that he's Muslim and feels unwelcome in trump's America due to stricter immigration policies, yet the U.K. also has implemented much stricter immigration policies as well…Rabii's argument also seems to point out that he disagreed with trump declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel. I don't think these policies make trump racist or a white supremacist, but certainly trump sides more with Israel than with Palestine. I think rabii would've been more convincing had he left the Racist! argument out and instead focused on facts and not media propaganda.

  8. Wow – I'm pretty sure that that the other speaker did a job of presenting Trump's case.
    He's only presented theoretical costs and not the actual gains of Trump's trade policies.
    Defending "tact" with little results, is not a strong argument.
    Also, the argument of "discriminatory" against those breaking the law – is not an argument. I agree with discriminating those that violate the law. Law, itself, discriminates and is descriminatory of those who break the law by definition.
    The premise of a "muslim" ban is already debunked. The most populous Muslim countries did not have a ban.

    The argument of inheriting Obama's policies and benefiting from them is also not strong as none are really named.

    I understand arguing the strengths of one, over the other, (Rabii arguing the strengths of Obama) but he could defend Obama based on the weaknesses Obama had to deal with; dealing with one of the largest recessions in history. A local and severe hindrance will effect a foreign, and external, policy greatly.

    I feel the debate is equitable with those making the same arguments today in the USA . Those arguing for Obama, argue with 'feelings' , and those arguing for Trump argue with 'results'.

  9. Simple facts: Trump hasn't started any war yet and hasn't used subversion to overthrow any government. Compared to Obama Trump would deserve az least 2 Noble Peace Prices.
    Btw: The poppy fields in Afghanistan aren't looking so healthy either.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *