|
|
|
LECTURE SERIES Archive of lecture series for 2003. Click on the link to view more details and a live or archived video webcast of the event.
February 6 a panel discussion with
PROFESSOR MICHAEL KLARE
Moderated by Historically, international affairs have not counted for very much in American presidential elections. The economy has proven to be the most important factor to voters. But September 11th, Iraq and homeland security appeared to have played decisive roles in recent Congressional elections. Will a similar batch of global questions be central to the 2004 race? If not, should they be? And which ones would be the most important in assessing a candidate's viability? These and related matters will be the subject of our panel discussion.
February 20 a panel discussion with
PETER ROMERO For the past decade or so, as almost all of Latin America has democratized, the governments of the region have enthusiastically adopted neo-liberal economics. But, given persistent and unresolved financial difficulties throughout the Hemisphere, many citizens are now beginning to doubt the virtues of such an approach. Using the same new democratic impulses, many nations are now veering leftward or in populist directions - in nations like Ecuador, Venezuela and Brazil - but at the cost of widespread social upheaval. Are the needs for economic change compatible with democracy today? Is democracy viable in a Hemisphere with great poverty and illiteracy? What is the future of this vast land-mass, especially given the general neglect or indifference shown to its needs by the United States? What are the prospects for success for Lula in Brazil? Can he construct a workable left-of-center model for the current crop of populist leaders in Latin America? These and other questions will be addressed by the panel.
March 6 a panel discussion with
MAURICE SONNENBERG
Moderated by The multiple failures and shortcomings of US intelligence in the area of counter-terrorism before 9/11 are by now well known. From books to Congressional hearings, the "whys," " wherefores" and "what ifs," have been gone over with a fine toothcomb. But in light of all of this analysis, hand wringing and second-guessing, what concrete steps have actually been taken to fix the problems, and what are likely to be the impact and effectiveness of such measures in combating a new generation of international terrorists, one that seeks to inflict large-scale physical damage and massive casualties on their opponents. And beyond the war on terrorism, what are their civil liberties implications for the people of the United States of new intelligence gathering and analysis capabilities that inevitably involve ever greater intrusions into everyone's' lives?
March 13 a panel discussion with
SCOTT HORTON
Moderated by Since September 11, the Caspian basin has gotten an extraordinary amount of attention. A confluence of the global energy politics and the war on terror has made "frontierland" a highest policy priority. Cabinet level visits, U.S. bases, and promises of significant funding put the Caspian firmly on the map. Today, the war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan continues. But with President Bush turning to Iraq and the Middle East, what will come of U.S. policy and Eurasia? Will the United States maintain its present level of involvement? Will Russia reassert an imperial role? Where does China fit in and how stable will the region itself be as a consequence?
March 19 The World Policy Institute is hosting a presentation of the documentary film, "Nuclear Iceberg" on Wednesday, March 19th in the Wolff Conference Room. The film depicts the perilous situation as regards "loose nukes" in our contemporary times, especially with respect to the fate of nuclear weaponry in the former Soviet Union. The documentary maker, Tom Selinski, will introduce the film. Two Senior Fellows from the World Policy Institute, who are commentators in the film, William Hartung who directs the Arms Trade Project and Ian Cuthbertson, who is an expert on terrorism, will serve on a panel following the showing to discuss all the implications of "loose nukes".
March 27 a panel discussion with
JULIE MERTUS
Moderated by After coming into office firmly opposed to the idea of nation-building, the Bush Administration found itself confronted after September 11 with the need to do just that in Afghanistan and possibly in a future, post-war Iraq. Yet the challenges of nation-building in impoverished, war-torn regions with a history more of fragmentation than of consolidation remain immense. What, indeed, does it mean to build a nation, and how realistic is the prospect? Does nation-building require establishing democratic institutions, even in places that have never known these, or simply ensuring stability, possibly under authoritarian rulers? What roles do outsiders-foreign governments, NGOs, the UN, international financial institutions--play in this process, and how are they to approach the task? Does the experience of rebuilding Germany and Japan after World War II have any relevance? Can the experience of former Yugoslavia provide any guidance? Finally, is the West, above all the current US administration, willing to invest the resources required to build stable nations, or will they instead attempt what some have termed "nation-building lite"?
April 10 a panel discussion with
JEFF MADRICK
April 3, 2003 a panel discussion with
ALAN BRINKLEY April 24 a panel discussion with
DAVID FROMKIN April 25
Escalating tensions between the United States and North Korea, rising anti-American sentiment in South Korea and global turmoil from the American-led war in Iraq have placed new pressures on Japan-Korea relations that could have wide-ranging implications for economic and political stability throughout northeast Asia for decades to come. Uncertainty over policy directions under new South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, China's economic and military ascendancy, Japan's decade-long economic slump, and questions about America's foreign policy and presence in the region and beyond add further complexity to the picture. This conference brings together senior foreign policy, security and economic experts, including Christopher J. LaFleur, Special Envoy for Northeast Asia Security Consultations, to discuss the challenges facing Japan, South Korea and the U.S. in this increasingly complex global landscape. September
25 a panel discussion with
SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL Moderated
by As the 2004 presidential election nears, the doctrine of preventative war promulgated by President Bush after the terrorist attacks of September 11th has become one of the central issues in dispute among the Democratic candidates for the White House. By endorsing or not endorsing Bush’s 2002 Congressional resolution permitting a preemptive attack on Iraq, the Democratic contenders sought to increase their appeal to primary voters. For its part, the Bush Administration has stuck unflinchingly to its decision in favor of preventive war as a replacement for American reliance on deterrence and containment. What is the likely impact of the Bush doctrine, first, on the Democratic Party race, and, second, on the presidential election. Has the US electorate made up its mind about the legitimacy of preemptive wars? Does the unpopularity of Washington abroad due to Bush policies like these have an impact on American voters? These and other questions will be addressed by the panelists.
October 2 a panel discussion with MICHAEL
J. GLENNON
Moderated
by Did the war in Iraq kill off the Security Council? It was already dead, argues Michael J. Glennon in a seminal essay in Foreign Affairs (May/June 2003). According to Glennon, in denying the United States, the super-hegemon of our times, the right to use force, the Council revealed itself to be structurally irrelevant and thus beyond resuscitation in its present form. Does might make right? Can the US go it alone, or would American interests be better served by seeking UN legitimacy for the country's actions? What hopes are there for the international community to come together to stem the threats looming on our common horizon? What future is there for a collective system of peace and security based on sovereign equality of states, as opposed to one purely based on geopolitical realities? These issues and more will be addressed from various angles, including Asian, European, and other diplomatic perspectives. October 16 a panel discussion with
MARC ELLENBOGEN Moderated
by Old Europe's Transatlantic Rifts and New Europe's Transatlantic Futures - - Why are Europe and America drifting apart and could they, and should they get back together? The Iraq war has put intense strain not only on the Atlantic Alliance, but also on the EU itself as it struggles to agree a new Constitution while enlarging from 15 to 25 members. Will the EU be able to overcome its current crisis of confidence after the Swedes decisively rejected the euro, and if so, are we seeing the emergence of a European superpower? And would such a development be good for the United States? October 23 a panel discussion with LAWRENCE
J. KORB Moderated
by The mantra of the American government since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 has been to protect our country from further radical assaults at all costs. In 2002, President Bush established a cabinet post on Homeland Security devoted to the sole task of defending the nation‘s borders. Almost two years later, we are now just beginning to measure the true effectiveness of this department. This panel will evaluate the usefulness of the administration‘s efforts so far to safeguard American society against outside threats and to ask questions about the direction in which these Bush policies are taking the USA. November 6 a panel discussion with ADAM
BLY Moderated
by One aspect of the current war on terrorism is the degree to which it is impacting on the culture of American science. Beyond the fact that restrictive immigration rules are making university and laboratory staffings more difficult, the editors of a major professional journal have also agreed to pre-censor articles for sensitive information, science websites are being purged or abridge of data, the President's science advisor has been given the authority to classify information, and Homeland Security has become the hot contender for research dollars, draining funding away from basic research. The panel will review all the questions raised by the post 9/11 changes. November
13 a panel discussion with RANDALL
BALMER Moderated
by In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States launched a war on terror that is often perceived in the Muslim world as a war on Islam. Following the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and under the shadow of a deteriorating situation between Israel and Palestine, public opinion of the United States in the Muslim world is at an all-time low. The rise of Hindu nationalism in India has reinforced the feeling among many Muslims around the world that they are under seige by Christians, Jews and Hindus, even as terrorist attacks and virulent rhetoric by Islamic radicals have convinced many non-Muslims that Islam is the aggressor. A dangerous "us against them" mentality appears to be on the rise among people of all faiths. At the same time, President G.W. Bush has earned a reputation as being one of the most overtly religious presidents in American history. To what extent does the president's faith and that of other core members of his administration contribute to the formulation of current U.S. foreign policy, and does it do so differently than has been the case historically? To what extent does religion, as a force to be managed or neutralized, now motivate current U.S. conduct of international affairs? Have religious forces made the world a more dangerous place? Can religion help the world find a path toward peace and stability? November
20 a panel discussion with CINDY
WILLIAMS Moderated
by The Bush administration has increased military spending by more than one-third since it took office in January 2001, with current projections calling for a $500 billion Pentagon budget before the end of this decade. These vast expenditures don‘t even include the $150 billion-plus in emergency spending for the wars in Iraq in Afghanistan, or the roughly $40 billion per year being devoted to homeland defense. Much of this money is being spent for programs that have little or nothing to do with fighting terrorism. This panel will take a critical look at the new military buildup. Are we getting our priorities straight? Does it make sense to finance the new buildup by running up record budget deficits? How does this buildup compare to other post-war military buildups in terms of its impacts on the economy and the federal budget? December 4 a panel discussion with CYRUS
MEHTA Moderated
by Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration has obtained and used new powers to detain immigrants without pressing charges or allowing access to lawyers. It broke up the Immigration and Naturalization Service, whose decrepit bureaucracy had failed to keep out the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center. The Justice Department ordered male immigrants from 33 suspect countries to register with authorities and moved to deport 13,000 of the 82,000 men who complied. Have these measures made America a safer place? How willing are we to risk mistaking innocents for terrorists? How do our post-9/11 actions compare with America‘s previous wartime treatment of immigrants? How will they affect our ability to integrate newcomers and enlist their help in the war on terror? With America‘s foreign-born population of 33 million, or 11.8% of the total, how do our post-9/11 policies fit in with a sensible immigration policy agenda?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
   |
|