 For the next hour on BBC World News, we're live from Davos in Switzerland with a special edition of the BBC World Debate. After the recent US government shutdown, the Snowden revelations and President Obama's reluctance to intervene in Syria, we ask, has America lost touch with the world? I'm joined by US Republican Senator John McCain by former Democrat Congresswoman Jane Harman from Saudi Arabia, Prince Turkey Al-Faisal, former head of intelligence and top-level ambassador, and from Russia, leading parliamentarian Alexei Pushkov. First, the latest news from Gita in London. That's fine, yeah. Jane, we will be putting the woodrobes... Can I just tell you, we are up and running on Google Drive at the moment. So, Andrew's done a fantastic job, and everyone else. When I introduce you, which camera is it? Could you just look at the camera and look back at the wall? So, when I introduce you, your TQ camera will be fine. I guess they're not looking around the conditions here or something like that. For the next hour on BBC World News, we're live from Davos in Switzerland with a special edition of the BBC World Debate. After the recent US government shutdown, the Snowden revelations and President Obama's reluctance to intervene in Syria, we ask, has America lost touch with the world? And I'm joined by US Republican Senator John McCain by a former Democrat congresswoman, Jane Harmon. From Saudi Arabia, Prince Turkey Al-Faisal, a former head of intelligence and top-level ambassador. And from Russia, leading parliamentarian, Alexei Pushkov. First, the latest news from Gita in London. Yeah, just repeat that, can you? Just repeat that. Could you repeat that, please? Pardon. Other people still trying to get in, get lagged. Try not to sleep in here. We have a celebrated, and some of you know we have a celebrated bit of video of people sleep. It doesn't look good, and it's quite offensive, right? Do you want me, please, Barton? OK, so I don't walk at all. OK, I'm going to come to you first, Alexei Pushkov. OK, and then Prince Turkey, and then response. How long to go, please? Can you send me a... If all of you would like to take your badge, the heat in here is intense, I'm told. Stand by, everybody. Stand by. Gita, thank you. Welcome back to Davos. I'm Nick Gowing. We're live for the next hour to discuss new questions and doubts about America's role in the world in 2014. Syria, shut down, snowed in surveillance. Is Washington losing its influence and power in the world? Well, we're here at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Joining me, John McCain, Republican Senator from Arizona. Former Democrat Congresswoman Jane Harmon. From Saudi Arabia, Prince Turkey Al-Faisal, a former head of intelligence and ambassador. And from the Russian parliament, Alexei Pushkov, chairman of the International Relations Committee in parliament, the Duma. We also have a big audience of business, political and civil society leaders here in Davos. And we want to hear from you and anyone out there who has tuned in. Tweet your thoughts to our speakers using hashtag BBC Davos. Well, let me pick up immediately. Has America lost it? Alexei Pushkov, the view from Russia. Well, we certainly do not think that America has lost it, but it is starting to lose it, and that's for sure. And I think it's unescapable. I mean, there were empires and global powers that were leading the world for centuries, and then they were losing it. So I think it's only natural. But there are some dangers here. I think that first, America remains the only global missionary nation. We are not anymore. After the fall of the Soviet Union, we reconsidered our foreign policy philosophy. And we don't think that we have the task to assert our model or our ideology, our view on other nations. America still does this. And I think that sometimes it tries to do it desperately. And the reason being that the resources America has to accomplish this mission, this global mission, are less and less impressive. Well, let me go to Prince Turkey Al-Faisal for the view from Saudi Arabia. The United States, a long-standing ally, you've been very tough in your criticism, particularly over the treatment of Syria. What is the view from Riyadh? Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim. Let me start by being very tough on the BBC because you gave us the most uncomfortable chairs to sit on, Mr. Gauhan. But the first of all, I have to. We're not furniture salesmen, we're bullcasters. So could you answer the question now, Prince Turkey? I should be. I'm glad to that his excellency from Russia says that Russia doesn't have any missionary activities anymore, because when they did, they were equally intrusive on other countries. But talking about the United States, definitely material-wise, when you look at the range of power capabilities of the United States with all the fleets and the aircraft and the military bases, et cetera, it's a worldwide power, and it is still the first worldwide power in the world. But you've talked, you've used language like the way the Americans are behaving is lamentable. It's unclear what they're getting at. You feel blindsided by them. Absolutely. And I think the thing with that we need to have clear and defined policies and actions that follow those policies. But you feel uneasy about your ally view. The issues that you mentioned on Syria or on other things, the policy has not been clear, and definitely the action has not been clear either. So this disturbs America's allies because we've grown to depend on the world of America. We are very grateful in Saudi Arabia, for example, when the United States came to help us in driving Saddam's forces from Kuwait. That was a glorious moment where the world community and not just America came together and under America's leadership drove out those invading forces from Kuwait. But now with Iran and Syria, that's what's worrying you in Riyadh, quickly, if you can. Well, it's not just Iran and Syria. It's the sense of no direction. If you look at what's happening on Syria, for example, there were red lines that were not kept to. You said they became pink and then became white. They were meaningless red lines. I have used those words and I will still use them, but I think we need to go from Geneva to now, to something that is not only constructive, but also it is a test for the will of not just America, but of the whole world. It's the whole world that is sitting back and allowing this massacre to take place in Syria without action. Well, let me go to Senator McCain, your view from Capitol Hill and from Arizona. Senator McCain, here you have two of the nations represented who are deeply concerned now that America has lost touch with the world. Do you accept the criticism? Yes, I do, to a significant degree, and by the way, I agree about this chair. I think it was designed by my old interrogator at the Hanoi Hilton, so anyway, I agree. And I'd like to point out, historians look back for seminal moments when there are crises in history and changes and they look at seminal moments. I think a seminal moment in recent months, if not years, was the decision to say, the president said we were gonna strike Syria and then decided not to. By the way, without informing our Saudi friends of this change, this did incredible damage to United States credibility. Is that realized in Washington? Not only in the Middle East, but all the way around the world. Is that realized in Washington, Senator? In Washington, Americans are tired. Americans don't like Iraq. They wanna get out, but the fact is, we don't have a president who will explain to them why Iraq returning to the state that it was several years ago, that now that we see al-Qaeda flags flying around Fallujah, where we lost 96 Americans and Marines, soldiers and Marines and 600 wounded, it's hard to talk to the families of those who sacrificed. And I guess my point is that there is a display of disengagement is the kindest word that I can use. Jen Harmon, you were very much nodding your head there. You were shaking it and saying no, as the senator spoke. No, I'm saying no. I have great respect for John McCain. We agree on many things and certainly Turkey has been a marvelous friend of the United States and the Wilson Center and me, but I disagree. I think toxic partisanship has consumed Washington. The business model of Congress, where I serve for nine terms, is broken. It is very difficult for President Obama to make any headway in the face of all the naysayers, but I think the world has changed. That's the difference. Cold war ended. There was no longer a bipolar world. We thought maybe America would be the only superpower, but that is not the case. We have a networked world where we are an indispensable partner. Other countries have to step up and governments have to step up. And I do agree there's a huge problem in Iraq, but President Maliki has to be president of the whole country, not just the Shia population. And the Gulf countries have to help us get to the right answer in Syria where there's a humanitarian catastrophe. Russia has to be our partner in doing all of these things in a networked world. Let me give you an idea of what's being thought about out there as they listen to you. From Akhot John Mugh from South Sudan, he's written, is America afraid of Russia? That's why they didn't intervene to bring an end to the Syria crisis. A tweet from Adam Tijani from Nigeria to both of you from the United States. Is the US now tired of involving itself in Middle East crisis because their interference always does more harm than good? Americans are tired, but Americans need to be led and there's no leadership. And to somehow say, oh, it's Maliki's fault, if we'd left the residual force there, things would be different in Iraq today. And my friend Jane Harmon said the surge would never work and was against it. And of course, it was dead wrong. And that has a number of other issues. But the fact is that by not leaving a force behind, which we could have done, I know because I was there in Baghdad with Senator Lieberman and Senator Graham that this situation would be much worse. But the fact is, the most important and salient issue today is that there, we just had the news that 11,000 people have been killed and murdered and tortured by Bashar Assad. And we have not lifted a finger to help these people. Senator, are you all right? The assistance we have given has been minimal. And meanwhile, the supplies come in. The planes land every day in the Damascus airport, full of Russian weapons. The planes from Iran, land, there's 5,000 Hezbollah. There's the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. And our guys are overwhelmed. And that's the tragedy of all of it. Alexei Pushkov, you and the Dumar in the Russian parliament, you approve these supplies and the policy which is being pursued by President Putin in Syria and elsewhere. Oh, there is a government in Syria. It is represented in the United Nations. It's a legitimate government. Nobody has declared it to be legitimate. Or those declarations don't have any meaning because there's the only government we have in Syria. And we have agreements with this government. And it's not illegal to sell armaments to a legal government, especially so that those agreements were signed long ago. But the question is not here. The question is whether it would be better off if Obama had started yet another war in Syria. And what would you achieve by this war? It's not a presence on the ground anyway. It would be three days of strikes. Damascus demolished, finished, and all the same. Al-Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra, all those radical groups who will be fighting there. What would be the American input? You had a war in Iraq for 10 years. You had a war in Afghanistan still going on. You had a war in Libya. Now yet another war, a forced war in Syria. Is it leadership when you just bomb a country and then you go away, leaving the Libyans to a scandalous situation? I don't believe in the strength of armaments only. Jane Haman. Two things on Syria. First of all, it's imperative that Geneva 2 succeed and that we get all the parties there, but on two tracks. One is immediate humanitarian assistance through safe quarters. And two is the formation of a transition government. But we should celebrate one victory in Syria, which is the process to dispose of the chemical weapons, which threaten not only the region, but the whole world. But can I focus you on the legacy? And whether the United States is losing touch? If you believe that Bashar Assad is going to be agreed to a transition government, I've got a beachfront property in Arizona for you. I didn't say that. I think the world has to insist on a transition government. The discussion is going on in Geneva today and hopefully over the weekend. I want to focus on the American position and the American image and America being out of touch. Jane Harmon, what's your response to Alexei Pushkoff from Moscow? I think John Kerry will speak here in five hours. He's a superb representative of the United States and his effort to achieve an Iran without nuclear weapons, a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine, some transition government in Syria, some changes in Egypt. And I do agree with John McCain. We need to focus on Afghanistan and Iraq and make certain that the leaders, the elected leaders there do more and that America assists in the proper ways. Prince Turkey, before I open it up, but you've heard this going on between Moscow and Arizona, Washington, what's your view? Is this addressing the issue of has America lost touch? We have the bear here and we have the eagle here. And eventually, we are the victims of both. Nonetheless, I respect his excellencies' words about America interference and so on. That did not prevent Russia from invading Ossetia or Abkhazia, did not prevent the Russians from literally bombing Chechnya. So there is culpability to go around in the world community on these issues. On Syria specifically, I think that what the senator said about these 11,000 people who have been literally starved to death, that's just one example. That's what we know because somebody had the courage to take out the pictures and bring them to the world and expose them. What is unknown, maybe even three times or four times as much, we have to stop the killing. And when, as Congressman Harman said, the world got together and the Security Council managed to get a resolution on the chemical weapons in Syria, why is it impossible to get a similar resolution on stopping the fighting in Syria? What do you want the United States to do, the Obama administration to do? What I want the United States to put before the United Nations Security Council, a resolution saying that if the fighting does not stop in Syria, that the world community will intervene. Why do you insatiably give it so much confidence to Security Council? Because when you were given a seat, you decided not to take it out. Well, because of the conduct of the Security Council. And look what happened on the Syrian issue. Let me just add one thing. Just last month, when the war broke out in the Sudan, what happened to the Security Council? They all got together and passed a resolution to intervene in the Sudan. Why are Sudanese lives more important and more worthy of protection than Syrian lives? This is the anomaly of the whole situation. Let's get a view from Syria, from Absalam Haikal. So first, I just want to say that the chemical deal can be called a win if we cannot replicate it on solving the humanitarian catastrophe in the country. I think this is necessary to see. What about the United States? About the United States. I think the challenges the Arab Spring presented to the United States are completely new. They don't know how to deal with governments that were elected by the will and choice of people. So the withdrawal symptoms of the United States from the region are creating voids in which aspiring powers are trying to fill. My question is, how does the United States plan and expect to deal with the region once these voids have been filled by regional powers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other powers? And here, I'd like to say that Russia, in addition to being an international power, in the Middle East, they see themselves and probably many Middle East can see them as a regional power too. We've just had one tweet saying Russia says it's not illegal to sell arms to Syria, but I say it is immoral. Picking up on that particular point, though, on Syria, we've heard from Susan Rice, the National Security Advisor, on the Middle East, America cannot be consumed 24-7 by one region, important though it is. Jane Harman. America has to pay urgent attention to the Middle East. We also have to look at the world, but the humanitarian crisis in Syria has to be our number one focus immediately. It is absolutely immoral. I agree, one, to ship arms to people who are doing this, but number two, not to intervene to create a humanitarian corridor and to get goods to these people. Senator McCain. President of the United States told me and Lindsey Graham in the Oval Office that he wanted to do three things, arm the opposition, reverse the momentum and try to get humanitarian help in. He never mentioned the other two again. The fact is that Russian equipment is flying in and now we are getting rid of the chemical weapons while Bashar Assad is dropping these crude cluster bombs, which kill people indiscriminately and I don't think a mother knows the difference between their child dying because of a chemical weapon or because of one of these horrible cluster bombs and I would urge anyone in this audience go to one of the refugee camps and Bashar Assad's defectors will tell you they are told to rape and murder and torture and you can even meet a group of young women who have been gang raped by these people and now we have the pictures and photos of 11,000 people who are tortured and murdered. If that isn't war crimes, I have never seen war crimes. Senator, but there are, but you cannot just blame one side on this. Look, 450 Kurds were killed on April 6th in the northern part of Syria on the border with Turkey and they were killed by the radical groups. Villages of Shia people are being killed down with knives, you know, if I will give you the list of those killings, they are also extremely impressive and so I think we have to establish the facts. Again, I'd like you to go to the refugee camps and hear what they have to say. And the facts are that there was a foreign interference in this crisis from the very beginning. It's not, keep talking about the Russian supplies, but how come that in two years, it was in the Financial Times on the first page, Qatar has spent $3 billion in two years to support the rebels in Syria. So from the very start, there was a foreign interference and now we have 45% of these people fighting for Islamic groups. For Al-Qaeda, for Jabhan al-Nusra, it was in Jain's report, it was in Russian information. We all know what happened in Syria. So we know this. We were winning and then, of course, 5,000 Hezbollah came in and the Russian and other Iranian equipment came in heavily and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. And the momentum on the battlefield shifted and the President of the United States said, it's not a matter of weather, it's a matter of when Bashar Assad leaves, then the fact is that's not true. Right, let me go immediately to Prince Turkey. Where should America, therefore, be moving? What should it be doing, Prince Turkey? You say their response is lamentable. You look around your region and see every single neighbor, in your view, as a threat to the kingdom. Not every single neighbor. We have good neighbors in the GCC. We have excellent relations with Jordan. But let's talk about those you are worried about. Well, the ones I'm worried about are what's happening in Syria. Because definitely... What do you want America to do? I want America, as I told you, to go to the Security Council and get a Security Council resolution that forces should be deployed to stop the fighting in Syria. If that is not available, then at least humanitarian corridors, as the congresswoman said, to allow people not to starve and to exist in a very difficult situation. And what is your message to Russia as well? Well, Russia, stop supplying Assad with weapons. Will others stop supplying weapons to the rebels? Absolutely. I'm not sure. Well, you're not sure. Try it. LAUGHTER APPLAUSE And let me just say one thing about Russia. I'm going to give you advice. And Russia says that it's been... His Excellency was saying that their long-term contracts are supplying the legitimate government of Syria with weapons. I would say the Russian law that has provided those weapons to Bashar al-Assad, prevents Bashar al-Assad from using those weapons on his people. Let me tell you that... You can't tell me... You can't tell me that 200,000 Syrians being killed by aircraft and scuds and so on are all terrorists. Let me tell you, there are tweets coming through also questioning the Russian policy here. How stopping Russian arms supply to Syria will prevent Islamists from butchering civilians? Well, that's a big question. Let me just add an irony here, which is these radical Islamists are now poised to try to attack in Russia, in the Caucasus, as the Sochi Olympics come on. There's an international terror threat against Russia and against us and against Israel. Our embassy was about to be attacked by some combination of people, and the attack was foiled by Shin Bet just days ago. My point is there are aligned interests here in stopping the humanitarian crisis in Syria, and we all ought to do more right now. Right, let's get some more views. Let's go to Ken Roth, who's Executive Director of Human Rights Watch. Ken Roth. There clearly are atrocities on both sides in Syria. But the Syrian government's war strategy is one of war crimes, not simply shooting at the other side's combatants, but killing as many civilians as possible in opposition-held areas and depriving them of humanitarian assistance. But when you talk to John Kerry and the Geneva II negotiators, they say our solution to that is we will negotiate peace. Unfortunately, peace is gonna be a long time coming. Why can the United States not walk and shoot down at the same time? Why can they not, as they negotiate peace, also press for an end to the atrocities and an opening of the borders to humanitarian assistance, in particular with Russia? Why are they simply a partner in negotiating peace? Why is the United States not also calling on Putin to use his enormous leverage with Assad to stop this targeting of civilians and to open up the borders to humanitarian assistance? And there's another tweet here from Hussain Amin, since U.S. less interventionist foreign policy is giving room for alternative international voices. Let, but pick up on Ken Roth's point. Senator. Well, it certainly is giving rise to alternative points. Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, the ISIS, it's now operating obviously in Iraq as we see the hard-won gains of their war in Iraq now disappearing into the mist. And again, back on Syria, the fact is that we were succeeding. We, the resistance was succeeding until the Iranians when it came in full bore. The Russians stepped up their armed supplies and obviously the 5,000 Hezbollah changed the battlefield equation. I don't think there's any military person that would disagree with that. So we've sat by, now the latest, threatening the opposition with cut off of any aid unless they go to this farce in Geneva. And we are doing literally nothing to help these people fight for their freedom. And of course, we now have from all over the world these radical Islamists flowing into Syria, which complicates the situation rather dramatically. And I would also be curious, that might be of some concern for the Russians at some point as well. Yeah, it's something here. It's not just Sunni jihadists who are fighting in Syria. You've got Shia militias coming in from Iraq, pushed by Maliki and by Iran to go and fight in Syria. Hezbollah, as the senator and the congresswoman said, are fighting in Syria. If you look at a breakdown of the numbers of so-called jihadi Sunnis fighting in Syria and the Shia militias that are coming in from Iraq and from all over the world, you'll find that there is a preponderance of number of the Shias over the Sunnis. I'm not saying that the Sunnis should be there. What I'm saying is, you have to get these people out. And that's the only way you can do that is by concerted international effort led by the United States and supported by the United States allies to force these people to stop the fighting. But, Printer, you have one question here. How about Saudi Arabia supporting jihadists? Well, we support the Free Syrian Army, period. There is no Saudi money going to the jihadists. If there are individuals who contribute, as happened, if I remember correctly in the United States, when the Irish issue was in question, with some American individual supporting the NRA, that might be happening. But there is no Saudi money going to any of these jihadist groups. May I just add one more thing? Jabhat al-Nusra, who was it created by? Several years ago, to go fight in Iraq, it was Bashar al-Assad. When America was in occupation in Iraq, he created Jabhat al-Nusra, recruited people for it from the Lebanese camps and sent them into Iraq. I have one more important thing. We are forgetting completely that the present government in Syria is being supported by more than 60% of the population. Ah, come on. Yes, it is a fact. And the reason is that the fighters and the rebels have established such a bad image of themselves that even those who disliked Assad, I have been, I met the opposition in Damascus a year and a half ago. And even those people who disliked Assad say that he is the less of these two evils, because these guys who will come, they will not spare Shia lives. They will not spare Christian lives. You know one of the slogans of the rebels, the Elohimites to the symmetry, the Christians to Beirut. Is it a slogan, fighters for democracy? So it is not a fight for democracy this is going on in Syria. It's a completely different fight. Well, okay, now, we're getting a lot... There's a lot of trending on the messages I'm getting against Russia supplying arms to Syria currently, but we're not negotiating Syria here. We're talking about America. And I'd like to just refocus it there on how much is the Obama position, the White House position, really being driven now by public opinion. Let me just read you three tweets here from the United States. The world is tired of us bullying them. The American troops are tired of fighting UN battles and the American people are tired of flipping the bill. Someone called Athena, the old policing attitude isn't really working. We need to worry about our own problems before we fix anyone else's. And Brian C. from Illinois, we should stay out of everyone's business. And there's a recent poll by Pew, 52% of Americans say the US should mind its own business. Let's broaden this debate to Robert Kagan from the Center on the US and Europe in Foreign Policy at Brookings and your author as well of the World America Made in which you analyze the possible scenarios for diminished US power. Well, yes, and this question is really directed, I guess, at Congresswoman Harman and Senator McCain because it's about presidential leadership. I mean, as you go around the world, the demand for American involvement has actually gone up tremendously in East Asia, in the Middle East. By the way, the demand for Russian involvement has not gone up. But in the United States, public opinion is against as these tweets indicate they're against involvement. What is the president's obligation in these situations? Historically, Americans have gone through these moods in the past. In the 1920s, they were in this mood and the Republican presidents of those days went along with it. Other presidents like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan have pushed against it. What do you think that President Obama is doing in that regard right now? Can I just pick up with Nairi Woods, who's Dean of the Blavatnik School of Government at Oxford University, because there are issues here about governance and how governments and presidents reflect public opinion. Nairi Woods. Yeah, I guess my question to the panel is the other part of America's influence in the world was historically the effectiveness of its open government for the people, by the people of the people. It's lost its way. It looks like a group of politicians, whichever party they're from, who have their eyes not on global security, not on the interests of their people, but on who's funding their campaigns, on small, highly funded special lobbies who can coerce them into taking positions, who can slip legislation through Congress in amendments. It looks like secretive government by special lobbyists. So has America lost... Have American people lost their government, not just America losing its place in the world? Beautiful turn of phrase. Have Americans lost their government? Well, I started by saying that the world has changed. I'm not sure what lessons we can learn from Woodrow Wilson's time, except that we better be careful in getting into the next world war. But I think a lesson to learn now is that we are not the sole superpower. We are the indispensable partner. And I do think America should be more as a partner, do more as a partner, but not just with kinetic force. A whole of government response is necessary. For example, our efforts in disaster relief, staging supplies into all these calamities in Asia and the Middle East, have gotten us much better ratings than anything else we've been doing. On this point, have we lost our government? Toxic partisanship is destroying Washington. The business model of Congress is broken. The president and the next president, whatever party she may be in, will face stiff headwinds. And that is not healthy. Used to be that politics stopped at the water's edge and American leadership is crucially needed in the Middle East, in Asia, and around the world. Prince Turkey and Alexei Pushkov, quickly, do you understand the domestic pressures on President Obama, which are leading to your perception, which is that America is losing touch with the world? In other words, he's reflecting U.S. public opinion. Not so easy to do in Saudi Arabia or Russia. You want to sit with the king and meet with the citizens when they come and complain about the action of the government before you say that. For me, and I think for many Saudis, what's happening in America is a fascinating spectacle. It's a huge lesson in what not to do. But do you understand how it's influencing that policy which you don't like? I respect the senator and the congresswoman and all the people who have gone on the process of being elected and so on. But the president inherited two major wars. He inherited practically a bankrupt economic system, but that, I think, does not excuse leading from behind. And Alexei Pushkov, do you understand? You may not like the way he does it, but do you understand the pressures on him? We understand the pressures because we have a lot of domestic pressures in Russia and our president has also the necessity to respond to them. But I think that some pressures are homemade and they're coming from a dissatisfied world and some part of the American society. Look at this spying story which Snowden did. We'll come on to that in a moment. Was it a necessity to have more of this? Let's come on to that in a moment. Let's move on there to what you were talking about, Jane Harman, and also Senator McCain about the state of politics and how that's driving because we've had a number of tweets here talking about the US losing touch with the world. Has it also lost touch with its own people? One tweet here from Uzma Ayub in Pakistan originally. America needs to concentrate on the many problems within itself. The world community can take care of its issues and solve them at their own behest. What's your feeling about the damage that's been done? Admitted by the president as well when he talked about America's credibility in the world having been severely damaged and this really leading to this perception of the American government losing touch and America losing touch with the rest of the world. Well, the shutdown was an embarrassment. It was hugely damaging inside our country. 50 employees of the Wilson Center were furloughed. It caused enormous economic hardship. That's what you're president of at the moment. GDP, et cetera, et cetera. Senator McCain whom I agree with often was the author of McCain Fine Gold, a bill some time ago to limit the amount of money in campaigns, which is a huge part of our problem. As America falters this way, the perception is that we falter in the world and that is damaging to, it is not okay for us to become isolationist and just look inside our borders. If we wanted a message that tells us that won't work, that message is called 9-11. Let's go to Kathy Gong who's founder and boss of an investment management firm in China. You have a particular view about how the US position is being influenced by this disaster essentially of the shutdown, potentially shutdown in America. Thank you. I'm glad you're giving a voice of China. We are aware of that US has its own power and issues and we also understand that China and the US will have dramatic different cultures but it's never in the interest of the China to meddle with any of the affairs and the problems of the US. So for us Chinese with a simply cannot comprehend the why US is always all the time trying to meddle in our affairs. As a young generation entrepreneur, a common entrepreneur and a non-communism party member, I have to say that I can't ask for more to born young in China at this time and our people are genuinely happy about our government and circumstances. If you don't believe me, read the work on me for Global Canada. How are you seeing the United States at the moment? We see the why can't United States spend more time worrying about your issues and power instead of meddling are others or just simply talking or bombing other countries is a political tool to divert the public attention from domestic tension. Well, I've had a tweet here. I wish Congress was watching this debate. Our division is the strength of our enemies, Senator McCain. Well, there's obviously significant gridlock problems in Washington. No one would deny that, but the any relation between the shutdown of the government and Iraq, Afghanistan is remote. On the issue of China, we'd like to see China respect the freedom of the seas. We'd like to see the Chinese people allow bloggers to blog. We'd like to see people demonstrate in behalf of the things they believe in and support. We are seeing a crackdown all across China against the voices of people that want to disagree with the government. And the South China Sea issue is gonna get bigger and bigger. And the United States of America has certain principles and that is preservation of the freedom of the seas. And you are causing a rising of tensions throughout the region. But Senator, what about the reputation and the credibility of the United States taking a position on the East China Sea, the South China Sea and the Pacific? Listen, I have no doubt that the Syria decision and the things we've done ricocheted around the world. That's why Mr. Abe went to the shrine. That's why the Japanese were saying they're gonna reinterpret their self-defense constitution. This is why countries that I visit country after country say we can no longer depend on the United States. Let me just say, the American people are tired of war, but I think those mothers, those 11,000 that were just murdered are a little bit tired too. And this is no longer just a Syria conflict. This is a regional conflict. And unless we view it in that context, we are not going to be able to effectively address this issue. Look at what's happening in Iraq. Look what's happening in Libya. Look what's happening in Egypt, all around the world. And when the United States decides to step out, then other people fill the vacuum and that's what we are observing. And that's what President Obama has said. It's encouraged our enemies, what's happening on Capitol Hill. It's emboldened our competitors and it's depressed our friends. Are you reassured by what you're hearing? The shutdown of the government was horrible. I fought against it. I voted against it. But now there's a legacy. Compare that with the President of the United States is saying we're gonna bomb Syria and then say, oh no, we're gonna go to the Congress first. Are those pale in comparison? And don't think that that didn't have. I would ask my Saudi friend if that didn't have profound effects in the region. Prince Turkey, you threw up your hands there, why? Because, as the senator said, when you make statements as a head of state, you have to stick by them. And if you don't, then the repercussions take place. People don't believe you. People take courage from that. People advance their agendas. And we're not asking President Obama for miracles. No, but as the senator said, there was no consultation on the issue of stopping the strikes that were going to take place. And so that removes a level of confidence that had previously existed. Let me quote you a one-tweet here. America has completely lost its way, but I do not think we should be taking advice from the Saudis or the Russians. I will give one advice. Have you given any advice yet, Alexei Pushkov? I'm quite willing to give an advice, but I don't want to be considered to be an official Russian advice and my personal advice. I think that America has to measure up its resources and its missions. Because Iraq and Libya, it's largely of American making. We cannot say that the catastrophe in Iraq, 100, 1,000 people is dying every day in Iraq because of terrorist activities. And it's of an American making. It didn't happen before. So the shutdown shows that America has less possibility to conduct an activist foreign policy first. So it's not so remote Iraq and the shutdown one from another. The second thing in America cannot do it alone. That's over. We heard it from George Bush, mission accomplished. America can do it alone. America can fight two wars, three wars, four wars at the same time. Donald Trump's fault. It doesn't work this way. America should go with along with the others. And for this, it should correlate its conception of its national interests with the interest of other countries. America will not be able to be alone, a superpower, a lone global leader. That's over. The unipolar world is over. That's finished. Alexei Pushkoff, Euro raised Snowden. Let's move on to the final issue, which is about the damage that's been done by Snowden internationally losing touch with the world. And let me just put it to you. One question here, you can answer it in a moment. Question for panelists. Is Edward Snowden a hero or a traitor? But one of those who helped reveal what was going on was a Spiegel online. And in the front row, we have Katharina Bouchard because you revealed what happened when Angela Merkel discovered her phone was being hacked in Germany. Well, that obviously caused a really big outrage. And I think that was the tipping point in the political debate really before that they tried to keep it quiet and keep foreign relations intact. But I think after that was revealed, everything went downhill from there. But I have another question because we've only been talking about the political implications so far. But I think we haven't been talking enough about potential business consequences. There's a huge trust issue there. Or at Gaddi's yesterday on a panel that trust without transparency is a very frail proposition and you haven't been doing a very good job with the transparency side. And I think we've all lost trust in due process in the US and there is that will potentially hurt business in a really big way. And are you convinced by President Obama's announcement on how national security and the use of intelligence is going to be changed in future? How it's going to be overseen? I will only trust that ones have seen it happening. So I think what's your take on the business side? Do you think that potentially European companies that are more privacy minded could profit from that? Jen Harmon, you've already talked about living in a post Snowden age. I have. And to answer your first question, Nick, the court, I think Snowden should come back to the United States and face a fair trial and they will judge if he's a traitor. Could I just check with the let's see push-off? Is that going to happen? Is Russia going to end his asylum and send him out of Russia? Maybe back to America. No, no. He will not be sent out of Russia. It's up to Snowden to decide whether he will go back to the United States or not. But his father doubts very strongly that there will be a fair trial on Snowden in the United States because the verdict has been already announced that he's a traitor. I've never called him that. I'm a lawyer and courts make those judgments. He's going to be tried under our laws if he comes back. If he doesn't come back, certainly he can't call him, in my view, a whistleblower. The debate on surveillance has been going on a while. Congress was very involved. I was part of it in trying to come up with a process to identify bad actors and prevent and disrupt their plans against us. We disrupted 54 plots, including plots in Germany. That is a fact. Now, should we change this system? I think we should because I do think we have lost the confidence of the people around the world and many governments. And I think there are ways we can change it that would give people more confidence. President Obama's already said that he will not continue any practice if it happened of listening to cell phones of friendly leaders. That's not going to happen and it should not happen. On this issue of collecting a lot of metadata against Americans and non-Americans, I think that should change. And I worry about the business implications because Microsoft has announced that it is now going to set up servers outside the United States so that Europeans and others can have more confidence dealing with Microsoft. I think Americans are going to try to go through those servers too, so can't we find a way? And Obama has asked people to think about this, not to collect the metadata, but to accomplish the same objective. I think it's an urgent priority. Is the United States, is the world living in a post-Snowden age? Rod Beckstrom, former director of National Cyber Security Center, yes or no? We are living in a new state. I mean, as Jane said, clearly the world's changing. Nothing has changed more than the internet and what we can do with the internet, including data gathering, data sharing, that we all do. And it's a new era. Things are out of balance. I think the question is, what can we do? And can we balance liberty and security? And I'd be interested in knowing what the panelists' thoughts are on the president's recommendations for trying to make some changes to the program. What's your view of the legacy left by Snowden? You know, clearly there's damage in the short term, but some of that's mistaken and misplaced. There's not a major nation state that I know of in this world today that doesn't have intelligence operations or electronics intelligence operations. So the question is not, does that occur? Is there only one nation engaged? It's a collective problem of how do we bring balance to it? All right, well I should just check with Prince Turkey before I go to Senator McCain. Do you spy? You are head of intelligence. Who do you spy on? Do you do the same as America's been doing with the same kind of resources? Spy on me. Hang on, be clear. Did you spy on Senator McCain? Yes or no? Having forbidden. I remember Bill Clinton, I used to be his classmate, was saying in a presentation last year that when I was director of intelligence, he was president, and there was then no need for me to spy because I could call him up and get the news from him directly, but... But this is a very serious issue. But it is. There's a lot of traffic here. Everyone's spying on everybody. It comes down to who is quick enough to use it against the others. And how come Saudi and Russia never have whistleblowers? Well, that's a different culture, I think. Alexei Pushkov, you're a former journalist. You used to blow whistles. May I just use your gun? All the Russians who denounced certain Russian state secrets were given support and asylum in the United States in the times of the Cold War, after the Cold War. So it's a common practice. That's one thing. The second thing, I don't agree that everybody's spying on everybody. It's like saying, you know, every state has an army so there is no difference. There is a difference. Volume matters. The dimension matters. The United States have created a big brother system which allows them to intercept 500 billion emails and phone conversation per month. It doesn't exist at this level, any other country of the world. And this is what is dangerous. Intelligent gathering is one thing. A total spying and total control is quite a different thing and that's what America does. That's why this breach of trust for the United States. Senator McCain, you've been in Congress for long enough on many committees, intelligence, foreign relations, and so on. Is he right? Of course not. The... I didn't get another answer. Mr. Snowden violated NOF and that is a fact. And the damage that has been done has been exaggerated because it's we're hearing it from Mr. Snowden when we should be hearing these things from our own government as to what we are doing. But the other tragedy of Snowden very quickly is that up until then, we were beginning to concentrate and trying to get the government together on this whole issue of cyber attacks. Look at what the Chinese are doing. You can look at some of their weapons systems and you can see exactly where that technology came from. We've traced it to a building. I can show you the PLA building in Beijing. So we've kind of lost sight of the fact that cyber attacks can really disrupt the world's economy, betray secrets, and so it seems to me that our focus should be back on how to prevent cyber attacks and keep up with this ever-evolving technology, which is our speaker pointed out, will be different next week than it was today. What about the damage, Prince Turkey? Well, spying will go on no matter how much you deny, because if you have the availability, you will do it. Do you think the Americans listen to your mobile phone at the moment? Oh, absolutely. I guess when I pick it up, there is always a short... I can tell you it's not very interesting. Alexei Pushkoff, do you think they listen to you? Oh, the American Security Agency Well, I am absolutely sure. Look, if they listen to the Frankfurt Stock Exchange, you know, that's probably they were looking for terrorists, or if they are listening to the conversation of Angela Merkel, that's probably another source of terrorism threat. Definitely they are listening for everybody who has a certain position in the world. But I want to say two things. We were speaking about morality here. Is it moral, first? But second, is it democratic? Because the right to privacy and the right to possibility to exercise this privacy is one of the most important democratic principle. What America is doing now? Is it trying to keep its global impact on the world, trying to resort to undemocratic practices through this total control to compensate this new weakness of the United States? I think there is a danger here. Jane Hollings. A danger for America, not only for us. I agree, it's a balance, it's a balance. I don't think it's a balance. I think it's a positive sum game or a negative sum game. You have to have security and liberty at the same time. It's a dangerous world. Look what you're doing to try to prevent a terror attack inside the Sochi Olympics or inside Russia. Finding bad guys, specific bad guys, whether they come from Syria, inside Russia, Iraq, anywhere, even the kingdom is very... But for this, we don't listen to you or to Senator McCain. Excuse me, I think this US system of collecting metadata isn't listening to everybody. I do agree it should be changed, I said that. But I think the objective is to have systems in the world that protect our aligned interests against terrorism, which is the point of this system. And I just wanna say one more thing about Snowden. Some of what has been released really gives our technology playbook to bad guys. And I'm bad guys, I don't align them with any particular country. But the US has had technological means far more advanced than other countries and now people will emulate those and use them to cause harm in your countries as well as in our country. As we come to the end of this discussion, let me just say it is a balance between preserving people's privacy and at the same time national security and we have not yet found that balance. And that's why it requires a lot of work on the part of Congress. The question we started with is, has America lost touch with the world? Is it losing touch? Senator, I have to tell you that the Secretary of State, John Kerry here, is talking about, quote, the argument that the myth of disengagement. It is a myth. And he says, our commitment is very clearly to engagement in every region of the world. What do you say to the likes of Russia and Saudi Arabia who fear that there's a distancing from Washington in the Congress where you sit as well? Well, I would say my friend John Kerry has a lot of work to do because I travel all around the world and I hear it unanimously that the United States is withdrawing and that the United States influence is on the wane and that bad things are going to happen. And they are happening and more bad things are going to happen when we have a president who does not believe in American exceptionalism. And if somebody doesn't believe that, then that accounts for continued statements about withdrawal, withdrawal, withdrawal. I saw John Kerry recently and asked him if he was taking his vitamins and getting any sleep. I think he is incredibly significant as a world actor now and let's see what happens. Let's see if there can be a final agreement with Iran in six months. Let's see if we can make progress on the Israel-Palestine peace agreement. I see Turkey nodding on that. Let's see if we can have a much sharper focus on the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria. Let's see if America can figure out a way to help stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq. But my point is we are an indispensable partner, not an exceptional nation. I think that offends a lot of other people. We are exceptional in terms of talent, but so are a lot of other people out there. Quickly from Saudi Arabia and also from Moscow, you challenged the president when he said at the United Nations, we are an exceptional nation in 20 or 30 seconds. No more, please, Alexei Pushkov. What has America got to do to re-establish its authority and credibility? I think America has to regain the trust of the world. First, second, it should not stress its exceptionalism because it has some racist overtones towards the others. And I agree with what has been said here. And finally, America should rely less on hard power. We heard a lot about the necessity of soft power for the United States, but America in losing is soft power and relying more and more on hard power and hard intelligence control. And this is wrong for the America and it's bad for the world. Prince Turkey, quickly. Everybody believes they're exceptional. So America is not exceptional in that, but... But nobody says this publicly in the U.S. But the world has become so small that any resolution or law passed in the United States or any action of Mr. Putin in Russia or any decision of King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia is going to affect us all. I remember when I was ambassador in Washington, I suggested to congressmen and women would be newly elected there that they should allow us to vote in their elections because everything they do there is going to affect us. Thank you. We're waiting for that. To all of you, thank you very much indeed to our panel and to all of you who've contributed an enormous number of thoughts and questions. And to our global audience around the world on television, radio and online. That's it from the BBC World Debate. From Meenak Lowing. Goodbye.