Council of Councils
Think Global Health
Director of the National Institutes of Health Jay Bhattacharya discusses the latest developments in biomedical innovation and how they will shape the future of public health research.
If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question-and-answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register.
Events
-
State and Local Governments (U.S.)
Joseph Glauber, senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute, discusses the economic impacts of federal policies on U.S. agriculture and international commodity markets. -
Panelists discuss the status of the conflict in Sudan, including the deteriorating condition of civilians, the prospect for regional stability, and the options for an international response. This is a virtual meeting through Zoom. Log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question-and-answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register.
-
Sergei Chapnin, director of communications at Fordham University's Orthodox Christian Studies Center; Katherine Kelaidis, director of research and content at the National Hellenic Museum; and Andreja Bogdanovski, freelance journalist and analyst, will discuss the role of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) in global affairs. Timothy Snyder, senior fellow for democracy at CFR and Richard C. Levin professor of history at Yale University, will moderate the discussion.
-
David Miliband, president and chief executive officer of the International Rescue Committee (IRC), presents the new IRC Emergency Watchlist report, highlighting the countries at highest risk of humanitarian crises in 2026 and examining where the international community has made progress or fallen short. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question-and-answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register.
-
From the ongoing spill-over of the conflict in Sudan into Chad to the resurgence of military coups in countries such as Niger and Burkina Faso, and to the democratic election in Senegal, the Sahel region of Africa has remained in the news. The EU Special Representative for the Sahel Region discusses the forces shaping the region’s sociopolitical and demographic transformation, and the steps taken by the European Union to address these challenges and support long-term regional stability.
-
Panelists discuss how youth-driven protest movements are shaping global political change and examine how these movements work to sustain momentum after major political transitions.
-
The Martin S. Indyk Memorial Lecture was established by CFR to honor Ambassador Martin S. Indyk’s legacy of public service, scholarship, and institution building, and to recognize his ideas and contributions that shaped U.S.-Middle East policy for decades. Ambassador Indyk was a CFR distinguished fellow and former U.S. ambassador to Israel. The lecture highlights critical issues in U.S. foreign policy that reflect his commitments to advancing durable pathways to peace and sustaining American diplomatic engagement. This inaugural lecture is held in collaboration with the Clinton Global Initiative. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question-and-answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register.
-
Director of the National Institutes of Health Jay Bhattacharya discusses the latest developments in biomedical innovation and how they will shape the future of public health research. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question-and-answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register.
-
CFR experts discuss President Donald Trump’s approval of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) chip sales to China and what that decision means for the future of AI, national security, and U.S.-China relations. The recording and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Catherine Bertini, emeritus professor of practice at Syracuse University, discusses how the United States’ trade war is affecting farmers and food supply across the country. The host of the webinar i…
-
Quantum technologies are redefining the landscape of science and policy. National leading experts Spyridon Michalakis and Gorjan Alagic explore the foundations of this emerging field and its implications for innovation, security, and global governance. All members, science experts or not, are welcome to join this session. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question-and-answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. The Science Fair Series is a new meeting series highlighting cutting-edge developments in emerging technologies that will impact foreign affairs. This event is made possible by the support of the MacArthur Foundation, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, and the Hewlett Foundation.
-
CFR experts discuss the Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy released on December 4 and what it means for the future of U.S. security. Before the event, read CFR experts’ breakdown of the document. The video and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website. Please join the Zoom event at least five minutes before the start of the presentation by using the below details: Understanding President Trump’s National Security Strategy Webinar ID: 832 8657 8996 Passcode: 475991
-
Panelists discuss how U.S. presidents have leveraged executive power to confront political violence, human rights abuses, and other global challenges, highlighting the ways presidential leadership has shaped America’s legacy of responsibility, reconciliation, and transitional justice. Please note there is no virtual component to the meeting.
-
Efforts to end the war in Ukraine gained momentum in recent days as a result of newly developed peace plans. CFR fellows discuss the current state of play and prospects for peace in Ukraine. This meeting is part of the Council’s Special Initiative on Securing Ukraine’s Future and the Wachenheim Program on Peace and Security, which are made possible by the generous support of the Ed and Sue Wachenheim Foundation. This is a virtual meeting through Zoom. Log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question-and-answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register.
-
Panelists discuss the geopolitical implications of transformative technologies like artificial intelligence, including how decision-makers are navigating governance, balancing innovation with risk, and addressing questions of equity and accountability.
-
The United States faces evolving threats from China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, but a culture of overclassification of intelligence results in the routine failure to share vital information at speed and scale. In an example of bipartisanship, panelists discuss how the United States can reform its national security information policies, regulations, and laws to ensure crucial insights are shared quickly and effectively across government. Please note there is no Zoom component to the meeting.
-
Representatives Lois Frankel (D) and Jen Kiggans (R), cochairs of the bipartisan congressional Women, Peace, and Security Caucus discuss the role of women in advancing democracy and stability worldwide. Please note there is no virtual component to the meeting.
-
Former U.S. Secretary of State and former U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry discusses the state of global and U.S. climate policy, the opportunities and challenges of advancing energy innovation, and the potential for economic growth through clean technology leadership. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question-and-answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register.
-
In its important new report, U.S. Economic Security: Winning the Race for Tomorrow’s Technologies, the CFR Task Force on Economic Security finds that strategic competition over the world’s next generation of foundational technologies is underway, and U.S. advantages in artificial intelligence, quantum, and biotechnology are increasingly contested. The high-level, bipartisan Task Force warns that economic security risks, especially overconcentration of critical supply chains in China and underinvestment in strategically important areas at home, threaten American leadership in these three crucial sectors of the future. The Task Force report provides a comprehensive view of vulnerabilities that the United States must address and offers practical recommendations for mobilizing the resources needed to prevail. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question-and-answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. This Task Force is part of RealEcon: Reimagining American Economic Leadership, a CFR initiative of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies. Members may bring a guest to this event.
-
As leaders gather in Brazil to discuss international climate policy for COP30, panelists discuss the future of global climate negotiations and reflect on lessons learned from past climate diplomacy efforts, including the legacy of COP3's 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The Royal Shakespeare Company's production of Kyoto is now playing at Lincoln Center Theater in New York. Kyoto tells the story of the tense negotiations during the third COP at the Kyoto Conference Centre in December 1997. A limited number of seats for the performance on November 12 has been offered to CFR members for purchase. If you are interested, please contact [email protected] or look for the invitation on CFR.org/member. This is a virtual meeting through Zoom. Log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question-and-answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this virtual meeting will be posted on the CFR website. This meeting is presented in partnership with CFR's Climate Realism Initiative.
-
In a collaboration between CFR and Open to Debate, panelists debate the legal, moral, operational, and diplomatic trade-offs of the Trump administration's recently authorized military strikes against suspected drug trafficking vessels and its designation of certain cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. Supporters argue this is a necessary deterrent and part of a broader strategy to treat narcotrafficking as a national security threat. Critics claim it violates domestic and international law, undermines sovereignty, risks civilian harm, and may provoke dangerous escalation. Under what circumstances, if any, is military force justified in combating drug trafficking networks? Open to Debate is the nation’s only nonpartisan, debate-driven media organization dedicated to bringing multiple viewpoints together for a constructive, balanced, respectful exchange of ideas. Open to Debate is a platform for intellectually curious and open-minded people to engage with others holding opposing views on complex issues. Please note there is no virtual component to this meeting. The recording of this debate will be posted on the CFR and Open to Debate websites and broadcast on NPR stations nationwide.
-
Panelists discuss and share advice on navigating different foreign policy career pathways in both the public and private sector. The CFR Young Professionals Briefing Series provides an opportunity for those early in their careers to engage with CFR. The briefings feature remarks by experts on critical global issues and lessons learned in their careers. These events are intended for individuals who have completed their undergraduate studies and have not yet reached the age of thirty to be eligible to apply for CFR term membership. We are pleased to extend this invitation to you through the recommendation of a CFR member. If you no longer wish to receive these invitations, please let us know by replying to this email. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question-and-answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register.
-
Panelists discuss the new frontiers of intelligence gathering, examining how emerging technologies are transforming espionage, expanding its reach to the public domain, and reshaping the future of U.S. national security. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question-and-answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register.
-
Representative Jim Himes discusses threats to America’s national security and the role of the intelligence community in safeguarding American interests. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question-and-answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register.
-
Following President Trump’s trip to Asia last week, CFR fellows discuss the outcome of bilateral trade dialogues with the leaders of Malaysia, Japan, and South Korea; takeaways from talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping; and the future of the United States’ economic relationships in the region.
-
Representative Adam Smith discusses his vision for U.S. global engagement, defense, and diplomacy, and shares his insights as ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
State and Local Governments (U.S.)
Margaret Woolley Busse, executive director of the Utah Department of Commerce and cofounder of the state’s Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy, discusses the regulatory environment for artificial intelligence in the United States, with particular focus on its implications at the state and local level. Adam Segal, Ira A. Lipman chair in emerging technologies and national security and director of the Digital and Cyberspace Policy Program at CFR, assesses the global race in artificial intelligence and why these dynamics matter for U.S. national security and the strategic competition with China. -
Measles, whooping cough, and other vaccine-preventable diseases are on the rise around the world, and cuts to foreign aid, coupled with growing vaccine hesitancy, and persistent gaps in vaccine access are fueling outbreaks in poor and wealthy nations alike. Global health experts discuss the drivers of these outbreaks, the solutions that can advance vaccine equity and better public health worldwide, and a new vaccine-preventable disease tracker from Think Global Health, developed in collaboration with ProMED. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. The audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani discusses Qatar’s regional role, including its mediation efforts in Sharm El Sheikh and its response following the Israeli attack in Doha. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question-and-answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Bob (Xiqiu) Fu, founder and president of ChinaAid; Louisa C. Greve, director of global advocacy for the Uyghur Human Rights Project; and Cynthia Sun, senior researcher at the Falun Dafa Information Center, examine the Chinese government’s policies towards ethnic and religious minorities, exploring their implications for international human rights, global religious freedom, and U.S.-China relations. Sarah Cook, independent researcher and consultant, moderates the discussion.
-
The Paul C. Warnke Lecture on International Security is dedicated to the memory of Paul C. Warnke, member and director of the Council on Foreign Relations. The series commemorates his legacy of courageous service to our nation and to international peace.
-
We invite you to a special screening of the new American Experience film, Kissinger, followed by a panel discussion on diplomacy, foreign policy, and global leadership. The film offers an incisive portrait of Henry Kissinger, a prominent figure who served in the highest levels of American diplomacy. It traces his life from his childhood in Hitler’s Germany to his years as a Nazi hunter in the United States Army, his rise through American foreign policy, and his tortured relationship with President Richard Nixon, exploring the contradictions that defined both his pursuit of power and America’s role in the world.
-
General Charles Q. Brown, Jr. discusses the most pressing geopolitical challenges facing the United States and the world today and reflects on the lessons learned throughout his distinguished career. Log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website. PLEASE NOTE: This meeting is part of the Thirtieth Annual Term Member Conference. All CFR members are invited to attend this session virtually, but preference for the Q&A session will be given to term members.
-
Senior Counsel for Trade and Manufacturing Peter Navarro discusses U.S. economic strategy under the Trump administration, including America First policy, tariffs, and manufacturing. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question-and-answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. The audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Panelists discuss international financial initiatives to support Ukraine’s reconstruction and revitalizing its infrastructure and economy in the aftermath of Russia’s military aggression. This event is part of the Council’s Special Initiative on Securing Ukraine’s Future which provides timely, informed analysis and practical policy recommendations for U.S. policymakers and the American public.
-
Jessica Bissett, senior director of government engagement at the National Committee on United States-China Relations, examines how subnational engagement shapes U.S.-China relations and what these dynamics mean for local economic resilience amid ongoing trade tensions. Zongyuan Zoe Liu, the Maurice R. Greenberg senior fellow for China studies at CFR, discusses recent developments in bilateral trade policy, including the effects of U.S. tariffs and China’s retaliatory measures.
-
Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller discusses the U.S. economic outlook in the year ahead. The C. Peter McColough Series on International Economics brings the world’s foremost economic policymakers and scholars to address members on current topics in international economics. This meeting series is presented by the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies.
-
Subindra Bogati, founder and chief executive of the Nepal Peacebuilding Initiative, and Meghan Nalbo, Nepal country representative at the Asia Foundation, discuss how the appointment of Nepal’s interim prime minister, alongside the recent Gen Z–led protests, is reshaping the country’s governance, democratic institutions, and development. Joshua Kurlantzick, senior fellow for Southeast Asia and South Asia at CFR, moderates the discussion.
-
In partnership with Columbia University's School on International and Public Affairs, panelists discuss what effective crisis decision-making looks like in practice, how to understand America’s adversaries, and lessons for future leaders navigating crises in national security. Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton and Columbia SIPA Dean Keren Yarhi-Milo's new book, Inside the Situation Room, offers a window into how presidents and policymakers weigh risks, build consensus, and communicate their decisions to the wider public. Blending fresh case studies with insights from political science, and inspired by their popular class at Columbia, the book offers a framework for understanding leadership under pressure and the art of managing crises in real time. Copies of Inside the Situation Room will be available for purchase during the event. The David A. Morse Lecture was inaugurated in 1994 and supports an annual meeting with distinguished speakers. It honors the memory of David A. Morse, an active Council on Foreign Relations member for nearly thirty years.
-
Digital and Cyberspace Policy Program
Renée DiResta, associate research professor at Georgetown University, discusses how disinformation and digital manipulation are undermining public trust and reshaping the media landscape. The host of… -
At the midpoint of CFR’s Global Board of Advisors’ annual two-day summit, we invite you to a seated lunch with members of CFR’s Global Board. The lunch will be followed by a discussion featuring Global Board members on the shifting international system and the future of global governance in an era of geopolitical and economic uncertainty. Please note there is no virtual component to the meeting. The audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Exiled Crown Prince of Iran Reza Pahlavi discusses his perspective on the durability of the Islamic Republic regime, his framework for democratic transition, and the role of the international community in shaping Iran’s future. Please note there is no virtual component to the meeting. The audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
The head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston discusses the U.S. economic outlook and monetary policy.
-
In a conversation with Jill Dougherty, former CNN Moscow bureau chief and author of My Russia: What I Saw Inside the Kremlin, Linda Robinson, senior fellow for women and foreign policy at CFR, discusses Russia’s evolution under President Vladimir Putin, including President Putin's impact on youth, women, the media, and other groups, as well as the impact of the war in Ukraine.
-
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk discusses the most pressing human rights issues around the world. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. The audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website. The Sorensen Distinguished Lecture on the United Nations was established in 1996 by Gillian and Theodore C. Sorensen to highlight the United Nations and offer a special occasion for its most distinguished and experienced leaders to speak to the Council membership.
-
Minister Asaad Al-Shaibani discusses Syria-U.S. relations and Syria’s international reengagement, including sovereignty, sanctions relief, global partnerships, and foreign policy priorities.
-
President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud discusses Somalia’s political and economic developments, governance, regional relations, and the country’s role in the world. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Fatih Birol shares insights on the current state of global energy markets, emerging risks to energy security, and the steps government and industry leaders must consider to ensure a more affordable, secure, and sustainable energy future. This meeting is presented in partnership with CFR’s Climate Realism Initiative. Please note there is no virtual component to the meeting. The audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
President Rashad Al-Alimi discusses Yemen’s foreign policy priorities, regional security, and the country’s humanitarian situation. Please note there is no virtual component to the meeting. The audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will also be posted on the CFR website.
-
Foreign Minister Gabriela Sommerfeld of Ecuador discusses the country’s foreign policy priorities, focusing on challenges to national security and criminal activity, while emphasizing initiatives to strengthen trade relations and international partnerships. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid event will be posted on the CFR website.
-
President Cyril Ramaphosa discusses South Africa’s domestic agenda, bilateral trade relations with the United States, the future of BRICS, and the country’s role in the region. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question-and-answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
CFR experts analyze President Donald Trump’s speech to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, September 23, and discuss how it will shape further dialogue on trade, immigration, European security, and U.S. relations with Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. The video and transcript of this briefing will be posted on the CFR website. Please join the Zoom event at least five minutes before the start of the presentation by using the below details: Unpacking the President’s UNGA Speech Webinar ID: 860 4047 0149 Passcode: 738479
-
President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah discusses Namibia’s socioeconomic developments, climate issues, nuclear energy, trade, and the country’s role in the region. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question-and-answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Prime Minister Mark Carney discusses Canada's foreign policy priorities and the new global economy. Inaugurated in 1969, the Russell C. Leffingwell Lecture was named for Russell C. Leffingwell, a charter member of the Council who served as its president from 1944 to 1946 and as its chairman from 1946 to 1953. The lecture is given by distinguished foreign officials, who are invited to address Council members on a topic of major international significance. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question-and-answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid event will be posted on the CFR website.
-
His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, archbishop of Constantinople and New Rome and the ecumenical patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and His Eminence Archbishop Elpidophoros of America, archbishop of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and most honorable exarch of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, explore today’s pressing global challenges—particularly regional instability, climate change, and the displacement of refugees—and the moral duty of faith communities to engage and help address these issues. Frances Fragos Townsend, founder of FFT LLC and member of the CFR Board of Directors, moderates the conversation. This meeting is part of CFR’s Religion and Foreign Policy (RFP) program. The Religion and Foreign Policy program offers a forum for clergy, seminary heads, and representatives of faith-based organizations to discuss global issues in an interfaith environment, and serves to inform the geopolitical work of religious leaders and foster dialogue in their communities.
-
Snap Inc. Cofounder and CEO Evan Spiegel discusses the growth and evolution of the company, implications of technological innovation on data privacy, developments in artificial intelligence, and how businesses are adapting to geopolitical and macroeconomic uncertainty. The Bernard L. Schwartz Annual Lecture on Economic Growth and Foreign Policy series focuses on two areas: the evolution of the relationship between business and government in the making of foreign policy, and ways for government to make better use of business in solving foreign policy problems
-
David M. Hart, senior fellow for climate and energy at CFR, discusses the increasing demand on energy from data centers to power artificial intelligence and implications for the future of climate pol…
-
Former national security advisors discuss the recent changes to the National Security Council and the foreign policy challenges facing the United States. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. The audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Panelists discuss the progress made toward achieving the seventeen United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the prospects for advancing the global agenda on poverty reduction, climate action, health, and inclusive economic growth by 2030. Please note there is no virtual component to the meeting. The audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Panelists discuss the role of industrial policy and how the U.S. government shapes markets to encourage innovation, protect economic security, and maintain a strategic edge as global competition intensifies.Copies of Marketcrafters: The 100-Year Struggle to Shape the American Economy and Chokepoints: American Power in the Age of Economic Warfare will be available for purchase.For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question-and-answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Max Boot, the Jeane J. Kirkpatrick senior fellow for national security studies at CFR, discusses the evolving role of the U.S. National Guard in responding to state and federal priorities. Marc H. Sa…
-
Representative Ro Khanna discusses whether the United States should recognize Palestine as a sovereign state and the future of the region. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question-and-answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
In The Age of Change: How Urban Youth are Transforming African Politics, Michelle Gavin explains how demographic trends and unsatisfying political narratives are converging to trigger new volatility in African politics, and how that volatility informs African countries’ engagement with the rest of the world. It is written for a reader interested in the geopolitical shifts driving global events, not just experts in African affairs. Tapping into the irreverent humor and insight of African political discourse on social media, the book helps readers jettison anachronistic ideas about African societies, understand how specific histories inform individual countries’ trajectories, and recognize that a regional search for new political models is underway. The CFR Fellows’ Book Launch series highlights new books by CFR fellows. Please note that members will receive an offer to claim a complimentary copy of this book, and copies will be available for purchase at the event. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Musimbi Kanyoro, chair of the United World Colleges international board, and Olivia Wilkinson, senior fellow with the Faith and Global Health Initiative of the Georgetown University Global Health Institute, discuss how religious communities and civil society advance the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Azza Karam, founding president and CEO of Lead Integrity, moderates the conversation.
-
Panelists discuss U.S. policy options in the Middle East following the Twelve Day War, with particular attention to security commitments, regional stability, and avenues for diplomacy. This is a virtual meeting through Zoom. Log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question-and-answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this virtual meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Senator Jeanne Shaheen discusses the future of United States foreign policy. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Former UN Undersecretary-General Sigrid Kaag discusses the state of humanitarian assistance in Gaza and the role of the international community in supporting relief efforts. This is a virtual meeting through Zoom. Log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question-and-answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this virtual meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
The World Economic Update highlights the quarter’s most important and emerging trends. Discussions cover changes in the global marketplace with special emphasis on current economic events and their implications for U.S. policy. This series is presented by the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies and is dedicated to the life and work of the distinguished economist Martin Feldstein. Please note there is no virtual component to the meeting. The audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Secretary Chris Wright discusses the administration’s priorities for U.S. energy security, innovation, and global competitiveness. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question-and-answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid event will be posted on the CFR website.
-
U.S. Senator Elissa Slotkin shares her vision for the future of American national security and foreign policy. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid event will be posted on the CFR website.
-
CFR President Mike Froman discusses his career, priorities for the Council, and the current events affecting U.S. foreign policy.The CFR Young Professionals Briefing Series provides an opportunity for those early in their careers to engage with CFR. The briefings feature remarks by experts on critical global issues and lessons learned in their careers. These events are intended for individuals who have completed their undergraduate studies and have not yet reached the age of thirty to be eligible to apply for CFR term membership.If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Panelists discuss developments in Russia’s war in Ukraine following the recent Trump-Putin summit in Alaska and the subsequent meeting with President Zelenskyy and European leaders in Washington. This event is part of the Council’s Special Initiative on Securing Ukraine’s Future which provides timely, informed analysis and practical policy recommendations for U.S. policymakers and the American public This is a virtual meeting through Zoom. Log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this virtual meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Panelists discuss the recent reorganization of the U.S. Department of State, including the reasons behind the structural changes and the impact on U.S. humanitarian efforts and broader foreign policy objectives. This is a virtual meeting through Zoom. Log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this virtual meeting will be posted on the CFR website. This meeting is presented by RealEcon: Reimagining American Economic Leadership, a CFR initiative of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies.
-
Thomas J. Reese, senior analyst for Religion News Service; Stephen Schneck, commissioner of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom; and George Weigel, senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, discuss Pope Leo XIV’s foreign policy priorities during his first 100 days and the Vatican’s evolving role in international diplomacy. Claire Giangravé, Vatican reporter for Religion News Service, moderates the conversation.
-
CFR experts from the Council’s Special Initiative on Securing Ukraine’s Future will discuss potential U.S. actions if Russian President Vladimir Putin rejects U.S. President Donald Trump’s demands for a ceasefire deal and what options remain to end the war in Ukraine.
-
Panelists discuss Saudi Arabia’s growing geopolitical role, the leadership of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and the transformation of the Kingdom from recent reforms.Copies of The Man Who Would Be King: Mohammed bin Salman and the Transformation of Saudi Arabia will be available for purchase.If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid event will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Panelists discuss American views on national security and global engagement, and how public sentiment may shape the future of U.S. foreign policy. For further reading, please see the Reagan Institute’s Summer Survey results on American views of foreign policy and national security. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Representative Gregory Meeks discusses the Democratic vision for the future of U.S. foreign policy. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Panelists explore the shifting landscape of journalism, including the influence of political pressures, and the broader implications for press freedom and democratic values worldwide. Please note there is no virtual component to the meeting. The audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Panelists discuss the latest announcements from the Trump administration on tariffs and trade agreement negotiations, the likelihood of extended pauses on tariffs for specific countries, and how businesses and the market are navigating trade policy uncertainties. CVETKOVA: Thank you, Alexis. Welcome, everyone, to today’s on-the-record Council on Foreign Relations virtual meeting on U.S. trade policy and tariffs. My name is Dima Cvetkova. I work for Moody’s Corporation. And I have the great pleasure of moderating this session. We have an excellent panel of experts joining us today who will help us disentangle the trade signal from the noise. We have with us Jennifer Hillman from Georgetown University Law Center and the Center for Inclusive Trade and Development; Inu Manak, a CFR fellow for trade policy; and Francisco Sanchez, partner with Holland & Knight, and a former undersecretary of commerce for international trade with the Obama administration. Jennifer, I know you need to head out a little bit early, so let’s get started. So we have now reached the end of the ninety-day pause on the liberation day tariffs enacted to—which were enacted to allow for trade negotiations between the U.S. and trading partners. However, the deadline for the tariffs and the trade negotiations has moved to first of August, with only two framework trade deals put in place—one with the U.K., and one with Vietnam. So my first questions to the panelists are, what was actually achieved during the first ninety days? What should we expect on the U.S. front over the next few weeks or even next months? And does uncertainty around trade negotiations bring more concessions to the U.S.? Francisco, would you like to start? SANCHEZ: Yes. Thank you, Dima. It’s a pleasure to be with you, and with Inu and Jennifer. Thanks to the Council for inviting me. I think it would be good to start with what is the underlying goals—what are the underlying goals that President Trump and his administration are trying to achieve, and then see what he has achieved. Clearly, one objective is just as a negotiation strategy. You might describe President Trump’s strategy is one of sticks and no carrots. And so he’s trying to make it necessary, if you will, to have people come to the—countries come to the table. That’s one. Two, President Trump, long before he was ever in politics, was feeling that American business is unfairly treated by other countries in the world. So he’s seeking to find more fairness for American business. Third, he’s trying to bring back manufacturing to the United States. And, fourth, to raise revenue. And finally, fifth, he’s looking for cooperation on non-tariff barriers that a lot of countries engage in. I would say at this point the success, if you measure it against those five goals, is rather limited. As you correctly point out, there two agreements—framework agreements. The details haven’t been worked out. When he made that announcement back in April, some members of his administration said there’d be ninety deals in ninety days. I think it’s going to be difficult. One, USTR is a rather small agency. They don’t have the resources they need to do a lot of deals. That’s number one. And, number two, negotiating trade deals is hard. India, for example, started negotiations with us in February, and here it is now nearly the middle of July and we still don’t have a deal. So I think it’s going to be slow moving. There’ll probably be some deals done before the August deadline, but I don’t think there’ll be a lot. CVETKOVA: Thank you, Francisco. And I’m going to turn over to Inu. I remember reading one of the articles she published. And she was talking about the average time it takes to sign a trade deal, which has nothing to do with the ninety days we have now. So, Inu, what is your take on what we should expect by the first of August and beyond that? MANAK: Yeah. I mean negotiating trade agreements is very hard. It takes, usually, 917 days to negotiate a trade deal. So that is definitely not that ninety-day deadline that President Trump was hoping to conclude a ton of deals in. So I’m not surprised that we only have basically 1.5 deals that we know of, right? So the U.K. deal, the text is out. We’ve seen what’s in it. The Vietnam deal, we’ve heard a little bit about what might be in it, but we have seen no text. And it seems like there’s still a bit of ironing of the details going on. So what have we seen so far? If we look at the deals and the structure of what the administration seems to be negotiating, it looks to be about five different aspects that they’re trying to nail down. First is really trying to get tariff reductions where they can, because tariffs are a big part of President Trump’s trade strategy. Second is to have some sort of cooperation on non-tariff barriers. They haven’t really defined what they are, but said if you look at the national trade estimate report it’s all in there. So that’s where countries can actually take a look. The third item that they’re looking at is digital trade provisions, trying to figure out how to get countries on board to U.S. approaches to digital trade. The fourth item has been some sort of cooperation on economic security. This is kind of vaguely defined, and it varies by country, but it means a little bit more investment screening, perhaps a little bit more monitoring of supply chains to ensure there’s not transshipment of goods from China, and other aspects of economic security measures that they may want to undertake. And then the last part are commercial considerations sort of broadly defined. This includes things like encouraging investment in the United States to help boost the manufacturing base and also purchase agreements as well, like ethanol, which the U.K. actually signed up for. So if you kind of look at the U.K. agreement in particular—so that’s the one that we have. It’s five pages. So it’s a quick read. But it reads more like a term sheet than a trade agreement. So folks who are used to reading trade agreements, it’s a little puzzling to see it because you’re, like, what are you trying to do here? It’s a deal that resolves some trade irritants. It’s mostly a framework for future negotiations on a range of issues, but doesn’t really resolve all those issues right now. And, importantly, what it does is sets the stage for negotiation on future Section 232 national security tariffs that may come in place, but doesn’t guarantee that the U.K. is going to get any carveouts there. So it basically leaves open a negotiation that’s going to happen over and over again over the coming years. And it’s not clear where the landing point is going to be. And Vietnam has a very similar structure in its agreement as well. So I imagine we’re going to see more of these come through slowly in the next couple of weeks, but what we’re seeing is really rough contour of what every single country is going to be negotiating. CVETKOVA: So this is going to actually continue a lot longer, you know, after this sort of framework—basic framework is signed. Negotiations will continue for a lot longer. Jennifer, over to you. The same questions with a little bit—from a different angle. We just talked about—before we started the meeting—about the average tariff rates for the U.S., and all the reasoning behind the tariffs. Could you please comment on that? HILLMAN: Yeah. I mean, clearly, you know, one of the things that has been, if you will, achieved, is a significant raising of taxes on Americans. You know, again, so if these tariffs that the president has now announced, you know, through July 7—including, again, the Vietnam trade framework agreement, the U.K. agreement, and, you know, the announcements of these new rates on fourteen more countries. If those go into effect, we will end up with an average U.S. tariff in the United States—average tariff, again, so plenty of them that would be higher than that—of 17.6 percent, which is the highest rate that we’ve seen on our tariffs since 1934. And, again, we have to remember, at their core, you know, that tariffs are taxes, you know, on American consumers. Because it is the importer in the United States that’s paying that tax. And therefore, we have to remember that these are very regressive taxes, meaning low- and moderate-income people are the ones that bear by far the largest brunt of these taxes. Because it is low- and moderate-income people that are spending 30 or 40 percent of their income buying the kinds of goods—you know, shoes, and clothing, and all kinds of the goods that are the subjects of these tariffs. Again, they’re spending 40 percent of their income. High-income people are spending less than 10 percent of their income, you know, purchasing these goods that are subject to the tariffs. So whatever else they’re doing, they are raising taxes very substantially on Americans. Which, again, feeds into one of the goals here being, you know, to raise revenue. Again, but it is raising revenue heavily on the backs of those Americans that are being taxed. CVETKOVA: Great. Thank you for that. And it’s a great segue to my next question, which is, you know, the U.S. administration announced the trade deals as the best deals for American people and American workers. And this is back to you, Francsico. How is the trade agenda impacting American households, building on what Jennifer said, and businesses? And what could be some important positive and negative outcomes of the trade negotiations? SANCHEZ: Well, it will undoubtably impact a number of sectors more significantly than others—electronics, automotive, retail, construction materials, certain foods. We’re likely to see that go up. As Jennifer said, this is essentially a tax. And so you’re likely to see costs go up. On jobs, it’s interesting. If you take steel, for example, he’s—President Trump has increased tariffs on steel and aluminum. The steel industry has approximately 90,000 millworkers. And if you take their industry as a whole, they probably employ upwards to about 280,000 people in total. That includes office workers, salespeople, everybody. If you put tariffs on steel, then you’re likely to see more production, so their employee numbers may go up because there’ll be more demand for American steel. But compare that to automotive. The automotive industry in the United States has about four million employees. If the cost of inputs for the automotive industry goes up, there’s a chance that that sector will see a drop in sales and you could actually see a drop in the number of employees in the automotive sector that would dwarf any increase in the steel industry. Worse than that, I’d say, would be construction. We have about eleven million people that work in construction. It’s a sector that’s very dependent on steel. So you’ll see potentially a major reduction in the number of employees in the construction space that also would dwarf any increase. So while there’d be a benefit in the steel industry, you could see other sectors, like construction and the automobile manufacturing, actually go down. CVETKOVA: Inu and Jennifer, would you like to add anything to what Francsico was saying. MANAK: Go ahead, Jennifer. HILLMAN: I mean—I mean, to some degree I think you’re already seeing a little bit of this. If you look, for example, at the price of steel in the United States compared to the price of steel elsewhere in the world, you know, again—I, you know, recently looked at the numbers; the price for a hot rolled sheet of steel in the United States is over $900 a ton, whereas the world average price is $400 a ton. The average price in Europe, around $600 a ton. So if every manufacturer in the United States that needs to purchase steel to use it to make a product out of it is spending almost twice as much as any of their competitors are for that basic component, you know, the concern is what it does to long-term competitiveness. You know, and then you turn to things like construction. You know, again, in addition to the tariffs on steel and aluminum, and now these across-the-board tariffs—these so-called reciprocal tariffs on these, you know, fourteen-plus countries that are above the 10 percent that’s been added onto everybody in the world—and, again, you start to see it. And then you look at what is likely coming, which is a number of these section—so-called Section 232 national security tariffs. So, again, we have to remember that there are investigations pending right now today on semiconductors, on pharmaceuticals, on copper, on timber and lumber—again, heavily involved in construction—on critical minerals and derivative products, on medium and heavy-duty trucks and parts, and on commercial aircraft and jet engines. So if, again, we were to result in even more tariffs on all of those sectors on top of all of these others, you can see what a significant impact it could have in a number of these key sectors of our economy. CVETKOVA: So can I follow up on that actually? We were talking about we were talking about legal challenges, and there is a lot of talk about legal challenges to these tariffs. So, as a legal expert, can I ask you, do you think that legal challenges can derail the U.S. trade agenda? HILLMAN: I certainly think that there’s a very good chance that the legal challenges will at least temporarily derail the tariffs that have been imposed under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA. Again, and that is all of these 10 percent across the board tariffs, and all of the tariffs that we’ve just described that are the ones under the U.K. agreement, the Vietnam agreement, and, again, the new tariffs that were announced last night against these fourteen countries—all of the so-called reciprocal tariffs. Those were all imposed under IEEPA, as were the tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Remember, we’ve got a 25 percent tariff on Canada and Mexico, and, again, 20 percent more on China as a result of IEEPA tariffs, subject to this so-called fentanyl crisis—this emergency on fentanyl. So all of those tariffs, which pretty much means everything except the existing tariffs on steel and aluminum and cars, are subject to this IEEPA challenge. And it is a big challenge. Two courts have already ruled that the president’s tariffs under IEEPA are illegal, unlawful. Why? Because, again, the Congress is given the power by the Constitution to impose tariffs. Again, Article One Section Eight of the Constitution is very clear. It is the Congress and the Congress alone that has the power to impose tariffs. So the president can only impose tariffs if the Congress has handed over authority from the Congress to the president. And so the question before the courts is, did the Congress hand over this authority in this IEEPA statute? And the courts have found, and many are arguing, that the answer to that question is no. Again, partly because, again, it has to—the words that the president is relying on is that IEEPA gives the president the power to regulate importation and exportation. And so then the question becomes, does “regulate importation or exportation” mean tariff? And the argument is, no, it does not, because in every other law in which the Congress delegates that power to impose a tariff, it uses the word “duty” or “tariff.” And it puts in procedural requirements. It puts in timing requirements. It puts in notice and comment requirements. It puts in limits on the amount of the tariffs that can be imposed. None of those exist in IEEPA. So, again, there’s a big challenge as to whether or not IEEPA provides the president with tariff authority at all. And, again, at least one court has already ruled to say, no, it doesn’t. And then the second aspect of IEEPA is you can only impose these tariffs if you have declared there to be a national emergency, which is—which, again, is defined in the law as an unusual and extraordinary event having its genesis outside of the United States. So the second big argument to all of these reciprocal tariffs is how can you say that a trade deficit is an unusual and extraordinary event when the United States has been running a trade deficit every single year for fifty consecutive years? The deficit is not particularly high compared to our GDP, you know, in this year. So how is this an unusual and extraordinary threat if it’s something that’s been happening for fifty years? And similarly, the argument on the fentanyl tariffs is, you know, what is putting a tariff on, you know, teddy bears, or T-shirts, or anything, else have to do with fentanyl? There has to be a connection between the emergency that’s been declared and the action that’s been taken, tariffs. So across all of those fronts, there are these very serious challenges pending to the tariffs. These challenges are currently pending before two different appeals courts, again, because the courts have already ruled, no, you can’t use IEEPA for tariffs. The appeals are pending. I’m assuming that by early fall we will have decisions by these appeals courts as to whether or not they believe that IEEPA provides tariffs authority or not. And then presumably, from there going, you know, again to the Supreme Court, I would assume sometime, you know, again, in the winter we will have some court—sort of a ruling from the United States Supreme Court. CVETKOVA: Thank you. I want to go back to the trade deals. I want to make sure that we talk about the U.S.—potential U.S.-China trade deal. And Inu, I want to turn to you and ask you, if there is a U.S.-China trade deal—I mean, I do remember the first Trump administration the Phase One and Phase Two agreements, and what happened with that. If reached, this U.S.-China trade deal, what shape or form do you think it is going to take? Or are we just going to see a prolonged trade conflict instead of the trade deal? MANAK: Thank you, Dima. You know, I think it’s going to be very difficult to do something very comprehensive with China, because comprehensive deals take time. And it takes a principled approach with really clear targets that you’re trying to achieve. And the administration’s trade policy has basically been erratic. It’s been erratic because they’ve been trying to get quick deals, but a quick deal with China won’t bring about the systemic change that’s needed to address some of the concerns that were brought up in the original Section 301 report on unfair trade practices with China under the first Trump administration. Now, if we look at what happened during the first Trump administration, we had the Phase One deal on January 15, 2020, signed. It included various commitments, mainly focused on purchase commitments, including agricultural products, industrial products, natural resources, and services. Now, if we look at how that did, Chad Bown from the Peterson Institute found that China actually only purchased 58 percent of the total U.S. goods and services exports over 2020-2021 that it had committed to buy. And it bought none of the additional $200 billion of U.S. exports committed under the deal. So the Phase One deal not only did not live up to the purchase commitments, but it also failed to systemically change some of the concerns he had about China in terms of unfair trade practices, including whether or not it was violating IP rights and it was using forced technology transfer. All these things were left unaddressed. Now, if we are to deal with that, one of the things we need to be doing is to work with our trading partners, who we’re now raising tariffs against, to find a way to actually work together to have common rules around how we deal with China. And at the moment, what we’re doing is actually pushing a lot of our trading partners closer to China by closing off our own market and threatening all these tariffs over and over again. So I think that at the end of the day if we actually are to have some significant reforms and a comprehensive deal, we kind of need to step back and take some time, right? We can’t have this general framework that we keep modifying every other month where it comes to no real strong commitments at the end of the day, and we have no dispute settlement mechanism that we can use to enforce it. So China Phase One deal has no dispute settlement mechanism. And if you look at the text of the U.K. deal, I don’t see one there either. And, in fact, it says it’s a nonbinding deal. So how can we actually achieve concrete results if the agreements are nonbinding? So I think there is a big question here about what we can actually achieve and huge limitations in just the structure of the negotiations themselves. CVETKOVA: That’s great. And I and it brings me to the next question, actually. It leads on to, are we actually seeing the U.S. on the way to withdrawing from leadership from the global trading system? And if the three of you can think of five years from now what the trade landscape is going to look like, how do you visit it? Francisco, would you like to start? SANCHEZ: Well, the short answer is, yes. We are retreating from being the global leader in promoting free trade, in being against protectionism, if you will. Going from being against protectionism to being the leader in protectionism, in many ways. You know, hard to predict what’ll happen in five years, but there’s no question that what’s happening here will largely—(off mic, technical difficulties)—the other countries, when they negotiate with some of their trading partners that aren’t the United States. So I do see a retreat from globalism, a retreat from free trade. And time will only tell how far we go. I’m very concerned that probably our biggest economic adversary—not probably—our biggest economic adversary is China. And yet, of the fourteen countries that were mentioned yesterday, many of them are in Asia where we should be strengthening those ties and not creating tensions. I’m talking about Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia. So it creates tension where we should be creating cooperation to go after the most challenging economic problems we have, which I believe is China. Inu mentioned intellectual property, theft, forced transfer of technology. Those are the issues we need to be focusing on. And they’re hard. So I don’t believe on critical issues we’ll see those be resolved soon. To the extent we have a deal with China before the end of the year, I believe there’ll be, perhaps at best, some short-term advantages, but not long-term. HILLMAN: For what it’s worth, I’d only add that, you know what you—a couple of things. One is, you know, there is a huge risk to the whole world if we, in essence, fragment the global trading system into two big blocs—a kind of, you know, pro-U.S. bloc and a pro-China bloc. The WTO and the IMF and the World Bank, you know, recently published a study that said if we just do that—just that fragmentation alone, with no other changes happening in the rest of the economy, we’re looking at a 7 percent reduction in global GDP, and even more of a reduction for many of the developing and least-developed countries. So, again, a huge risk of fragmentation. And the other thing to watch China doing in response—you know, again, you have to be really clear about what did China do the last time the United States engaged in this trade war, is to some degree the same thing they’re doing right now. Which is, to the extent that they raised tariffs on U.S. products they lowered them on goods from everywhere else. China is immediately sort of doubling down and going to all of its Asian neighbors and saying, you know, we are a reliable trading partner. The United States is not. You should do more of your trade, you know, in and around and with the United—with China. China is trying to become, itself, much more, again, the hub of all of this trade, you know, within Asia. So I do think we need to be really worried about it. You know, and as Francisco said, I mean, many, countries share our concerns over what China is doing on intellectual property theft, on over producing, overcapacity, flooding the rest of the world with all of this excess capacity in goods that’s driving down prices for everybody in the world. A lot of countries share that. But they cannot get on board with the United States in fighting it if the United States is going to turn around and put tariffs on them. And, again, the tariffs come on and off and on and off. So, you know, that I think is the real risk, is that we’re going to fragment the world and we’re going to put countries in this very tough position about whether or not they want to side with China or whether they want to side with the United States. They don’t want to side. They want to trade with everybody. And yet, you know, we may be pushing them to have to make a decision. SANCHEZ: And, Dima, if I may add one more thing, is that the tough approach, or the no carrots a lot of sticks approach doesn’t work well when your counterparty has its own set of tools to fight back with. One that the Chinese have used, I think very effectively, is holding back export licenses on rare earths, something that’s very important to a lot of American industries. So it isn’t as though China doesn’t hold any cards. They hold quite a few. I would also point out that China is prepared to have its population be ready for economic difficulties, rather than to just simply cave in to something that President Trump may want. So I think no matter how you look at it, the negotiation with China on issues of real importance to us are going to be very, very difficult and probably a long time in coming. CVETKOVA: Thank you, Francisco. And, Inu, before I turn to you with the same question, I just want to mention for the audience that we’ll be opening the Q&A session in just a moment. So if you do have a question, please raise your hand now to join the queue. So, Inu, over to you. MANAK: All right. Thank you. You know, just to add one big picture point to that. When I’m looking at sort of U.S. engagement and global trade leadership, I would say we haven’t been a leader in the global trading system for eight years. And we never kind of stepped back into the role of leadership once we stepped out of it in the first Trump administration. You know, when Trump first entered office, he effectively ignored the global trade rules. And then Biden came in. And he largely followed suit. Most of what Trump did in his first term was maintained in the Biden years. There was a window of opportunity early on in the Biden administration to reverse course, but the prevailing view in the administration was in support of greater protectionism. And they kept betting on protectionism and to keep it in place to avoid losing support among working-class voters, who, in the end, voted them out anyways. So I think that strategy did not work. And it showed to be something that actually was not something that folks were responding to. And here, Trump’s come back and said, well, you kept these in place, obviously they’re popular, and so let’s just ratchet them up. And so what we’re seeing today is taking that tariff policy to even greater extremes. And we don’t really have any counterweight to that anymore. And so I think there’s a bit of a scramble internally within the United States to see, like, where Democrats stand on these issues today. And there’s a lot of soul searching going on to figure out where they do stand on it. So I think we’re going to see a lot of that play out in the next couple of years, as we have members of Congress respond to the pain that their constituents are surely going to feel as some of these tariffs actually take effect. And I think what we’re starting to see, in fact, in looking forward in the next couple of years, is the fact if maintain these tariffs and, as Jennifer said, you have additional tariffs coming on 232—if you pile on tariff after tariff, the U.S. is going to become an increasingly closed market. And when 50 percent of what we import are intermediate products, that means those who are going to be hit most are going to be small and mid-sized businesses. And they are going to suffer. We’re going to have less consumption and less growth. We already have low growth projections. And we’re going to see that other countries are going to look elsewhere for arrangements in which to trade. The CPTPP, which the U.S. withdrew from, is becoming one of those frameworks, and others may try to bolster the WTO and other arrangements in order to find ways to trade on a rules-based way. The EU has said that they want to do that. So we’ll see more diversification from our trading partners, less coming here. And it’s going to make the United States a less safe bet for investments over time if we have a really unstable trade landscape. So a lot of uncertainty. It’s hard to see where it’s going to land. CVETKOVA: Thank you, Inu. And, actually, mentioning the WTO, Jennifer, I’ll turn over to you, with your experience and your background. What are the urgent—what are the urgent things we need to—the WTO needs to change in a certain way? What are the urgent changes that have to be made, when it comes to the WTO? HILLMAN: Well, obviously, you know, the big concern at the WTO is here you have, you know, arguably, the two largest trading partners in the world—China and the United States—basically engaging in, effectively, a trade war outside the bounds of the WTO, which, again, doesn’t suggest the—you know, that the WTO is playing this highly relevant role. You know, again, because every single one of these tariffs—whether they’re under 232 or under IEEPA—are a violation of the United States’ commitments under the WTO. I mean, we promised when we joined the WTO, again, and when we helped create the WTO, that we would not charge tariffs in excess of the rates that we bound our tariffs at, and that we would not charge tariffs that differentiated between this country versus that country. We would not discriminate with respect to our tariffs. And, obviously, all of these tariffs are discriminatory. So, again, most of the other countries look at the United States and basically say, it’s the United States that is the major problem at the WTO, not China. That it’s the United States that’s not playing by the rules, not China. And, again, that is not in our long-term interest. So what does the WTO need to do? I mean, to me, I think, A, the WTO has got to do everything that it can to try to urge all of the other countries in the world to maintain their tariff commitments. And if they must retaliate against the United States, or must do things on the tariff front, to try to stay within those rules of what are their bound rates, what are their MFN commitments, to try to adhere as closely as they can to the rules. The second one is obviously the dispute settlement system. The United States has, again, destroyed the dispute settlement system by blocking any appointments to the appellate body. A number of countries have come up with this alternative, what is referred to as a Multi-Party Interim Arrangement on Arbitration for Appeals, MPIA. Again, every country has the option of joining that MPIA. And, again, using the rules of the WTO to try to stay as close as possible to a rules-based system. And, obviously, the WTO has got to do a lot of changing on its own. It’s clear that over the life of the WTO it has become way too hard for the WTO to update its rule book. Again, it lives under a rule called consensus where, again, nothing gets agreed upon unless everybody agrees. And it’s become just way too easy for countries to just raise a flag and block a consensus. So the WTO has got to engage in a lot of thinking about how to make decisions better, how to end up with agreements that at least the majority of or a clear plurilateral group of countries can support, so the rest of the world can move ahead even if there are some countries that are not ready to move ahead. They’ve got to update the way in which they go about rule making. And, to me, they’ve got to keep doing and do more of what they do do well, which is to provide, you know, again, a forum for everybody to talk. And, more importantly, transparency. Again, you know, you can go—you can find out everybody’s tariff rates, sanitary measures, phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade. They’re all notified to the WTO. So they are—the WTO is a tremendous resource for countries. And, again, they need to do all of that, and to continue to do it well, while they are figuring out how to fix their dispute settlement system and how to fix the sort of negotiating arm of the WTO. CVETKOVA: Thank you, Jennifer. And I want to turn to Francisco with a different question. You’ve helped companies navigate this very difficult trade landscape. We laid it out there. We talked in the past a lot, and you continue to talk about supply chain resilience. So how are companies actually navigating this space? SANCHEZ: A lot of them very difficultly. When you establish supply chains it takes time. And particularly when you’re doing supply chain resiliency, you’re trying to find multiple supply chains to make sure you have backups. But this is—this isn’t something that you turn on a dime. And so it’s very disruptive. It’s something that’s on every company’s mind that relies particularly on international supply chains, and very challenging. I might add, this is not exactly on point to your question, but going back to one of the original purposes of this trade strategy is to attract manufacturing back to the United States. Japan currently is our number-one—or, number one or number two depending on what source you look at, source of foreign direct investment. And 41 percent of that foreign direct investment goes into manufacturing. This is kind of hard to understand. If that’s our goal, it seems like one of our important trading partners that we’ve just slapped—or threatened to slap 25 percent tariffs if we don’t reach a deal by August one, how that is a great motivator to somebody who seems to be doing what they want. And to answer—going back to your question, that foreign direct investment will be harder for companies to make the decision to invest here if their supply chains are harder to put together, whether it’s an American company or whether it’s this foreign direct investment that’s coming from Japan and other countries. So I’d say it’s been a big challenge. And because of the economic uncertainty that we’re seeing in the execution of this trade policy, I believe that that difficulty is going to remain for some time. CVETKOVA: Thank you, Francisco. And at this stage, I can see that we have a question from the audience. I want to turn to this question. Let me just remind the audience that this meeting is on the record. Alexis, can we have the question please? OPERATOR: (Gives queuing instructions.) We will take the first question from Mara Lee. Q: Hi. This is Mara Lee. I’m a reporter with International Trade Today. And if you will forgive me, I’m going to squeeze in two questions. One question is about this question of transshipment in the Vietnam framework. Robert Lighthizer has talked about transshipment in a way that doesn’t mean transshipment, that just means a certain amount of Chinese content in a good. And so I wanted to get y’all’s thoughts about how—what the U.S. might get other countries to agree to in terms of will it be more like a rule of origin, that if you have, you know, 60 percent of the value is Chinese it doesn’t count? My other question is sort of this game of chicken, in the sense that Japan and South Korea really don’t seem to be able to accept a world that the 25 percent auto tariffs don’t go away. And we don’t seem to be willing to have them go away. So will Trump have to back down in the end because the market will discipline him? Someone said there isn’t any more guardrails, but he did back down in April because of a huge stock market drop. You know, the market’s not going to care about 40 percent on Cambodia or 25 percent on Kazakhstan, but they may care about 25 percent on some of our very largest sources of imports. HILLMAN: So I can—I can start first with the transshipment question. Just to say, unfortunately, we don’t know. I mean, what the agreement—what little we know says that the tariffs on everything from Vietnam is 20 percent, unless it has been transshipped in which case it’s 40 percent. Now, again, normally transshipment is considered something illegal if you basically are, in essence, slapping a label on something that says “made in Vietnam” when it was, in fact, made in somewhere else. I mean, that is normally what we think of as transshipment. And so obviously if that’s what you’re doing, you know, that is illegal, and, you know, it should carry a higher tariff. But if what they really mean is that you’re simply using components from everyone else, that is not what we normally understand transshipment to be. I mean, normally we live with—again, the 20 percent tariff on Vietnam ought to be on anything that is considered made in Vietnam. How do we know if it’s made in Vietnam? It’s whether it meets the existing today rules of origin that apply to Vietnam, and many other countries. And that rule is generally wherever it—wherever that article is last substantially transformed into a new and different article of commerce, or underwent, you know, a tariff shift where it becomes a new item under the tariff schedule. If that work occurred in Vietnam, that good should be considered made in Vietnam for purposes of customs, and should be subject to the 20 percent tariffs. So we simply don’t know whether they’re going to come up with some kind of a different definition of what is meant by transshipment in this. And the only other thing I will say is those kind of negotiations, over rules of origin and changing rules of origin to require more work to be done in Vietnam in order to qualify for that 20 percent tariff, are not easy to negotiate. Because the way in which every different product is made is different, and therefore you have to really struggle to figure out how are you defining the rules of origin within any given product? I mean, you saw this really clearly in the auto rules of origin with respect to the USMCA, the U.S., Mexico, Canada agreement, where that was a large negotiation to try to just figure out how to change those rules of origin, adding in requirements on where the steel was melted and poured, and a lot of other things. So the answer is—on the transshipment—I think we really don’t know what they mean or what they’re getting at by that, and won’t until we see actual terms of an agreement. SANCHEZ: Well, I’ll take a shot at the second question. I’m not terribly good at making predictions. In fact, I’ve made predictions that have been wrong in the past. But I’m going to take a shot at it. I don’t believe that the 25 percent tariff that President Trump announced will stick with Japan and South Korea, in part precisely because of what your question implies, is the increased cost to the American consumer would be substantial. I think it is—as we mentioned at the beginning of this program, one of President Trump’s goals is to get leverage in negotiations. And I do believe that that number is more about leverage than locking into that tariff rate. CVETKOVA: Thank you very much. Do we have—do we have other questions at the moment? OPERATOR: No other questions at the moment. CVETKOVA: No further questions at the moment. So I have another question for the panelists. And I sort of want to know, when you think about the U.S. trade policy is there an aspect of it, at least one thing you can mention, that has been either overlooked or, on the flip side, anything that has been overemphasized? And why? Inu, would you like to chime in? MANAK: Yeah. No, thank you. I mean, I think the thing that’s often being overlooked is the fact that we need imports in order to do the things that we do here. You know, if you have to have a vibrant manufacturing base, we need to import components. And so I think what the administration is focusing on is really just not going to be achieved. You know, they say they want to increase manufacturing and exports. Well, you can’t do that without imports, right? And so I think this is one side of it that we need to talk a little bit more about to understand the tradeoffs of imposing tariffs in all these various sectors, right? Because, as Francisco mentioned early on, you know, if you impose a tariff, say, maybe you’re going to show some sort of increase in manufacturing output, maybe in some protected sectors, right? But you’re going to lose it elsewhere. And so we have to have a broader conversation about where is it that we think we should be investing all this trade protection? And is it worth it in the end for the job losses and the reduced output we’re going to create in other sectors? And so I think that’s a broader conversation that’s not being had right now. We’re focusing so much on manufacturing, when manufacturing has been doing quite well. We have tremendous amounts of manufacturing productivity output. We have a good amount of employment in our manufacturing industry. We could do more. We could have more automation, which we’re actually quite behind in compared to other countries. If you look at the number of robots that China has in its manufacturing facilities compared to us, we are really, really low in that number. So we need to do more here in investments. But it’s not tariffs that’s going to get us to that point. And so we have to have that question of, like, what is the goal here, and how do we actually go ahead and achieve it? And how do we do it where we’re basically strangling ourselves by limiting our options for what we can actually purchase abroad? SANCHEZ: Dima, I think another premise of President Trump’s trade policy that needs to be scrutinized is the definition of America being unfairly treated. Trade deficits have been used to define whether there’s unfair treatment between the United States and a particular country. But, as Inu pointed out, one of the reasons that we import things is to make things, right? Our supply chains are international, and we need—we need products from across the board. Another reason that we import things is because we’re the wealthiest country in the world. And so defining an unfair trade relationship just based on the deficit, it just—it doesn’t make sense. There may be unfairness going on, but to measure it based on our trade deficit seems, to me, like a poor measure. HILLMAN: I’d only add two additional ones, in terms of what are we missing? I mean, obviously, to me—and it was sort of implicit in some of what Inu was saying—is, you know, manufacturing of goods is about eight or 9 percent of the GDP of the United States, if you don’t count agriculture. So what are we missing? We’re missing the ninety percent rest of the U.S. economy, which is largely in services. And this is where the United States, again, has a trade advantage. This is where we really do have, you know, the ability to outcompete a lot of other countries. And all of this time that we’re spending talking about tariffs and talking about manufacturing, as important as that is, means that we are not focused on what do we need to do to remain highly competitive on the services side. And the second piece of it, to me, that we’re really not appreciating, I don’t think, is the cost of chaos and uncertainty. And why has that chaos and uncertainty come into our trading system? And here’s where, again, I do think it goes back to some of the basis for the legal questions, because it used to be that Congress set trade policy. And so for an act to go through Congress, whether it was a free trade agreement, or whether it was trade promotion authority, or whether it was the tariff schedules that were included within the Uruguay Round agreements—once the Congress voted on that trade policy, it stayed that way for a fairly significant amount of time. And, yes, you could add tariffs as a result of anti-dumping, countervailing duty, safeguards, you know, other actions. But fundamentally, there wasn’t these huge pendulum swings. And now that we’re deciding to make all tariff action and trade policy by the executive branch, again, you’re seeing this big swing away from where—you know, again, away from a stable trade policy, in a way that I think is really hard not just for our trading partners, but for everybody in the supply chain to deal with the fact that they literally do not know what the tariffs are. They don’t know when they’re going to be applied. And that they could change at a moment’s notice for any reason. And that they’re not—they’re not related to something that you can at least predict what’s going to happen. There’s no predicting here. And I think we’re underestimating what a drag on the U.S. economy that level of chaos is creating. CVETKOVA: I would like to end this conversation on a positive note. (Laughs.) So I’m going to ask you a final question before I conclude the meeting. Is there any positive outcome that you believe could come out of this trade policy and trade negotiations? HILLMAN: I’m going to go first, only because, I’m sorry, that I do have to leave a little bit early. So I apologize to my fellow panelists that this is—you know, I’ve got to walk out the door. For me, the positive that could really come from this is if we’re starting to have really, you know, again, helpful conversations with our trading partners about many of the things that that Inu mentioned at the beginning are part of, potentially, the U.K. negotiation. You know, again, things like cooperation on non-tariff barriers, digital trade provisions, cooperation on economic security and, again, maybe cooperation on what to do broadly about China. If these negotiations do that, and we don’t take this only attitude of we have to win and you have to lose in order for it to be a good trade negotiation, if we can focus on those other things, then, to me, particularly on the digital trade agenda where there are no international rules and we desperately need them—you know, if out of all of this chaos could come a better sense of where we’re headed on digital trade, to me, that would be—that would be a big win, and is not out of the realm of the possible. So I hope that’s leaving you, at least from my end, on a bit of a happy note. CVETKOVA: Thank you very much, Jennifer. Thank you. (Laughs.) Inu, digital trade. I hear—(laughs)—would you like to chime in? (Laughs.) MANAK: Yeah, absolutely. Now, I think there is a real opportunity, actually. So there is all this leverage that’s been created from the tariffs that have been put in place. Countries want to negotiate with the United States. So we should use that enthusiasm to actually get something done, right? You know, forget the deadline. And deadlines don’t really matter. I think that’s been pretty clear this year, that the deadlines can move. And that’s OK. Trade negotiations take a long time. And we should take the time to do it right. And on digital trade is something where the United States has long been a champion of creating global rules, but we dropped the ball on that a couple of years ago. And now is our chance to make sure that we can have global rules on digital trade that reflect U.S. interest. There have been negotiations ongoing at the World Trade Organization for several years. Last year, they got very far along, to the point where they actually have what’s called a stabilized text. That just means there’s lots of stuff that’s pretty much agreed to, and there’s a few things that aren’t agreed. I think for the United States, it would make a lot of sense to go into those negotiations and say, hey, look, maybe we need to change some things here, and expand a little bit what we’re doing, and include some provisions in there that are a little bit more stringent for China, in particular, to address some of the concerns over data localization, for instance, that have been a major sticking point in negotiation. So I think there’s a real opportunity for that. But also just generally, on the WTO reform front, we could do a lot. We can address the problem of developing country status in the WTO, which is self-declared. You are a developing country if you say you are. That’s something that’s been a major sticking point for a very long time. We could address the unfairness of subsidies and overcapacity by having a broader conversation about that. And if we don’t do it there, we can do it within a smaller grouping of countries that are actually also concerned about it. We had discussions under Robert Lighthizer between the EU, Japan, and the United States on overcapacity and subsidies reform. We should rebuild those discussions again and try to find a way to have some common ground there, because if we work together and we leverage our allies to make sure we can actually get these changes, I think there’s a real chance that we can have some positive structural reform at the end of all of this. CVETKOVA: Thank you. And Francisco. SANCHEZ: I’m probably in very strong agreement with the comments that Inu made and Jennifer made. I do believe there’s an opportunity here to focus on non-tariff barriers, which are often more problematic than the tariffs themselves. Anytime you start a conversation there’s hope. There’s hope that you can have something good happen. And I think in the non-tariff barrier space we could see some movement. And that would be a very positive thing. Jennifer mentioned more cooperation among the countries that are concerned about China as an economic threat, particularly in some of the unfair practices that they engage in. And, again, just starting the conversation with countries, even though these conversations have been testy in many cases, could lead to cooperation to something that really is going to be critical for our future. And then finally, not so much on the trade front but geopolitically, it’s possible that we begin to get closer to India, for example, which is going to be an important country for the United States to build a relationship with, not just economically, but geopolitically. And the same in the Asia region. Although we’ve had very difficult, it seems, conversations with Japan and Korea and others, geopolitically it’s in our interest to be closer and to work together. And I’m hoping, from this chaotic beginning, we can see an improved relationship that that that goes to our geopolitical interests as well. CVETKOVA: Thank you very much. With that, I would like to conclude the meeting by thanking the speakers for a very lively and engaging discussion, the audience for joining us, and the Council on Foreign Relations for organizing this event. Thank you. SANCHEZ: Thank you. MANAK: Thank you. (END)
-
Public Health Threats and Pandemics
Thomas J. Bollyky, the Bloomberg chair in global health, senior fellow for international economics, law, and development, and director of the global health program at CFR, discusses emerging threats … -
CFR experts discuss the U.S. strikes on three of Iran's key nuclear sites, Iran's possible response, and implications for the region.
-
Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Michael Faulkender addresses the current state of the U.S. economy and outlines the administration’s upcoming economic priorities This meeting is presented by RealEcon: Reimagining American Economic Leadership, a CFR initiative of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Global health and security will increasingly rely on the support of private sector actors, multilateral development banks, and local scientists, institutions, and entrepreneurs. While these local actors are already addressing domestic health needs, strengthening their role in global priorities such as disease surveillance and the rapid distribution of medical countermeasures requires rethinking what is best led locally, establishing supportive financing structures, and reforming global institutions to enable meaningful collaboration within a broader global framework. This roundtable will explore these critical topics, featuring two speakers who will offer diverse perspectives on the challenges and opportunities ahead: Peter Singer, emeritus professor of medicine at University of Toronto, former special advisor to the director general of the World Health Organization, and former CEO of Grand Challenges Canada and John Simon, founding partner of Total Impact Capital, former U.S. ambassador to the African Union, and former executive vice president of the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC).
-
Ilia Delio, founder of the Center for Christogenesis and a Franciscan sister of Washington, DC, and Noreen Herzfeld, the Nicholas and Bernice Reuter professor of science and religion at the College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University, discuss how religious worldviews and spiritual traditions can inform global AI policy and explore the role of faith leaders in shaping inclusive, ethical, and internationally responsible governance of artificial intelligence.
-
Panelists discuss what to expect from the upcoming NATO Summit at The Hague amid an uncertain geopolitical and political environment. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
CFR experts discuss Israel's strikes against Iran's nuclear program, Iran's possible response, and further implications for the region, including the potential for war. The video and transcript of this media briefing will be posted on the CFR website. Please join the Zoom event at least five minutes before the start of the presentation by using the below details: Media Briefing: Israel, Iran, and What Comes Next for the Region Zoom Webinar ID: 834 3522 4861 Passcode: 783613
-
-
Please join us for a livestreamed discussion on the future of the World Bank and lessons learned from Mr. Banga's distinguished career to open the 2025 National Conference Speaker Ajay Banga President, World Bank Group Presider Michael Froman President, Council on Foreign Relations Introductory Remarks David M. Rubenstein Cofounder and Co-Chairman, The Carlyle Group; Chairman, Board of Directors, Council on Foreign Relations ---- Note that the National Conference specifically convenes CFR members based outside of New York and Washington, DC. RUBENSTEIN: Wow, we have a great group here. OK. I’m David Rubenstein. And I have the honor and privilege of serving as chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. And to all of our members, thank you very much for coming. We have—this is our thirtieth National Conference. And that means it was started in 1995. Now, who can remember the most important thing that happened in 1995? The O.J. Simpson trial. (Laughter.) So we’re expecting 460 participants over the course of this—of this conference, from about thirty-six different states and from ten different countries. So to all of you who’ve taken the time to come here, I appreciate your doing it. We think you’re going to learn a lot. We have an incredible group of panelists who’ve agreed to participate. And I think you’ll learn a lot. And as I was thinking about it just a few moments ago, you know, I lived through, many of you did, the Vietnam War, and lived through the Iraq and the Afghanistan War, when American soldiers were being killed. And it was very nerve wracking to be an American, to be watching this happening. And now we don’t have any soldiers that are really in combat, yet we have conflicts around the world that are extremely dangerous to our country and dangerous to the future of the world. So Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Gaza, what’s going on in Iran, and potentially China and Taiwan. And so a lot of people ask me all the time: What is going on in your country now? What is your policy going to be? In fact, as I travel around the world I get more questions now of what our foreign policy is than any time in my—ever since I’ve been traveling around the world, for the last thirty-some years, even though we’re not in combat ourselves. And it just, you know, illustrated to me how important it is that we have an informed citizenry that can really know what’s going on. And by participating in this event, I think you’re going to be part of our informed citizenry. As I think you probably heard me say before, Jefferson used to say—Thomas Jefferson—that a democracy really only works if you have an informed citizenry. Our citizenry is not as informed as it should be, and we’ve spent a lot of time in recent years trying to make sure that the Council on Foreign Relations is educating people who are not only members but people who are interested in learning about foreign policy and national security policy. When the Council was first set up, it was set up for basically White men from New York City. (Laughter.) Then we dramatically expanded it to White men from Washington, D.C. (Laughter.) And then later we decided we’d have some White men from around the rest of the country. But over the recent years we’ve dramatically changed that, to the good fortune of the Council on Foreign Relations. We have a—I hate to say that I don’t want to use the word; I will use the word—we have a diverse membership, and we’re very proud of having a diverse membership. We now have members from—about one-third of our members from the New York area, one-third from Washington area, and one-third from the rest of the country. And our membership is I think now about 30, 35 percent female, which I think is much better than it used to be. And gender—and ethnic diversity is much, much better than it ever was. And therefore, I want to thank the members of the Council who are here and thank all the people that have been willing to apply to be members of the Council. As you probably know—you may have heard me say this before—being a member of the Council is, you know, a testament to your achievements, your ability to be a productive citizen. As I said the other night—and I hope you all see this later—two nights ago we unveiled the portrait of Richard Haass—Richard Haass, president for twenty years. We have a tradition here of having portraits of our presidents unveiled, and you’ll see it tonight, I think. It’s an unusual picture, and I won’t comment further on it, but it’s—(laughter)—it’s a great picture and I’m very happy we have it. But what we really have here now is an opportunity for all of you to learn more about national security, foreign policy. The team has put together an incredible program. Our National Committee, headed by our vice chair, has done a really incredible job, a great work. And I want to thank Blair Effron and all the others who were involved in making this possible. So, just to conclude, I want to thank Mimi Haas. Is Mimi—is she here? No. Mimi Haas has been a supporter of the National Conference, and she’s supported it significantly in memory of her late husband, Peter. And I want to thank Mimi publicly for making it possible for the National Conference to occur. So over the course of the next couple days you’re going to learn a lot more about foreign policy, national security policy, and I think you’re going to come away feeling, you know, you’re fairly educated. You may be a little depressed when you hear some of the things that are going on. (Laughter.) We had a board meeting today, and we heard briefings on Russia and Ukraine, no easy answer there; briefings on the Middle East, no easy answer there; tariffs and trade, no easy answer there. And so you’ll hear about all this, but hopefully you’ll come away after these two days are over feeling you are better informed, you feel you’ve gotten your money’s worth out of the Council. And I just want to thank all of you for not only being members of the Council, but for your generous support. The Council does not get any government money—not that we would probably get any anyway. (Laughter.) But we take no government money. And so now, you know, we depend on the generosity of our members and other people like Mimi who have been supportive. So thank you all for coming. Thank you for being here this evening. And let me just introduce what we’re going to have now, which is tonight we’re going to have a panel discussion between Ajay Banga, who is a(n) incredible individual who’s now the president of the World Bank. Previously, he was the head of Mastercard, among other major positions he’s had in the financial service world. An immigrant to the United States and an example of the kind of strength we get from the United States—in the United States when we have immigrants, and many of the people who are here probably are immigrants or know of immigrants who’ve helped our country a great deal. Ajay is an incredible success story, has risen up to be the head of the World Bank, one of the most important jobs in the world, really. And he’s going to have a conversation with Mike Froman. Mike, as you know, has done an incredible job in just the relatively short period of time, a little more than a year or so, as the president of the Council on Foreign Relations. And so you’re in for a treat. And I want to ask them both if they would come out now, Mike Froman and Ajay Banga. (Applause.) FROMAN: Terrific. Thank you, David. Welcome, Ajay. It’s great to have you. BANGA: Thank you. FROMAN: Ajay was here in September 2023, about six months—four months since you’re— BANGA: When you were twenty-seven years old. FROMAN: Yes, exactly. Exactly. (Laughter.) So it’s great to—it’s great to have you back. You know, you’ve said the World Bank was not born of altruism but of strategic design. You know, many think of the World Bank as a humanitarian organization. It’s not. But poverty alleviation has really been at the core of what it’s done for so many years. Over the years, there’s been a focus on education, on health, on infrastructure, on climate. You’ve put jobs as the North Star, the creation of jobs at the North Star, not as a byproduct of other investments but as a goal in itself. Why jobs? Why do you think the World Bank can create jobs around the world? And why the shift in emphasis? BANGA: So I think the reality is that the best way to alleviate poverty or eliminate it is to create jobs. The best way to put a nail in the coffin of poverty is to give a person a job. Because poverty is both a state of mind and a state of being. And a job alleviates both. You earn, but you also have hope and optimism. And if you don’t have those two things, you remain in one form of poverty or the other. And if you look at the history of the last forty years of poverty alleviation in the world, most of it has happened in countries where jobs were created in the tens of millions—China, India, Mexico, Bangladesh, Vietnam. All mostly by outsourcing jobs and production from the developed world to these countries, principally for labor cost arbitrage reasons, to start with, but then followed up by logistics cost arbitrage because they were building infrastructure from scratch and did a much better job of people building that than we would have had to do if we had to rebuild it. And they made good quality products as well. When you put those three things together, you ended up with this model of growth, job centered. There’s 1.2 billion young people coming through the pipe in the emerging markets who will be ready for a job between now and the next twelve to fifteen years. Current forecasts for those countries, same countries, is to create somewhere around 400 million jobs. Now, forecasts are made by guys like us, and so don’t take it too seriously. And forecasts are not destiny. But we can’t be wrong by 800 million. Something is missing in that space. And if we are wrong by 800 million, then what you have is not a demographic dividend. You have a timebomb ticking in the next twelve to fifteen years. Because then—if you’re worried about illegal migration right now, just wait. If you’re worried about military coups right now, just wait. If you’re worried about drugs and people not being able to get access to being productively involved in society, just wait. You’re saying you can’t hear me, ma’am? All right. FROMAN: Yeah, can we turn up the volume, please? Thank you. BANGA: So, I mean, at the end of the day the point is you got all these people looking for a job. You’ve got not enough jobs. You’ve got challenges on that front. I think building a school and building a bridge and building a skilling center is lovely. But if all—if it isn’t all focused towards job creation, then it isn’t going to do what it needs to do. And that’s why the focus on poverty, and jobs, and connecting the dots. And that’s what I’m up to. FROMAN: And, ultimately, what’s—is that better? I can hear myself better now. What is the role of the private sector in that job creation? This is all going to come from government jobs and assistance? BANGA: I hope not. I hope not. That’s how our tax dollar goes to die. But if you—if you were to—(laughter)—if you were to think about how jobs get created, you need an enabling infrastructure environment. Meaning—by infrastructure, I don’t mean only hard infrastructure. I mean soft as well—so bridges, roads, airports, all that stuff. But then you need skilling, education, health care, that, if you get that right, and you get the right business-friendly regulatory environment—by business friendly, again, I don’t mean only business friendly as in roll out the carpet each time, but labor law, land law, mobile collateral guarantee law, utilities that are properly funded, things of that nature—if you do those two things, you can then allow a private sector, small, medium, large, global, local, to flourish and create the virtuous cycle you need to create jobs. So that’s the role of the private sector. Ninety percent of jobs in most countries are created in small and medium enterprises in the private sector. But the government has the role to play of creating the enabling infrastructure and the environment to enable that private sector to win. And that’s the—that’s what we’re trying to do. The World Bank has in its units the ability, through the parts that work at the public sector, to help with the infrastructure. The part that is focused on knowledge and the knowledge bank to help with the regulatory environment and the business-friendly part of it. And the part of us that works with the private sector—IFC, MIGA, ICSID, to help with the private sector. The question is, can we connect the dots and do it properly? Which is what I said the first time I met you, that I wanted to fix the plumbing of the World Bank. And the plumbing is if you build a house on top of bad plumbing, you end up in trouble. And I’m trying to make sure that the place works as it should, so that this idea of a change then is something we can translate into action. FROMAN: Where are you in that journey towards fixing the plumbing? BANGA: (Laughs.) I’d say reasonably well along. Depends how you measure it. But in—the G-20 sort of expert group had twenty-something things to be done. We’ve done sixteen of them. I don’t count that because I’m not sure all the twenty are the only things we have to do. So the way I look at it is, what are we trying to do differently? Become faster. We used to take nineteen months, on the average, for a project to go from conversation to approval at the board. We’re down to twelve now. So what I said I would do by June. Some projects are getting approved in thirty days, a health-care clinic in Kenya. Some projects are taking three years, a hydroelectric dam in Central Asia. That’s appropriate because the risks are different, the challenges are different. And so I think you put it together, you get the twelve months. But you’re getting it done the right way. The second is that we said we’d work better with the other multilateral development banks, because we all need to work better otherwise we’re fragmenting our efforts. So to give you an example, we’ve got a digital platform we launched in which now every MDB that gets a project in a country puts it in there, and everyone can co-finance and co-bid together. And we’ve now got 174 projects going through it. Fifteen billion (dollars) of financing has already happened in the past six months. We’ve signed a full mutual reliance framework with the Asian Development Bank so if you’re co-financing a project in Fiji, the government of Fiji doesn’t have to go through two due diligences, two procurement systems, two project approvals. One gets done. I do it, they’ll accept it. They do it, I’ll accept it. That’s kind of trying to find a way to make us work better together. Working with the private sector—you know, you started talking with the private sector, but there’s a whole series of things we’re doing across five dimensions from regulatory certainty, to insurance guarantees, to foreign exchange and local currency, to us taking the first loss, to creating a originate-to-distribute platform that’s run by Doug Peterson, actually, and out of that— FROMAN: Hmm, CFR member. BANGA: Yes. Is that so? FROMAN: Yes. BANGA: You do manage to rope them all in, don’t you? FROMAN: We try. (Laughter.) BANGA: People like me, too, but what the hell. FROMAN: Mmm hmm, CFR member. BANGA: I’m giving more than pennies, I’ll remind you, Mr. Rubenstein. (Laughter.) And so there’s work with the private sector. There’s work on all of these dimensions. There’s a corporate scorecard that had 153 items on it. We’re down to twenty-two. So you could actually be counted for what you’re supposed to be, you know, standing up for. It’s just a whole series of things, Mike, on that front that are happening. Forty countries, combined country management across the bank, the rest underway. We’re trying to get ourselves to be capable of being called good plumbers. FROMAN: Good plumbers, excellent. One of the areas you’ve put a major focus on is expanding access to electricity, the M300—to have 300 million more people in Africa or across developing countries getting access to electricity? BANGA: Africa. FROMAN: Africa. And this has been a big week for you and energy policy and electricity policy. The board of the World Bank approved for the first time allowing the bank to get involved in nuclear power. Tell us about that and why it’s significant. BANGA: So the board—not approved for the first time. We had not been financing nuclear for the past forty years. What we got to was a good understanding and agreement that we would get back into that space and do it sensibly. So the first thing I see ourselves doing is signing a partnership with the IAEA so that their capabilities and our current and new—when we build them up—capabilities, will get married together so we can work together. So Rafael Grossi and I are in the process of working out a way to work together so that we can bring his knowledge and safety and regulatory policy and safeguards to what we think we can build up as well. The second is to start working on looking at extending the fleet life of current fleet, so that about eighteen, twenty countries around the world that do have current nuclear power—and a number of them will be in the emerging markets as well, which is where our effort is. We won’t be doing work in France or the U.S., but Brazil, and Romania, and India, and anybody else who could need it. And clearly, the economics of extending the life of these nuclear power projects is now far more preferential to building a new one. Then there’s work we could do on getting new countries who want to go into it to understand the regulatory policy, the safety, the disposal of waste management, the various things you will need in addition to the nonproliferation aspects of it with the IAEA—work on that. And the last one is small modular reactors who—there’s a lot been talked about it for a long time, and it’s one of those technologies that everybody is trying to find a way to get it to scale. The problem is there’s not standardization yet across the different variants, and therefore, if we can help to help bring about standardization and scale in SMRs, could SMRs be the way of the future for a number of countries—or, for that matter, for high-intensity consumption data centers for AI and the like? So all this has to do with nuclear. We also got clear sort of insight for our clients and our employees of the World Bank’s intention to continue being active in midstream and downstream natural gas—gas being a good transition fuel with the challenge that you’ve got to make sure you manage the flaring and the methane leaks in gas, which we are working very hard on as well. But the idea is to get natural gas to be used in a number of countries where it makes sense as part of your energy mix, where it’s cheaper. It’s important to have it—particularly if you have it in your soil and you’re not relying on building imported systems for gas, but it’s there, so can I help you develop and do things with it. The whole idea of M300, which is connecting 300 million people in Africa to electricity, is based on the following fact: 600 million people in Africa have zero power today, zero electricity. These are not brownouts or blackouts. This is nothing, no connection. And I think that electricity is a basic human right. I really think you should call it that, because without electricity you cannot begin to think in terms of health care, education, jobs. You know, I’ve heard people say, let’s use the power of digitization to change the future of Africa. I’m like, guys, what digitization are you talking about, when half of Africa doesn’t have power? FROMAN: Doesn’t have electricity. BANGA: What are you going to do—your finger, you going to charge your phone? You know, that big Michelangelo kind of thing. (Laughter.) It doesn’t work like that. Life doesn’t—so you’ve got to get the basics right to get it to work well. And I think that getting power, getting electricity to people is just a starting point. And I don’t mean two lights and a fan. That to me is inadequate. I’m talking about enough power so a household and a business can do what is needed to be done to be a productive participant in society. And that’s where we came up with the idea of along with the African Development Bank—I have no idea if we’ll get there, Mike. We—in the last ten years we’ve reached 100 million people to connect them to electricity. This is five years, 300 million. It’s hard. But we’re applying all the learnings we have around getting regulatory policy clarity. We have twenty-odd countries that have committed. Presidents, prime ministers, energy ministers have stood up in big halls and committed to the regulatory policy they will change in return for attracting us and the private sector to come there. We have told them we will give them budgetary support when they change the policy, what we call pay for results. In the last two years, pay for results has become 50-odd percent of our financing. So I pay when you change; I don’t give you the money in advance. And we’re trying to use every tool in the toolkit, every arrow in the quiver to drive this change in policy. You know, you’ve got to get utilities that are adequately financed that they will be able to pay the generator; otherwise, that’s where the breakdown happens. So things of that nature. We’ve got—we’ve had events in Tanzania, events in London last week attracting a whole lot of private-sector investors, other MDBs as well. The amount of money required for this is quite large. The World Bank could put almost 40 billion (dollars) to work over the coming five years on this topic. The IMF is collaborating with us for another 15 billion (dollars) or so from their—one of their trusts to be able to create the fiscal headroom for countries to make those utilities liquid and capable of paying and so on. And then from the private sector we’ll probably need somewhere between 20 (billion dollars) and 40 billion (dollars) more. And so this is—this is a real opportunity for a real task. But I just believe it’s the kind of thing we have to do. FROMAN: A couple months ago the secretary of the treasury came to the Bank, I guess, around the spring meetings and said that America first is not America alone, and that the Trump administration wanted to expand U.S. leadership at the international financial institutions like the World Bank and the IMF. You know, that’s a distinct difference from, for example, the WHO or the WTO or other organizations that the administration has not been terribly warm to. Why is that? What do you think that—how can you think that the Trump—the World Bank can align itself with Trump administration priorities? And how do you manage the fact that you’re, obviously, the World Bank—you’re not the U.S. bank—but the U.S. is your largest shareholder? How do you manage changing priorities in the U.S. vis-à-vis your other—your other shareholders? BANGA: Mike, the—first of all, that’s—we just discussed nuclear, for example. And Scott and French Hill were extremely helpful in our work of trying to get this to be at a point where people on the board and our shareholders would support it. So would other countries, like the French themselves. You know, that’s two Frenches I just used, but you don’t talk about two other Frenches, right? (Laughter.) So the French government is helpful, too. And as you know, France gets about 70 percent of its power from nuclear, so they kind of get the idea of this topic. So, you know, Germany is going through a change in its approach to nuclear power, and so they were constructively helpful too. Even Japan, which as you know has been through a very difficult time after Fukushima, is keen to get back into looking at the opportunity of what safe nuclear power could mean. And I think the reality is that AI has suddenly made everybody realize that whatever projections we were working with for power consumption will not work in this new environment, and therefore the alternative, you got to—if you’re going to have power that’s clean, and baseload, and reliable, you’re going to have to have things like gas and nuclear to be a critical part of your energy mix going forward. So there’s good, practical reasons behind all this. Now, why and how does the United States look at the World Bank in these different contexts? I think the reality of why the U.S. understands the value of the World Bank through administrations is we have a power of leverage. So you can—you can put money to work bilaterally, and that’s a dollar for a dollar; or you can give me the money, and if it goes through IBRD or IFC it’s $10 for a dollar because we have a triple-A rating which allows us to leverage up handsomely at a good price with good—(inaudible)—so we can in turn be useful to our client countries. In IDA, which goes to the poorest countries, we can only leverage up four times. And the reason for that is we give away roughly one-third of what we get from our shareholders to poorer countries every year because they need the money to be in the form of grants—no repayment, no interest. But the two-thirds is at highly concessional terms, and so when that gets paid back you get a corpus so you can keep leveraging. So the math of the leverage in IDA is four times when the rest are ten times. So the total paid in capital of IBRD, one part of the Bank, is $24 billion over eighty years. FROMAN: Over eighty years. BANGA: Eighty years. FROMAN: And what percentage of that came from the U.S.? BANGA: Seventeen percent, 3.6 billion (dollars). FROMAN: The U.S. over forty years has put $3.6 billion in. BANGA: A large sum of money. FROMAN: (Laughs.) BANGA: And the IBRD over the same eighty years has lent out $1.4 trillion. And—and—wait for this; for you bankers, listen to this—what is the—what is the non-repayment on those loans? Essentially nothing. FROMAN: Zero, right. BANGA: Two billion dollars are currently in delayed accruals: 1 billion (dollars) from Belarus, which as you’ve noticed is, frankly, with a country that is currently at war with another country, and consequently is not keen to pay us cash back; and the other 1 billion (dollars) is with Zimbabwe, and that’s another case altogether. But on one-point-something—1.5 trillion (dollars), if you have a $2 billion nonaccrual, that’s a nice place to be. And I think that’s because of the fact that not only do we have on the one hand leverage, but on the other hand we enjoy effectively preferred creditor treatment, because if you don’t pay me back nobody will give you money. FROMAN: Right. BANGA: And therefore, the power of those two items together—or, honestly, if the World Bank did not exist today, we would have had to create something like this, and it would be really hard. So using what you’ve got and making it work better, work efficiently, work with the private sector—because there isn’t enough money in government coffers or philanthropies to do what we are trying to do; you have to get the private sector to be a consistent player in the game, and that’s where the jobs are anyway. So getting a focus on the private sector and jobs; making the place work better, more efficiently, a better partner; and at the same time doing so exploiting the leverage and the preferred creditor treatment of the system; and then realizing that we have the ingredients of working with sovereigns but also driving regulatory policy change and combining it with our ability to help the private sector catalyze financing; I mean, that’s a pretty good formula. FROMAN: Pretty good formula. I mean, it sounds like it should be very attractive to President Trump because it’s mostly using other people’s money and then it’s using a lot of leverage. (Laughter.) He’s familiar with this. Well, no comment. All right. BANGA: I mean—(laughter)— FROMAN: Early on in your—in your first year or so as president, the question constantly came up: Are you going to go for a capital increase? Are you going to go to Congress for a capital increase? And I remember you saying: We don’t need a bigger Bank right now; we need a better Bank. We need to demonstrate we can do more with what we have. First of all, do you feel you’ve demonstrated that? And, two, in an atmosphere where USAID has been eliminated, what do you think the appetite is in Congress for a capital increase? BANGA: I think we will progress back to the earlier part of we’re fixing the plumbing. I think we’re making progress and making the Bank a better bank. Mike, you’ve worked with me for years. I would never be content with this. So if I think I’m at five out of ten now, if I get to seven I’ll raise the bar and go back to four, because that’s the only way for this institution to truly be a partner of the private sector. To me, twelve months from conversation to approval is still too long. Nineteen was awful; twelve is still too long. The thirty days for a health-care clinic makes sense, but there’s other projects in there—I don’t mean the hydroelectric dam—there’s other stuff that should also be in forty-five days and two months rather than six months and nine months. Raising the bar to what you take for natural in your private-sector lives is what we’ve got to do if we are going to be seen as the best place to put government money to work for that leverage. I think you don’t earn it otherwise. There’s no entitlement to that money. And so I am very focused on continuing that journey of improving the Bank’s productivity and capability. Do we need more money? IDA needs money every three years because of that model of giving away one-third of the money. We just finished an IDA round, IDA21 which ended last year, into which—with just 24 billion (dollars) of total financing, which with the leverage gives us about a hundred billion dollars to work with over the coming three years, which is a record amount of money. When the United States administration recently announced $163 billion of cuts in their budgets, they did allow $3.2 billion for IDA. FROMAN: They continued to support it. BANGA: Yeah. It’s a lower amount than what was committed by the Biden administration, but only by some little bit. And I think we can find a way to getting back to the 100 billion (dollars). So I’m actually quite constructively delighted that that came through. But I don’t take it for granted, because three years from now I’ve got to do it again. And just so you understand how tough this IDA round was, your questions are all about the U.S. But let me step back a little. In the past nine months during the IDA replenishment, let’s discuss my largest shareholders. Japan, second largest shareholder. The government fell. A new one came in. Declared elections. Came back in a minority, in the middle of this. The Korean government, which was hosting our IDA replenishment event, declared martial law on the morning of the event. Just so you can feel the joy of that day. FROMAN: Feel your pain, yes. (Laughter.) Yes. BANGA: And then the German government fell and had a reelection, just came through it. The Canadian government fell, which you’re aware of. The British government changed. The Dutch government fell twice, including recently. The Austrian government changed. Yeah? Shall I keep going? (Laughter.) In fact, the only government that didn’t change of all my shareholders was the Chinese. And that’s another topic all together. (Laughter.) So if you see it from my eyes, I had to go through an IDA replenishment and get to a record. But the only question people ask me is about the U.S. And I will tell you, you’re focusing on only one aspect of it. For people like us, back to your point about 17 percent shareholding, I have to work with the other 83 (percent) too. And that’s my job. And if I didn’t like it, I shouldn’t have taken it. And that’s how I think about it. FROMAN: There are a lot of developing countries that are having an unsustainable debt profile at the moment. BANGA: I would argue we’re getting there too, so. FROMAN: Well, there’s a—we’ll leave that to another bank. We’ll leave that to another bank. But with the cutback of aid and increased needs—fiscal needs on their part, how do you see the debt issue being worked out over the next few years? And particularly, since you mentioned China, China’s become a major creditor. Not always in the same format as other creditors for restructuring. What role do you see China playing in helping to solve some of the unsustainable debt issues? BANGA: So, Mike, first of all, big picture, funnily enough, given that the U.S. dollar has weakened over the last few months, and I don’t know where interest rates will go yet but you got to put those two things together, in an odd way, unintended way, a lot of the countries who were having real debt distress was because they borrowed money but interest rates were very low, and they borrowed in dollars and euros. So they got a double whammy over the last five, seven years. This is actually turning towards being helpful, in a really odd, unintended way. And I think just keep that somewhere at the back of your mind as you think this through. The G-20 has a common framework for working out some of this debt. It goes past the old Paris Club because, as you just pointed out, the creditors have changed. You mentioned China, but there’s a bunch of bilateral creditors in there who were not there in the prior debt crises. In addition, commercial financing, cross border, is up a great deal. None of this, by the way, is discussing the domestic debt. We’re still only discussing international debt. And so the mix of creditors into these countries has completely changed. And so what we’re—what the IMF and us are on together is something called the Global Sovereign Debt Roundtable, which has the Paris Club, bilaterals, and commercial players all in the room at the same time. And four countries are going through the G-20 common framework in Africa—Ghana, Chad, Ethiopia, and—who else? Four of them are going through it. FROMAN: Zambia has already gone through. BANGA: Zambia. Four. Some of them have got—took a long time to get through. Others have gone through faster. The recent ones are quicker because we’ve learned a few lessons along the way. You know, you settle a level of agreement of how many cents to the dollar with the official creditors, then you go back to the private sector and they don’t agree, they strike a different deal, at which point these guys don’t agree. So you’ve got to kind of do it simultaneously. The second thing was you needed transparency of what the actual debt was. A number of the deals that were signed by bilaterals, including China, had confidentiality clauses in there which prevented the countries from declaring what exactly were the terms of their loans, and therefore you couldn’t figure out what dollar haircut you had to take. And so all that’s become much clearer. We’ve set up a much level—a much more transparent playing field on some of the debt data. I’m actually encouraging the G-20 to now do this for all the G-20 countries, not just the G-7 which is what was done till now, so we can get even better data going forward. I suspect you will see this cycle come through the same way other countries, when they see this can work faster, will line up and come through the pipe. But this is tough. You know, and that’s why I think you’ve got to worry not only about those who are currently in distress, but think in terms of those who have liquidity issues as well. And because a lot of them have got refinancing of debt coming up. And to me, that will become a solvency issue if we don’t solve the liquidity issue. And so with that we’re working on two or three pillars of work. One is to increase net positive financing to all the international financial institutions into them. Two is to work hard on domestic resource mobilization with those countries, so they also have to do some work on it. And so—and the third part of it is what else can we do to help them with this transparency? And that’s what’s going on. FROMAN: Before we open it up to the audience, I will just give you a lightning round of questions. BANGA: Yeah? (Laughter.) FROMAN: What are you most proud of accomplishing in your two years there? What’s your highest priority unfinished business? And, knowing how much you love KPIs and metrics, how do you measure what success looks like five, ten years from now? BANGA: Well, I don’t plan to be around ten years from now, so that’s an easy one. The first one, I think what I’m most proud of is the alignment that I now see among lots of people in the Bank about the idea of fix the plumbing, you’ve got bigger work to do, let’s align around jobs, that’s what we got to do. You can see that filtering through. I have no doubt that there’s still people at the Bank, Mike, who wish I would die tomorrow morning. I have no doubt. (Laughter.) I have no doubt there are plenty of people, however, who understand the idea. And there are those who are still not sure and waiting to see which way this goes. That’s normal in change. When you’ve got an eighty-year history, you will get these three sorts of people. That doesn’t worry me. I’m beginning to see the momentum behind alignment. And to me, that’s what I went there to do. I think that’d be good. That connects that idea of the scorecard as well. That’s why I felt a five out of ten on getting to where I need to. KPIs when I’m done? I don’t know. I’ve got a five-year term. I’ve got three years to go. So let’s talk about five years rather than ten. My view is that if in these five years I am able to get the institution to get the speed of projects to come down even further, that would be, from a client’s point of view, the most important difference they will see in us. Because you’ve got to remember, at the other end, if it’s a democratically elected government, it’s probably got a four- to five-year term. If you spent two years discussing a project for approval before it even starts getting implemented, how much interest will that government have after the first two years of their term to keep speaking to you? And that means you are—you’re not getting a smooth pathway to development. You’re getting a jerky pathway to a dialogue. Changing that to where things go through the pipe at a pace that they should will change completely the interaction between development banks and countries. And to me, that is the most important thing we can change. FROMAN: Terrific. All right, let’s open it up to questions here in the room. I see one way in the back. Just to remind people this is on the record, or not for attribution? On the record? On the record. So identify yourself and make a short question. Q: Thank you. Fascinating discussion. Bhakti Mirchandani, Trinity Church New York. You mentioned power as a solution to the—to the jobs deficit in developing countries. Can you kind of share more about AI, white collar jobs in developing countries, AI, you know, white collar jobs here? What models have you seen that work? BANGA: Sure. Sure. So the AI topic is an interesting one. I want to break AI into—whenever we go through this—into big AI and small AI, when we come back to the discussion. What I mean by “big AI” is what most people discuss, which is these large data-driven models. Now, to do AI well you need four things to happen. You need computing power, lots of it. You need electricity, a heck of a lot of it. You need data, lots of it, kept in its simplest form so it can be manipulated to the maximum extent possible and then kept safe and secure with the right rules around privacy. And the fourth thing you need is you need people who understand how to make that work and create the first algorithms and the work of working with such stuff. There are very few developing countries, aside from an India or a few others like that, that actually have those four things. And even India will be stressed on the power. Which surely means that for AI to work in the developing world, there’s a very big gap between what they’re being told—that AI will be like, you know, the cellphone—you will go from rotary dial to cellphone capability and skip through everything. I don’t think this is the same thing. And if you believe that the way is then for large Western or Chinese or Indian companies to go operate the AI for you in your country, think through the implications of how countries will think about the national security aspect of their citizens’ data being used elsewhere, and you will very quickly realize the balkanization that will come into these models is more than people are willing to discuss right now. So I’m actually quite concerned that Big AI will in the beginning create a bigger disparity between the developed world and the developing world than we currently understand. The other side of that is, I think the job impact is a more serious topic in the developed world in the early years than it is in the developing world. Small AI, on the other hand—local models, delivering locally derived data, delivered on a dumb phone. So let me translate that. Think of a farmer attached to a farmer-producer organization or cooperative in Uttar Pradesh, in India, and if I could use my phone to look at my crop and say, that disease—I don’t know what it is, but this spray from my cooperative which costs 500 rupees will help me kill it. That’s small AI at work. That’s amazingly productive. And so I think if you segregate big and small AI, there are two different roles in the developing world. But you need to think about it that way rather than the impact of jobs in the developing world, of big AI in the initial years. Down five or ten years, it’s a whole other topic, but I don’t think that’s the case today. The second thing is that when we’re talking about jobs in the developing world—I should have said that when Mike asked me that question—we’re talking about focusing in areas that are locally relevant and don’t rely on outsourcing jobs from the developed world. So let me give you what those sectors are. This came up through a jobs council that we’ve set up with President Tharman of Singapore and former President Michelle Bachelet of Chile and a number of CEOs and civil society people. And here are the five sectors. The first is infrastructure; it’s construction, but then it’s enablement in what it does. Second is agriculture as a business, particularly trying to make small farmers productive so they don’t get incented to sell their land and finally end up as urban poor. And that’s the example of that small AI app and many such things. Third is primary health care—not just because you get a healthier population, but if you do it well, you’ll employ nurses and medical diagnostic technicians and midwives and the like. And there are examples like this in Indonesia where we’re working with the Indonesian government. Their president is about to announce that on a citizen’s birthday, every one of those citizens will get access to a free annual health checkup at a distributed system of health-care clinics. We’ve been working on them for a few years now. And a fourth such item is obviously tourism. We’re not tourism experts, but we can help with the skilling institutes that go into providing the right kind of skills for that tourism. And the last one is value-added manufacturing for domestic consumption and regional trade and the like, including minerals and metals that the developing world is blessed with that we all need. So in these five, there are lines from AI and there are lines from outsourcing is relatively low compared to other categories. And so there is a way to think about this in a more constructive way than just what AI would do to it. FROMAN: Yes, right here, third row? The microphone is making its way to you. Q: Monique Mansoura, independent strategic advisor on health security and biotechnology. So inspired by your work and this discussion. A question I have is, you talked about the soft enablers of health and education, and can you say more about that? I come from the work of health and biotechnology, and we really struggle with sort of the linkage to what a driver of economic development is—driver of jobs, how much harder it is if you don’t have health to be a worker, to contribute to the economy. FROMAN: Yeah. Q: So I’d love your thoughts on that. And also sort of the insults that are things like the COVID war, right, one of the words we didn’t talk about—we lost 7 million lives—and the risks that persist in those types of threats. So I’d love your insights. BANGA: Yeah. FROMAN: Thank you. BANGA: You know, one aspect of this health is—you just heard me talk about this primary health care. So we’ve made a commitment that we’ll reach 1.5 billion people with better access to primary health care by 2030. Indonesia alone, as it turns out, will deliver 290 million out of the 1.5 billion with this one—because this work has been going on for a while with them. And so this December we are launching an effort with the government of Japan and the WHO, and Japan built some of the best universal health-care thinking after the Second World War and has built on it. Japan’s not a poor country, and it can afford something. But the ideas and learning from it are what we’re trying to bring into our primary health-care rollout across the system. Yes, it’s for getting better workers and healthier workers, but actually to be completely honest, it has two other benefits—the one about jobs, the nurses, the medical diagnostic technicians, the midwives—not just doctors but all these. And in fact, it’s—the Indonesian government computed that it’s the single largest possible generator of jobs other than tourism for the Indonesian government in the coming years. And then it will drive health-care costs down, which otherwise are climbing in Indonesia and reaching levels that they are much lower than, say, Malaysia or Singapore, where that would be a crippling number if they got to that. So this is a way of bending the curve by early diagnostics. But the other aspect of it is catching the next pandemic early. If you do have distributed health-care clinics, which are doing regular testing and diagnostics, the probability of catching the next pandemic earlier is much higher than it was during COVID. So there’s a whole series of benefits inside the idea of rolling our primary health care which are important. The Indonesian one started with an effort that had begun in China, went to Peru and Indonesia and other countries, on stunting. So children in Indonesia a little while ago—30-odd percent of the kids in Indonesia were stunted because of malnutrition in the womb, and then for the first 1,000 days, including the time in the mother’s womb. And there are statistics available that tell you that a stunted child earns 17 percent less per year throughout their life than somebody without stunting. So think of the dramatic progression impact of that number—17 percent less per year throughout their life, throughout their working life, than somebody who wasn’t stunted. So there is numerical information as well available to justify a lot of what should go into health care for the right reasons. FROMAN: Yes, Fred Hochberg? Q: Fred Hochberg. I’ll tell you, years ago I remember when I chaired the Ex-Im Bank, multilateral banks like Ex-Im around the world could not be subordinate to World Bank desks, so we sort of were boxed out of financing those projects. Is there any way around that, or has that changed at all, that you could then utilize all those export-import banks around the world? BANGA: Hi, Fred. Nice to see you, buddy. It’s not so much IBRD and IDA that is where that comes up. What I’m trying to do with IFC for the private sector, which is where ex-im also plays, is to allow IFC to play a role where needed of being junior equity, of first-loss taker. Because clearly, when you—this private-sector lab that we had set up which had—which Mark Carney and Shriti Vadera were chairing at one time before Mark went off to do a slightly less important job—(laughter)—thank God he’s there. And so if—that group of CEOs came back—including Larry Fink and a bunch of others as well—came back with five things to work on. One of those was if a project in the emerging markets has all these other risks attached to it of foreign exchange and political risk, which we can help with but it still has it, and therefore for David Rubenstein as an investor the water is still here, how do we bring the water down here? It could be if IFC said I’ll take junior equity or a capped return of 6 percent or whatever and allow it to come down here. That hasn’t been our role, because if we actually booked the loss I’m going to have to go back to my shareholders over time to get a capital increase, and that’s an ugly discussion. So how do you manage that dynamic is the issue. What we’ve done is we have created a new fund called the Frontier Opportunities Fund. I didn’t want to call it a First Loss Fund for obvious reasons, right? (Laughter.) As a banker, it kind of makes me uncomfortable. But Frontier Opportunities Fund sounds pretty cool. And we have funded it from our own regained earnings to start with, but now I’m going to philanthropists like David Rubenstein and saying, how about putting your money where your mouth is and—(laughter)—you know, and giving some money for the right reason. If I’m taking a risk to help private-sector capital go into these emerging markets for development and you believe in that cause, then help me out with this. I’m just kidding. That’s the kind of thing I’m trying to do. And I think that’s very different from what it was, like, Fred, when you were discussing that topic, so. If you go back to the Ex-Im Bank, come talk to me. (Laughter.) FROMAN: This gentleman here in the front row. Q: Glenn Creamer, World Affairs Councils of America. I’m curious—I know it’s not your mandate to deal with humanitarian assistance the way USAID did, but since the U.S. was the largest donor country and you talk about 300 million people getting electricity in Africa of the 600 million that need it, I’m curious the impact of the, basically, closure of USAID, the termination of almost 10,000 people, and the retreat of the U.S. from the humanitarian assistance realm, what—how does that impact your work, or does it? I mean, you have your own mandate and you’ve got to push ahead, but I’m just curious, people need electricity but they also need food, they’re also—you know, they need medicine, they need a lot of things which the U.S. was providing and no longer is. Thank you. BANGA: Yeah. Yeah. Well, so, the first thing is it does impact us in one way somewhat directly, which is trust funds that we hosted which may or may not be contributing to our work but we host them because we provide hosting services for a lot of these. A number of them had some funding from USAID, and that obviously has gone. And so those people are stressed about how to manage their numbers. That’s not direct impact, but it’s there. I see them. I meet them. I hear them. The indirect impact is if you are funding in some countries a large part of their health costs through this, then, you know, they will come back to us looking to put IBRD and IDA money to work towards supplementing their health budgets. And to me, that’s an indirect impact. It’s, obviously, taking away from something else we could have funded. But it’s a question of prioritizing the right thing at the country level. One of the challenges we had as a Bank which is part of the making us work better is that we have this thing called a country partnership framework, which is the equivalent of a strategic plan for the country. And if you write it too broadly, you can end up justifying any project for its financing. What I’m forcing our teams to do across all the parts of the Bank is, first, write one for the whole country because most countries view public-private partnerships as an integral part of their life, and therefore giving them a public-sector CPF separate from a private-sector one isn’t very useful. And so getting one done together is kind of practical. Secondly, write it in five pages, as compared to a hundred and fifty, because your client will not read a hundred and fifty pages. They’ll give it to somebody seven levels down to translate into an executive summary. You may as well do it yourself, because then your words will be seen and you’ll be forced to prioritize. Prioritizing forces your client in the government to also indulge in that degree of thinking through what will make the most difference for my country in the coming three, five years. And so, in a funny way, this is helping us get CPFs to get prioritized because the sense of urgency has gone up. This is a complicated time in the entire aid firmament. It’s not an easy time. But, you know, we aren’t directly, as you said, in the humanitarian business. So I’m using it to make my work better and more efficient and more useful to a country. But it’s a bad time, in that sense. FROMAN: Yes. Woman, right about midway. Yes, further, sorry. We’ll try and get to you if we can. Q: Hi. I’m Margaret Williams, a fellow at the Belfer Center at the Harvard Kennedy School. I was wondering if you could speak about the Bank’s role in climate change, particularly in context of massive growth of AI, considering that the U.S. leadership on climate change is just dropping to zero and we apparently don’t have climate change, and we’re cutting science for climate change. But just maybe the Bank’s role in leadership on climate matters, considering your other priorities. Thank you. BANGA: So, you know, this is an interesting discussion. Our clients are demanding help on certain things. And this is coming from them. So if you’re a client who’s at the receiving end of big challenges of weather pattern changes, or forest fires, or things that impact you, what we will call “adaptation” in that part of the world, they’re really keen that we work projects with them that help them. Or they’re looking for ways to mitigate the future growth of emissions by looking at stuff like a rail corridor instead of truck transport in Lobito, in Africa, for example. When I talk about the World Bank wanting to put 45 percent of its financing into climate-related financing, one of the biggest discussions with governments around the world right now is, what does that mean? The U.S. is saying, I don’t like that because you’re diverting away from what is the purpose of your mandate, which is education, health care, and so on. And when I explain that you may think that, but actually the 45 (percent) is not going into solar and wind. It’s actually going half into adaptation, which is a school that is hurricane-resistant, a road that doesn’t get washed away in the monsoons, seeds that are heat—you know, capable of surviving hotter temperatures, drip irrigation instead of flooding irrigation. Most of them will say, we should do that in Miami too. And then, if you—if you talk about mitigation, and you say it’s about the Lobito train corridor instead of trucks, and it’s about, you know, growing rice with the kind of methane emissions that are much lower because you manage it better than flooded fields, or it’s about fighting methane emissions from flaring and the leak of gas, or it’s about electric buses instead of diesel buses in a bus rapid transit system, then most people agree with that too. The problem is that the words “climate finance” are getting weaponized in this situation, on both sides. You will find the Europeans are ready to commit hara-kiri if you change the word. And so we need to find a way, with those shareholders that I have who represent the whole world, to find a sensible answer where we do what we need to do. Because we’re not targeting 45 percent of our money going there. As we build schools, we’re building them hurricane-resistant. Why would you not? As you build a road, you’re building it monsoon-proof. As you put seeds to work, you’re building heat-resistant varieties of seeds and putting them in. So automatically more and more of my financing is going into what our shareholders and the MDB world count as climate financing. It’s not the target. It’s a derived number. And so I still think our role is to do things in a smart development way, and to meet what our clients need. And our clients are asking for this too. But I’m not taking money away from schools or health care or skilling or bridges or roads or airports. I’m actually making that integral to what we’re doing and connecting it to jobs. But doing it in a way that we call “smart development.” And so use whatever words you want, but don’t make this a fight that throws the baby out with the bathwater. That’s what I’m trying to explain everywhere that I go in public. And that’s all I can do. FROMAN: Third row there. Q: Thank you so much. I’m Caren Merrick. I’m a tech entrepreneur, and recently served for three-and-a-half years as the secretary of commerce and trade in the commonwealth of Virginia. And so, Virginia—my perspective is, Virginia is the datacenter capital of the world. And all of the global hyperscalers who are building out across the world, employing folks, and they’re a magnet for economic development wherever they go in the world. But these hyperscalers are also becoming nuclear companies. They want to generate their own power. And they are also placing bets on, as you mentioned, the World Bank is looking at who is standardizing. And so there are countries—France, Canada, the UK, and the United States—that are all building out technologies. How does the World Bank—I’m just interested in your perspective. How do you think about who to place your bets on in this frontier, where nuclear is going to be critical? It’s clean, it’s affordable, it’s abundant, and it’s innovative. And how do you think about that? Thank you. BANGA: Yeah. I don’t know the answer to that yet, because this approval happened day before yesterday. (Laughter.) And after forty years— FROMAN: What have you been doing since? I mean—(laughter)— BANGA: Exactly. And after forty years of not doing it, you know, if you were a highly qualified nuclear scientist, you wouldn’t want to keep working at the World Bank for the last forty years, because we weren’t doing anything. So we’ve got people who understand nuclear science because they’re still working with us in different aspects of our work, but the first thing I have to do is rebuild a pool of talent, and do so with the IAEA. That’s why I’m so keen for Rafael and I to have this partnership, because I think together we can make one plus one equal to three. I do believe, however, that my job is not to place early bets, like a venture capitalist, on new technology. My job is to come and help to standardize and build quality standards in the system. And then when somebody is coming through as a racehorse to win, put enough money on it to get it to scale. And maybe the scale will bring the costs down. And that will be a good place to be. That’s kind of how I think our future could go. We’re not there yet as an institution. It’s very early. So ask me this next year. And we’ll see. FROMAN: I think that’s a commitment for him to come back next year, so. (Laughter.) This gentleman’s been very patient here, second row. Here comes a microphone. And if you could all speak up, make sure people can hear. Q: Hi. John Tyson. I’m an executive investor in the food sector here in the U.S. My question is about global poverty alleviation, you were talking about earlier, in agriculture. In the World Bank’s toolkit and set of priorities, where does agricultural productivity and supporting agricultural livelihoods fit in the total puzzle? BANGA: Yeah. Huge. It was the number two in the list of the five job generation systems I talked about. We’ve committed—like we did the 1.5 billion people for health care, you’ll see a method in the madness of our commitments now. We had committed $9 billion a year, which is double what we’re doing today, in this agriculture as a business, oriented towards small farmers. So not oriented towards mechanized farming and large agriculture, which we are not needed for. There’s enough commercial money there. This is, as you find in the emerging markets, a number of people here originated from there, you will see that the single biggest crisis in the farming communities is that the children of small farmers don’t want to be farmers. And they tend to sell off the land. And at that time, they think they’re rich. And they buy a Toyota, and a TV, and smoke and drink. And then four years later they’re in a shantytown on the outskirts of an urban city looking for gig driving jobs. That is a tragedy. And it’s going to get worse. It’s true of where I grew up, in India. It’s true of my home state of Punjab, where this is a real crisis. But it’s true of other places too. So fixing this is quite important. It ranks up there in terms of keeping people wanting to pursue their parents’ profession as a respectable, with productivity, with a decent life profession. To do that, you’ve got to start thinking in terms of building out how do these farmers get access to better markets for their produce, better pricing for fertilizer, better tools for figuring out which pest is on their plants, better—and so on and so forth. So we’ve built an open architecture platform with Google where you can feed in the farmer-producer organization, cooperatives in the old days, on the one hand, and then feed in a buyer, a fertilizer, a seed producer, a crop insurance provider at the other end, to create the marketplace. And every click creates a certain amount of cents going to the people, and creates a business model. That’s what we’re working on. And I just came out of Uttar Pradesh recently, and that’s why I mentioned that earlier. I went and visited six such FPOs that we saw working there. And that’s the kind of model I want to lift, along with the Google product formula. Take it to a bunch of places. FROMAN: Great. Last question here. Q: Thank you. Thank you so much, Ajay. My name is Joyce Zhang Gray. I’m with Visa, but more importantly I was— BANGA: Oh, God. FROMAN: Visa. Q: I know. (Laughter.) FROMAN: I’m sorry; we’ll take another question from that—yeah. (Laughter.) Q: I was going to say, but more importantly— BANGA: Although I can see others who are ex-Visa sitting right here. (Laughter.) Q: I was classmates with Aditi in both college and business school, so I’m friendly. (Laughs.) BANGA: Oh, you’re fast. That’s my daughter. You’re good. Q: I’d love to learn more about your thoughts on promoting local business creators, those who are job creators, entrepreneurs. BANGA: Yeah. Q: And also, in this age of the freedom of movement of knowledge and labor, but the restrictions because of immigration, there’s less brain circulation of those who might study abroad and come back to their communities to build jobs. What do you think the implications will be? And how can we— BANGA: So the thing is that talent is everywhere but opportunities are not, right? So the trick is to allow—of course, by jobs I don’t mean only companies; I mean entrepreneurs as well. To give you an example, having studied this issue for a long time, the reason that women don’t open—Silicon Valley’s funding for female-owned businesses is a tiny percentage of the total money going in, even today. There are reasons why this is even worse in the emerging markets. One of the challenges is women don’t own the assets in many emerging markets. The legal and cultural system fights against it. So if you give a woman a loan, she will be able to leverage that by going to a bank and saying, hey, the IFC gave me a loan, and she might get another two bucks from some bank. But if you give her a grant of equity or if you give her access to equity, she’ll probably raise ten from banks. And so the multiplier effect of equity is what we are talking about here. So one of the commitments we’ve made is to reach 80 million women with access to financing, about half of that with equity and half with debt, in these coming years in a chance to give them the ability to create entrepreneurial energy. I was in—I was in Nairobi and visited an innovation center we had set up along with the government of Denmark and the UK, and 3,000 businesses have been through it in the last few years. And 60 percent of them are women-owned. And what—it was supposed to be towards climate benefits. So these two girls I met there—literally girls; they were—I mean, by now they’re about thirty, but they were—when this started they were in their twenties. And you know, mangoes that get a blemish on the outside, nobody buys them but they’re perfectly fine. So they would buy these mangoes at a discount, and air dry them, and then package them and sell them as dried mangoes, which I thought was something only Indians ate. Turns out the entire equatorial belt loves their Jais. (Laughter.) And so it became a decent business. And then they met a guy at that innovation center who was processing biomass for pellets, and they started buying his biomass and a furnace. And then they found somebody else who was selling a secondhand Tetra Pak machine in that center. Now they’ve got a $23 million revenue. FROMAN: Wow. BANGA: And I—you know, I think the biggest thing this Bank can do after bringing down the time taken for projects is to learn how to steal shamelessly and duplicate, duplicate, duplicate as many times as you can. Because an idea like that, this innovation center, why shouldn’t we have a hundred of these in Africa? We don’t. We’ve got a few. And so the power of an institution like ours is create/prioritize things in countries—few priorities, get things through the pipe fast, and then help to duplicate and transfer success, because then we make a difference in a finite period of time, including for entrepreneurs. And that’s the kind of thing that I’m trying to change. We have a knowledge bank. It is full of experts. You can—you want to learn about drinking water? Tomorrow morning you’ll have three people with PhDs and Nobel Prizes sitting with a chart paper telling you all about drinking water. That’s lovely. My problem is I want those projects replicated in a hundred places. We’re taking our knowledge bank, which is across the IBRD and the world—the public-sector side and the private side, putting it together, and in every practice we’re going to have one group of people who focus on regulatory policy change and policy—back to my earlier discussion, one group of people whose only job is to steal shamelessly and copy. And stealing shamelessly is a really good thing—(laughter)—when it’s for the right reasons, and that’s what I’m trying to get done. Productizing—what people in the consumer world would say, you productize what you produce. You test it out and you roll it out. That’s what we need to do more of. FROMAN: I’ve known Ajay for twenty-five years. I worked directly for him for about four years, Mastercard. BANGA: Tough times. FROMAN: Inspired by him every day. I think you can see why. Please welcome—please thank—join me in thanking him for being here. (Applause.) (END) This is an uncorrected transcript.
-
Former U.S. ambassadors and IAF alumni reflect on the challenges of representing American interests amid rising authoritarianism, strained alliances, and shifting trade and security priorities—as well as how diplomacy is adapting and what it continues to get right. The International Affairs Fellowship (IAF) Keynote is made possible through a generous gift from Janine and J. Tomilson Hill in support of CFR’s flagship International Affairs Fellowship (IAF) program. For more information, please visit CFR’s Fellowship Affairs Page. A special series of summer meetings will follow this session, featuring a selection of CFR’s recent IAFs, IAFs in Canada, IAFs in India, IAFs in Indonesia, IAFs in Japan, IAFs for Tenured International Relations Scholars, and IAFs in European Security. Information about the summer sessions will be announced at a later date.
-
David Shambaugh, author of the new book, Breaking the Engagement: How China Won & Lost America, discusses the evolution of U.S.-China relations from the 1970s to today’s escalating trade war and evaluates the legacy of engagement. The C.V. Starr & Co. Annual Lecture on China was established in 2018 to honor the trailblazing career of C.V. Starr and the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of C.V. Starr & Co., Maurice R. Greenberg. This meeting is presented in partnership with CFR's China Strategy Initiative. Copies of Breaking the Engagement: How China Won & Lost America will be available for purchase. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Women and Foreign Policy Program
Progress for women’s political leadership is stagnating around the world, alongside global democracy decline. In 2024, in the year of elections, only five women out of thirty-one presidential elections won their campaigns. In addition, U.S. voters elected fewer women to the House of Representatives than at any time in the last two decades. The nonpartisan organization RepresentWomen works in the United States and globally to expand women’s political participation and strengthen representative democracy. Linda Robinson, senior fellow for women and foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Cynthia Richie Terrell, executive director of RepresentWomen and co-founder of FairVote, discuss ongoing research on recent elections and how electoral rules and systems impact women’s political representation around the world. -
President of the European Parliament Roberta Metsola examines the state of transatlantic relations, the evolving dynamics of the U.S.-EU partnership in the context of an increasingly unpredictable world, and the imperative for renewed transatlantic cooperation in addressing shared geopolitical challenges and upholding democratic values. Please note there is no virtual component to the meeting. The audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Shashi Tharoor discusses the Pahalgam attack, the launch and objectives of Operation Sindoor, and the subsequent political and security developments arising from these events. Please note there is no virtual component to the meeting. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Women and Foreign Policy Program
Within days of taking office, the Trump Administration rescinded an executive order establishing the first-ever Gender Policy Council (GPC), a policy office in the White House that had been establish… -
Lisa D. Cook discusses the U.S. economic outlook and monetary policy. The C. Peter McColough Series on International Economics brings the world’s foremost economic policymakers and scholars to address members on current topics in international economics. This meeting series is presented by the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
CFR experts discuss the recent court rulings on the legality of the Trump administration’s sweeping tariffs, and analyze the implications for U.S. trade policy, the impact on global markets, and the legal challenges ahead. This meeting is presented by RealEcon: Reimagining American Economic Leadership, a CFR initiative of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies. To register for this virtual meeting, please click the Register button. Please make note of the log-in information listed in this invitation so you may access the meeting.
-
Panelists discuss the current global state of the critical mineral landscape, the importance of supply chain resilience to address national security concerns in an evolving geopolitical environment, and the recent minerals deal between the United States and Ukraine. This meeting is presented by RealEcon: Reimagining American Economic Leadership, a CFR initiative of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies.
-
Please join us for a dinner conversation on the colorful and tumultuous political career of FDR’s third-term vice president, Henry Wallace.
-
Far beyond cultural exchange, pandas have long served as instruments of Chinese soft power. Panelists will discuss the history and strategic use of “panda diplomacy,” what it means to host a panda, and how symbolic gestures can shape bilateral ties and influence international relations. Members are encouraged to include their high school- or college-age children or grandchildren in this event. All members are welcome to attend. The conversation portion of this meeting is on the record. The question-and-answer portion of this meeting is not for attribution, meaning that participants are free to make use of the information shared at the meeting but may not attribute any quotes or content to any speakers or participants. Use of personal recording devices and cameras is prohibited. CFR reserves the right to take or use photographs for its own use. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. The Daughters and Sons meeting series is made possible by generous endowment support from The Marc Haas Foundation and the Stanley S. Shuman Family Foundation.
-
The heads of three foreign policy think tanks discuss whether alliances can withstand shifts in U.S. policy, how major allies are adapting their foreign and defense strategies, and what new coalitions might emerge in a changing global security and trade landscape. The Council of Councils (CoC) is an international initiative created by the Council on Foreign Relations to connect leading foreign policy institutes from around the world in a dialogue on issues of global governance and multilateral cooperation. The CoC is composed of twenty-eight major policy institutes from some of the world’s most influential countries. It is designed to facilitate candid, not-for-attribution dialogue and consensus-building among influential opinion leaders from both established and emerging nations, with the ultimate purpose of injecting the conclusions of its deliberations into high-level foreign policy circles within members’ countries. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Farah Pandith and Joshua Geltzer discuss how artificial intelligence (AI) changes the operations of terrorist groups and violent extremists and the challenges and opportunities that AI poses in count…
-
The U.S. military service chiefs discuss the future of American defense strategy, military readiness, and emerging global challenges. The Robert B. McKeon Endowed Series on Military Strategy and Leadership features prominent individuals from the military and intelligence communities. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Senator Brian Schatz discusses the future of funding for U.S. foreign assistance and diplomatic engagement and the ability of the United States to address global challenges. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Panelists discuss recent developments in the conflict between India and Pakistan, analyzing the drivers of escalation, the domestic political dynamics shaping bilateral relations, and the potential consequences for regional security, great power competition, and U.S. foreign policy in South Asia. This is a virtual meeting through Zoom. Log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this virtual meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Edward Luce discusses his new book, Zbig: The Life of Zbigniew Brzezinski, America’s Great Power Prophet. During the Cold War, the Polish-born scholar and presidential counselor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was a central figure in shaping U.S. foreign policy and helping to orchestrate the Soviet Union’s eventual collapse. Luce believes that Brzezinski’s legacy embodies the rise of foreign-born intellectuals in Washington’s strategic elite and is a powerful but often underappreciated thread in the story of America’s global ascendancy. The Paul C. Warnke Lecture on International Security was established in 2002 and is endowed by a number of Council members and the family and friends of Paul C. Warnke. The lecture commemorates his legacy of courageous service to the nation and international peace. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website. Members may bring a guest to this event.
-
The World Economic Update highlights the quarter’s most important and emerging trends. Discussions cover changes in the global marketplace with special emphasis on current economic events and their implications for U.S. policy. This series is presented by the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies and is dedicated to the life and work of the distinguished economist Martin Feldstein. Please note there is no virtual component to the meeting. The audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
This event was part of the 2025 CFR Local Journalists Workshop, which is made possible through the generous support of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. TRANSCRIPT LABOTT: Everybody h…
-
Censorship and Freedom of Expression
This event was part of the 2025 CFR Local Journalists Workshop, which is made possible through the generous support of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. TRANSCRIPT ROBBINS: Hi. Everyb… -
This event was part of the 2025 CFR Local Journalists Workshop, which is made possible through the generous support of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. TRANSCRIPT VOGT: I hope it ins…
-
This event was part of the 2025 CFR Local Journalists Workshop, which is made possible through the generous support of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. TRANSCRIPT FROMAN: Well, good …
-
Panelists compare 1990s Russia and the first decade of the 21st century with the U.S. political landscape today in a complex and changing world order. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website. This meeting is part of the Diamonstein-Spielvogel Project on the Future of Democracy.
-
Panelists discuss how artificial intelligence is reshaping the national security landscape and how government and technology leaders can respond to emerging threats, protect critical systems, and manage global competition. This meeting is part of CFR’s Transition 2025 series, which examines the major foreign policy issues confronting the Trump administration. This is a virtual meeting through Zoom. Log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
CFR experts discuss President Donald Trump’s upcoming trip to the Gulf region, including what the trip could signify for Iran nuclear negotiations, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and U.S. policy in the Middle East.
-
Panelists discuss how the arts and cultural institutions influence and reflect global affairs—shaping public diplomacy, fostering cross-cultural understanding, and contributing to the broader objectives of foreign policy. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website. Members may bring a guest to this meeting.
-
Panelists discuss the first one hundred days of the second Donald Trump administration in the historical context of the American presidency, comparing the policies implemented since Trump’s inauguration with those of past presidents, and what it means for U.S. democracy and foreign policy moving forward. This is a virtual meeting through Zoom. Log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this virtual meeting will be posted on the CFR website. This meeting is part of the Diamonstein-Spielvogel Project on the Future of Democracy.
-
Founder and CEO of AlphaGeo Parag Khanna discusses the rapidly evolving geopolitical system, how to comprehensively compare countries according to metrics that matter, and how ranking the stability of nations can be used to better understand the world order that is forming. AlphaGeo's Periodic Table of States represents a holistic typology of geopolitical units across the diplomatic, economic, military, technological, cultural and other domains, as well as an effort to capture their complex interrelationships. Please note there is no virtual component to the meeting. The audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Panelists discuss the international implications of the current avian flu outbreak, how the virus may continue to evolve and spread, and how the United States and other countries should address the crisis. This is a virtual meeting through Zoom. Log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this virtual meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Amelia Marchand, executive director of the L.I.G.H.T. Foundation, explores the intersection of Indigenous faith and climate action, discussing the role of faith-based Indigenous leaders in combating environmental challenges and advancing sustainable solutions for future generations.
-
Former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer shares his firsthand perspective on the Trump administration’s bold trade agenda, reflecting on the lasting impact of these policies and what they mean for the future of U.S. trade policy in an increasingly competitive global landscape. The C. Peter McColough Series on International Economics brings the world’s foremost economic policymakers and scholars to address members on current topics in international economics. This meeting series is presented by the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
European Commissioner, Valdis Dombrovskis, discusses macroeconomic trends, the impact of universal tariffs on the global trading system, and the state of transatlantic relations. Please note there is no virtual component to the meeting. The audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website. The C. Peter McColough Series on International Economics brings the world’s foremost economic policymakers and scholars to address members on current topics in international economics. This meeting series is presented by the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies. This meeting is presented by RealEcon: Reimagining American Economic Leadership, a CFR initiative of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies.
-
Cloudflare Cofounder and CEO Matthew Prince discusses developments in artificial intelligence and cybersecurity technologies, countering national security threats and advancing technological research through public-private partnerships, and his perspective on navigating geopolitical crises as the leader of a multinational company. The Bernard L. Schwartz Annual Lecture on Economic Growth and Foreign Policy series focuses on two areas: the evolution of the relationship between business and government in the making of foreign policy, and ways for government to make better use of business in solving foreign policy problems. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid event will be posted on the CFR website.
-
World Trade Organization (WTO)
World Trade Organization (WTO) Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala discusses the future of global trade and the WTO's role in the rules-based international system. The C. Peter McColough Series on International Economics brings the world’s foremost economic policymakers and scholars to address members on current topics in international economics. This meeting series is presented by the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies. This meeting is presented by RealEcon: Reimagining American Economic Leadership, a CFR initiative of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website. -
Panelists discuss global financial efforts to support the reconstruction of Ukraine and help rebuild the country’s infrastructure and economy following Russia’s military aggression. This meeting is part of the Council Special Initiative on Securing Ukraine's Future. This event is part of the Wachenheim Program on Peace and Security which is made possible by the generous support of the Sue and Ed Wachenheim Foundation.
-
IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi discusses the growing interest in acquiring nuclear weapons among nation-states, advancements in nuclear technology, the increasing global demand for nuclear energy, the evolving nuclear weapons programs in North Korea and Iran, and the impact of these historic trends on nuclear security, nuclear energy, and the viability of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Please join us for a LIVE! taping of the CFR Why It Matters podcast. During this special taping and livestream, host Gabrielle Sierra and podcast guests discuss food diplomacy and share stories from White House state dinners where food helped create a lasting partnership. Why It Matters explains some of the least-understood issues that are shaping our world. Every two weeks, host Gabrielle Sierra speaks to a diverse lineup of guests with the goal of simplifying a complicated global topic. Will the world run out of coffee? Will wars be fought by killer robots? Is Hollywood giving in to Chinese censorship? With a little bit of humor and a lot of curiosity, Why It Matters is here to dig in and find out. Please note Why It Matters LIVE! will appear on all podcast feeds and stream live through CFR.org. The CFR Young Professionals Briefing Series provides an opportunity for those early in their careers to engage with CFR. The briefings feature remarks by experts on critical global issues and lessons learned in their careers. These events are intended for individuals who have completed their undergraduate studies and have not yet reached the age of thirty to be eligible to apply for CFR term membership.
-
The goal of the workshop is to find new ways for college and university educators to encourage their students to learn about international relations and the role of the United States in the world. It provides an opportunity for educators to explore the wide array of CFR and Foreign Affairs teaching and research resources available to the academic community, participate in substantive briefings with subject experts as well as in group discussions, and share best practices and educational tools for bringing global issues into the classroom.
-
CFR experts provide insights and context around President Donald Trump’s recent enactment of tariffs, global reactions, and what his plans mean for the future of the global economy.
-
Panelists discuss the key findings of the 2025 AI Index Report, including open vs. closed-source AI developments, policy investments, and the evolving race for AI dominance. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
State and Local Governments (U.S.)
Heidi Crebo-Rediker, senior fellow in the Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies at CFR, discusses Ukraine’s mineral resources and their role in a negotiated settlement to end the war. Paige Gebhar… -
Panelists discuss ending the U.S. tax subsidy for Chinese inward portfolio investment as a tool to shrink the trade deficit, as well as the potential economic and policy implications of this approach for U.S. markets and the bilateral relationship with China. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website. This meeting is presented by RealEcon: Reimagining American Economic Leadership, a CFR initiative of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies. This meeting is also part of CFR’s China Strategy Initiative.
-
The United States' historical approach to climate change is failing. American clean technology industries lag dangerously behind their international competitors, threatening U.S. geopolitical and economic influence, and climate change is on track to exceed internationally agreed targets, endangering U.S. national security. CFR’s new Climate Realism Initiative, led by Senior Fellow Varun Sivaram, will chart a fundamentally new course for U.S. climate and energy policy—one that is both realistic in its assessment of the world's climate trajectory fueled by rising emissions outside U.S. borders and realist in its expectation that the United States and other countries will work to advance their own interests in the emerging energy transition. The launch event will bring together leading experts, policymakers, and industry leaders to examine how the United States can prepare for the geopolitical and security consequences of accelerating climate change, build globally competitive and innovative American clean technology industries, and pursue novel approaches—from coordinating strategic trade actions to exploring geoengineering—to prevent the most catastrophic potential climate impacts from endangering U.S. interests. Click here to view the full agenda. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during question-and-answer portions will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this event will be posted on the CFR website. The Climate Realism Initiative Launch is made possible by the generous support of the ClimateWorks Foundation. Members may bring a guest to this event.
-
Richmond Fed President Tom Barkin discusses U.S. monetary policy and the outlook for inflation and labor markets. The C. Peter McColough Series on International Economics brings the world’s foremost economic policymakers and scholars to address members on current topics in international economics. This meeting series is presented by the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Panelists discuss the future of U.S.-China relations under the new Trump administration, including recent developments relating to trade, technological innovation, and increasing military tensions in the Indo-Pacific. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website. This meeting is part of CFR's Transition 2025 Series, which examines the major foreign policy issues confronting the Trump administration and is presented in partnership with CFR’s China Strategy Initiative.
-
Panelists discuss the Trump administration’s role in the Israel-Hamas peace negotiations, U.S. relations with other Middle East countries, and the administration’s priorities regarding U.S. involvement and stability in the region. This meeting is part of CFR’s Transition 2025 series, which examines the major foreign policy issues confronting the Trump administration. Please note there is no virtual component to the meeting. The audio, video, and transcript of the discussion portion of this event will be posted on the CFR website.
-
In recent years, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea have deepened their cooperation, raising concerns about an emerging “Axis of Autocracies” challenging U.S. global leadership. From military support and weapons transfers to economic backing, these alliances are reshaping the geopolitical landscape. This symposium will examine the extent of their collaboration, its global implications, and how the United States should respond to the threats it poses to U.S. national security. Click here to view the full agenda. This Hauser Symposium is made possible by the generous support of the Hauser Foundation. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid event will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Panelists discuss the Trump administration’s immigration policies, including increased deportations, the attempt to end birthright citizenship, and the suspension of refugee admissions, as well as the implications for U.S. national security and foreign policy. This meeting is part of CFR’s Transition 2025 series, which examines the major foreign policy issues confronting the Trump administration. The Silberstein Family Annual Lecture on Refugee and Migration Policy was established in 2019 through a generous gift from Alan M. Silberstein and the Silberstein family. The lecture provides CFR with an annual forum to explore emerging challenges in refugee and migration policy in the United States and around the world. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
In April 2024, CFR launched RealEcon: Reimagining American Economic Leadership Initiative with the goal of rebuilding a durable consensus on the U.S. role in the international economy. As a first step, the RealEcon team toured the country to ask Americans their views on trade, investment, foreign aid, China, and other economic issues. They visited nine states and spoke with over 400 people, including local elected officials, business leaders, farmers, workers, students, and journalists. This event will feature a fireside chat with former New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu and a panel discussion with senior experts and interlocutors of key themes and policy takeaways from the tour. The Robert B. Menschel Economics Symposium was established in 2014 and was made possible through a generous endowment gift from Robert B. Menschel while a senior director at Goldman Sachs. Since Menschel’s death in 2022, the symposium continues in his honor and memory.
-
Brad W. Setser, Whitney Shepardson senior fellow at CFR, discusses the recent tariffs imposed on goods from Canada, China, and Mexico and implications for American consumers. The host of the webinar …
-
Panelists discuss media consumption and views on foreign policy among youth in the United States and globally. The CFR Young Professionals Briefing Series provides an opportunity for those early in their careers to engage with CFR. The briefings feature remarks by experts on critical global issues and lessons learned in their careers. These events are intended for individuals who have completed their undergraduate studies and have not yet reached the age of thirty to be eligible to apply for CFR term membership. We are pleased to extend this invitation to you through the recommendation of a CFR member. If you no longer wish to receive these invitations, please let us know by replying to this email. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
As member states convene for the 69th UN Commission on the Status of Women and commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, please join us for a dialogue on the impact of U.S. policy initiatives undertaken by the Gender Policy Council, the current global status of women and girls, and recommendations for priority actions to advance gender equality and women's leadership globally. While remarks will be on the record, the discussion portion of the meeting is not for attribution. This means that participants are free to make use of the information shared at the meeting but may not attribute any quotes or content to any speakers or participants. Use of personal recording devices and cameras is prohibited. CFR reserves the right to take or use photographs for its own use. This meeting is part of the Council on Foreign Relations Women and Foreign Policy Program Roundtable Series on Women’s Global Leadership. Please note there is no virtual component to the meeting. The audio, video, and transcript of the discussion portion of this event will be posted on the CFR website. Members may bring a guest to this event.
-
Panelists discuss the history of U.S. foreign aid and examine its effectiveness in promoting global stability, fostering economic development, and projecting U.S. soft power worldwide, as well as potential approaches for restructuring the system moving forward. **This is a virtual meeting through Zoom. Log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this virtual meeting will be posted on the CFR website. This meeting is presented by RealEcon: Reimagining American Economic Leadership, a CFR initiative of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies.
-
Anthropic Chief Executive Officer and Cofounder Dario Amodei discusses the future of U.S. AI leadership, the role of innovation in an era of strategic competition, and the outlook for frontier model development. The CEO Speaker series is a unique forum for leading global CEOs to share their insights on issues at the center of commerce and foreign policy, and to discuss the changing role of business globally. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid event will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Panelists discuss the rising threat of hybrid warfare, exploring the tactics used by hostile states, and effective strategies to counter these covert attacks. **This is a virtual meeting through Zoom. Log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this virtual meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
As the war in Ukraine enters its fourth year, the international context is changing rapidly, including the prospects for a negotiated settlement. Much is at stake, and it is essential that the challenges ahead be fully appreciated. Panelists will explore three critical issues for securing Ukraine's future: achieving a just and durable peace, ensuring its long-term security, and helping it rebuild and recover from the ravages of war. This event is part of the Council’s Special Initiative on Securing Ukraine’s Future which provides timely, informed analysis and practical policy recommendations for U.S. policymakers and the American public. Click here to download the full agenda. This event is part of the Wachenheim Program on Peace and Security which is made possible by the generous support of the Ed and Sue Wachenheim Foundation.
-
Panelists discuss the future of climate and energy policy under the new Trump administration, examining lessons from President Trump’s previous term, anticipated shifts from the policies of the Biden administration, and the trajectory of U.S. energy industries, including oil, solar, and wind, and natural gas. This meeting is part of CFR’s Transition 2025 series, which examines the major foreign policy issues confronting the Trump administration. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Women and Foreign Policy Program
In 1995, the Fourth World Conference on Women issued the landmark Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, which established a global agenda to advance gender equality. For its thirtieth anniversary, the sixty-ninth session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women is conducting a review and appraisal of its implementation and assessing what barriers are impeding progress. Ambassador Verveer, executive director of the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security, who previously served as the first U.S. Ambassador for Global Women’s Issues, and Ambassador Rao Gupta, the most recent U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues, reflect on gains for gender equality since the Beijing Declaration and discuss what steps are currently most needed to protect and advance the status of women. -
Margaret MacMillan discusses how history helps us to understand the present, how the past affects the decisions nations make about their interests and strategies, and why alliances matter in a changing world order. The Leslie H. Gelb Memorial Event honors the memory of Leslie H. Gelb, CFR’s president from 1993 to 2003 and a dedicated member for forty-six years. Gelb modernized the institution to reflect the changing realities of the post-Cold War era, and was a passionate advocate of common sense and strategy in U.S. foreign policy. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Panelists discuss the February German election results and their implications for Germany’s domestic policies, NATO commitments, and the broader European landscape, with insights into how Germany’s new leadership could reshape alliances and influence the continent’s future. CFR’s Stephen M. Kellen Term Member Program is pleased to be hosting this event with the American Council on Germany’s Young Leaders Program. **This is a virtual meeting through Zoom. Log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this virtual meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Thomas J. Bollyky, Bloomberg chair in global health at CFR, discusses recent changes to domestic and international health policies and the implications of a U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Orga…
-
Mark L. Clifford, president of the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation, and Jerome A. Cohen, adjunct senior fellow for Asia studies at CFR, discuss the incredible story of billionaire and democracy activist Jimmy Lai. Clifford’s work chronicles Lai’s significance as a high-profile target of Hong Kong’s 2020 national security law. Clifford is the author of a recently published biography of Jimmy Lai, The Troublemaker: How Jimmy Lai Became a Billionaire, Hong Kong’s Greatest Dissident, and China’s Most Feared Critic.
-
Panelists discuss how U.S. policy toward Russia may shift under a second Trump administration, including the use of sanctions, the continued war in Ukraine, Russia’s military capabilities, the political dynamics inside the Kremlin, and broader U.S. engagement with Moscow. This meeting is part of CFR’s Transition 2025 series, which examines the major foreign policy issues confronting the Trump administration. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Emerging technologies, from AI to microchips to robotics, are transforming societies, economies, and geopolitics in profound ways. In light of these timely transformations, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), in collaboration with experts from the Stanford Emerging Technology Review (SETR), discuss how the United States can seize opportunities—with a particular focus on AI, microelectronics, and robotics—and mitigate risks in these fields and ensure America’s innovation ecosystem continues to thrive. CFR and SETR are excited to launch The Interconnect, a new podcast series that features leading minds in cutting-edge technology and foreign policy who explore recent ground-breaking developments, what's coming over the horizon, and the implications for U.S. innovation leadership. To hear the trailer for The Interconnect, click here. Please note there is no virtual component to the meeting. The audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website. Members may bring a guest to this event.
-
TotalEnergies Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Patrick Pouyanné discusses evolving trends in the global energy market in a changing geopolitical environment, the potential for increased transatlantic energy cooperation, the role of gas and renewable energies in the transition, and TotalEnergies’ multi-energy strategy. The CEO Speaker series is a unique forum for leading global CEOs to share their insights on issues at the center of commerce and foreign policy, and to discuss the changing role of business globally. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid event will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Given recent developments in the Trump administration's approach to Russia and Ukraine, members are invited to join this virtual media briefing with CFR fellows. As the third anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine approaches, CFR experts provide insights on the talks between the United States and Russia, the reactions from Europe, and the path forward for Ukraine. To register for this virtual meeting, please click the Register or Decline button or reply to this email. Please join the Zoom event at least five minutes before the start of the presentation by using the below details: Trump, Russia, and the Future of Ukraine Zoom Webinar ID: 848 1398 4959 Zoom Password: 862896 For additional analysis by CFR experts, please visit CFR’s Special Initiative on Securing Ukraine’s Future.
-
Panelists discuss CFR’s recently released Council Special Report on foreign influence, democratic governance, and election interference. This meeting is part of the Diamonstein-Spielvogel Project on the Future of Democracy.
-
In a collaboration between CFR and Open to Debate, panelists debate the efficacy of President Trump’s recently enacted ten percent additional tariff on Chinese imports. Open to Debate is the nation’s only nonpartisan, debate-driven media organization dedicated to bringing multiple viewpoints together for a constructive, balanced, respectful exchange of ideas. Open to Debate is a platform for intellectually curious and open-minded people to engage with others holding opposing views on complex issues. Please note there is no virtual component to this meeting. The recording of this debate will be posted on the CFR and Open to Debate websites.
-
Vice Chair for Supervision Michael S. Barr discusses the potential impacts of AI on financial stability and the regulatory considerations surrounding it. The C. Peter McColough Series on International Economics brings the world’s foremost economic policymakers and scholars to address members on current topics in international economics. This meeting series is presented by the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies. Please note there is no virtual component to the meeting. However, this event will be livestreamed through CFR.org. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Panelists discuss the aftermath of the wildfires in California and how the region can recover from the catastrophe and rebuild a more resilient future to prevent future disasters. **This is a virtual meeting through Zoom. Log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. The audio, video, and transcript of this virtual meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Following recent U.S. policies to refocus development spending and engagement, including the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization, panelists discuss how the global health community can adapt its policies, programs, and financing. Please note there is no virtual component to the meeting. The audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
The Religion and Foreign Policy Workshop convenes clergy, seminary heads, scholars of religion, and representatives of faith-based organizations from around the country for discussions with policymakers, CFR fellows, and other experts. The event is a valuable opportunity to engage with colleagues and participate in substantive conversations on international issues of interest to religious communities. The workshop will include an opening night dinner conversation, plenary sessions, and breakout discussions with choices among a variety of thematic and regional topics. Access the complete agenda here
-
In its new report, Securing Space: A Plan for U.S. Action, the CFR Task Force on Space Management Policy analyzes the challenges in low Earth orbit, where the acceleration in human space activity is most evident, and proposes recommendations for a U.S.-led international strategy to govern this increasingly congested and contested space. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid event will be posted on the CFR website. Members may bring a guest to this event.
-
Alex L. Wang, professor of law at the UCLA School of Law, and Jerome A. Cohen, adjunct senior fellow for Asia Studies at CFR, discuss the story of China’s embrace of green development on the global stage.
-
Panelists discuss transatlantic ties under a second Trump administration, NATO burden-sharing, and the future of European strategic autonomy. This meeting is part of CFR’s Transition 2025 series, which examines the major foreign policy issues confronting the Trump administration.
-
CFR experts provide insights and context around President Donald Trump's announced tariffs and what they mean for North American trade, U.S. alliances, and global competition.
-
Tech leader Reid Hoffman shares his insider’s perspective on an AI-powered future and its transformative potential to improve lives and create positive change. The Malcolm and Carolyn Wiener Annual Lecture on Science and Technology addresses issues at the intersection of science, technology, and foreign policy. It has been endowed in perpetuity through a gift from CFR members Malcolm and Carolyn Wiener.
-
President Donald Trump has indicated his desire to bring a speedy end to the war in Ukraine. How this goal will be accomplished, given the numerous obstacles, remains to be seen. In a series of publications, CFR experts on Ukraine and Russia provide a complementary set of policy recommendations aimed at ensuring Ukraine’s survival and success as an independent state. This meeting is part of the Council Special Initiative on Securing Ukraine’s Future and Wachenheim Program on Peace and Security.
-
Panelists discuss how a second Trump administration could reshape U.S.-Africa relations, whether security, economic, and diplomatic engagement will deepen or decline, and how to define the U.S. strategic role in the continent while countering China’s growing influence. This meeting is part of CFR’s Transition 2025 series, which examines the major foreign policy issues confronting the Trump administration. Log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
The World Economic Update highlights the quarter’s most important and emerging trends. Discussions cover changes in the global marketplace with special emphasis on current economic events and their implications for U.S. policy. This series is presented by the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies and is dedicated to the life and work of the distinguished economist Martin Feldstein. Please note there is no virtual component to the meeting. The audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Varun Sivaram, senior fellow for energy and climate at CFR, discusses the role of new and emerging technology in addressing the challenges posed by climate change and the future of energy policy in t…
-
Panelists discuss the potential impacts of President-elect Trump’s proposed trade policies on global supply chains and analyze shifts in U.S. trade policy over the last eight years. This meeting is part of CFR's Transition 2025 series, which examines the major foreign policy issues confronting the Trump administration.
-
Please join us for a live taping of The World Next Week podcast. Hosted by Robert McMahon, Carla Anne Robbins, and their guest co-host, Deborah Amos, this special taping and livestream will serve as the show’s series finale after over seventeen years on air. The World Next Week brings journalists’ perspectives to the critical and intriguing stories developing around the globe—from Kyiv, to Pyongyang, to Capitol Hill, to Cannes. TWNW’s hosts have years of experience covering international and Washington news. Before joining CFR, Robert McMahon, managing editor of digital content, reported for the Associated Press and was news director for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Prague. Carla Anne Robbins, a senior fellow and faculty director of the MIA Program at Baruch College’s Marxe School, was deputy editorial page editor at the New York Times and chief diplomatic correspondent at the Wall Street Journal.
-
Panelists discuss the global economic outlook for 2025, including the challenges facing central banks worldwide, prospects for growth in emerging markets, and the economic priorities of an incoming Trump administration.
-
Panelists discuss their recently released memoirs, Small Acts of Courage and At the Edge of Empire: A Family's Reckoning with China, highlighting how their personal experiences helped shape their perspectives on democracy, history, identity, and global politics. Members are encouraged to include their high school- or college-age children or grandchildren in this event. All members are welcome to attend. The conversation portion of this meeting is on the record. The question-and-answer portion of this meeting is not for attribution, meaning that participants are free to make use of the information shared at the meeting but may not attribute any quotes or content to any speakers or participants. Use of personal recording devices and cameras is prohibited. CFR reserves the right to take or use photographs for its own use. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. The Daughters and Sons meeting series is made possible by generous endowment support from The Marc Haas Foundation and the Stanley S. Shuman Family Foundation.
-
Special Envoy Tom Perriello discusses the ongoing civil war in Sudan, the resulting humanitarian crisis, and the Biden administration’s designation of genocide by the Rapid Support Forces. Please note there is no Zoom component to the meeting. The audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
LABOTT: Thanks, Meaghan. And thanks to everyone for joining. We have a lot of our press colleagues here today, as well as some of our members. So thanks very much for joining us. For our members of t…
-
This event will explore the results of the 2025 Preventive Priorities Survey which polls hundreds of foreign policy experts every year to assess thirty ongoing or potential violent conflicts and their likely impact on U.S. interests. The results are available here. Panelists will delve into the global political implications of the conflicts that top the list, as well as ways the Trump administration should handle them. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Public Health Threats and Pandemics
In When the World Closed Its Doors:The Covid-19 Tragedy and the Future of Borders, Edward Alden and Laurie Trautman tell the story of how nearly every country in the world shut its borders to respond to the pandemic threat. The book details the enormous human costs of the travel restrictions and argues that governments are becoming overly reliant on borders to address external threats from terrorism to drugs to migration. This wide-angle view of a singular shock to the international systems of travel and migration highlights why those living across borders need better protections and governments more robust guardrails. The CFR Fellows’ Book Launch series highlights new books by CFR fellows. -
Join us for two sessions examining President Jimmy Carter's legacy, including his contributions to peace in the Middle East, his efforts to advance global human rights, and the lasting impact of his presidency on U.S. foreign policy and international affairs.
-
Panelists discuss careers in defense and security within the U.S. government and the many forms they can take. The CFR Young Professionals Briefing Series provides an opportunity for those early in their careers to engage with CFR. The briefings feature remarks by experts on critical global issues and lessons learned in their careers. These events are intended for individuals who have completed their undergraduate studies and have not yet reached the age of thirty to be eligible for CFR term membership. We are pleased to extend this invitation to you through the recommendation of a CFR member. If you no longer wish to receive these invitations, please let us know by replying to this email.
-
Lt. General (ret.) H.R. McMaster discusses his new book, At War with Ourselves: My Tour of Duty in the Trump White House, and the geopolitical dynamics that the second Trump Administration will confront. The Distinguished Voices Series focuses particular attention on the contributions made by a prominent individual at a critical juncture in the history of the country or the world. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
The relationship between Russia and the People’s Republic of China continues to dominate headlines, news stories, and conversations in the American foreign policy community. Analysts continue to discuss the quality and depth of the relationship, how it’s perceived around the world, and what, if anything, the United States can do about it. The CFR China Strategy Initiative is pleased to invite members to the inaugural meeting of its China 360 program: a two-part event on China-Russia Relations. Robert D. Blackwill and Richard Fontaine, in a keynote session, discuss their new Council Special Report, No Limits? The China-Russia Relationship and U.S. Foreign Policy. Following their insights, CFR experts discuss the view and implications of Beijing and Moscow’s relationship for the rest of the world.
-
Brad W. Setser, CFR’s Whitney Shepardson senior fellow, leads the conversation on the influence of tariffs on global trade and the price of U.S. goods, and what to expect from the second Trump admini…
-
Secretary Antony J. Blinken discusses the administration’s foreign policy and diplomacy, including his focus on rebuilding alliances and partnerships abroad to respond to shared challenges.
-
-
Elise Labott, the 2024-25 Edward R. Murrow press fellow at CFR, discusses the shift away from traditional news sources to social media and the implications of segmenting audiences through outlets suc…
-
Peter Casarella, professor of theology at Duke Divinity School, and Cecilia González-Andrieu, professor of theological studies at Loyola Marymount University, discuss the geopolitical and cultural influence of the pope, the challenges and opportunities the Catholic Church faces in addressing international issues, and the global religious leadership of Pope Francis.
-
Dr. Atul Gawande, assistant administrator for Global Health USAID, discusses the future of global health with Thomas Bollyky, inaugural Bloomberg Chair in Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations. In particular, Dr. Gawande examines the role of artificial intelligence, the importance of building government trust, and USAID’s key accomplishments since the COVID-19 pandemic.
-
David Miliband, President and CEO of the International Rescue Committee (IRC), presents the new IRC Emergency Watchlist report, highlighting the countries at highest risk of humanitarian crises in 2025 and examining where the international community has made progress or fallen short.
-
-
In a special event copresented by the Council on Foreign Relations and The Lancet, panelists discuss priorities for improving public health in the United States and abroad. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website. Members may bring a guest to this event.
-
Dmytro Kuleba discusses Ukraine’s strategic position in the war with Russia, and evaluates how the incoming Donald Trump administration might influence Ukraine’s international relations and policies. This meeting is part of the Council Special Initiative on Securing Ukraine’s Future and is part of the Wachenheim Program on Peace and Security. The program is made possible by the generous support of the Sue and Edgar Wachenheim Foundation. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
CFR experts discuss the latest news out of Syria, including what the fall of Bashar al-Assad means for the future of the country and the wider region.
-
In response to new fractures and flashpoints in the global economy and heightened strategic competition, the United States and countries around the world are recalibrating their approaches to economic policy. This includes the U.S. government prioritizing economic statecraft – including affirmative measures that bring mutual economic and security benefits to the United States and our international partners. Building on decades of work supporting inclusive economic growth, USAID is now accelerating its efforts to strengthen economic resilience in low- and middle-income countries to increase debt sustainability, create jobs, and connect with U.S. and allies’ critical supply chains. Please join us for a conversation with USAID Administrator Samantha Power and CFR President Michael Froman on USAID’s policy and programmatic efforts to meet the moment for U.S. economic and national security interests by delivering responsive development cooperation and a strengthened U.S. value proposition for low- and middle-income countries. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website. This meeting is presented by RealEcon: Reimagining American Economic Leadership and is made possible by the generous support of the Amy Falls and Hartley Rogers Foundation.
-
Stephen A. Orlins, president of the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, and Jerome A. Cohen, CFR adjunct senior fellow for Asia Studies, discuss a China policy for the American people. Getting the China challenge right is a crucial task for the incoming administration. How can U.S. policies benefit the other interests of Americans while protecting our national security?
-
Please note that the CFR meeting with Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines on Thursday, December 5, 2024, will now be held from 12:45 to 1:30 p.m. (EST) due to a change in the speaker’s schedule. The lunch will begin at 12:15 p.m. Avril Haines discusses strategic competition with China and the operations of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, including her focus on collaboration with the private sector and the intelligence community’s recruitment needs. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
A year after Hamas’s devastating October 7 attack, Israel faces a seven-front war and deepening divisions between its military and Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. Meanwhile, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is dire. This joint symposium between CFR and the Institute for National Security Studies (Israel) will bring together a broad range of regional and military experts to reflect on a year of war in the Middle East and how the change in U.S. administrations could shape evolving regional dynamics. The sessions will cover the present state of the war in Gaza, the future of Middle East peace processes, and U.S. strategy towards Iran. Click here to download the full agenda for the symposium. Members may bring a guest to this symposium.
-
Petro Poroshenko discusses Ukraine’s ongoing war with Russia and the role of U.S. and NATO support. Please note there is no virtual component to the meeting. The audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Dr. Mandy K. Cohen reflects on her time as CDC director, highlighting the progress of the Biden administration both domestically and globally, as well as the public health challenges that lie ahead at the state and federal levels.Please note there is no virtual component to the meeting. The audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.Members may bring a guest to this event.
-
Panelists discuss U.S.-Latin America relations during the Biden administration, potential changes under the Trump administration, and opportunities to develop more effective U.S. policies in the region.
-
Vice Admiral Frank ‘Trey’ Whitworth, director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), explores the NGA’s current initiatives and how AI is transforming the field of geospatial intelligence. Please note there is no virtual component to this meeting. The audio, video, and transcript of this virtual meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Panelists discuss the potential technical and economic benefits provided by blockchain technology, including Web3 and cryptocurrencies, their effect on democratic institutions, financial inclusion, and national security, as well as the role of regulation in promoting transparency, mitigating risks, and encouraging innovation. Please note there is no virtual component to this meeting. The audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website. This meeting is part of the Diamonstein-Spielvogel Meeting Series on Democracy.
-
CFR Military Fellows discuss ways their respective branches are meeting the challenges of artificial intelligence and emerging technologies, climate change, and an evolving global threat landscape. The CFR Young Professionals Briefing Series provides an opportunity for those early in their careers to engage with CFR. The briefings feature remarks by experts on critical global issues and lessons learned in their careers. These events are intended for individuals who have completed their undergraduate studies and have not yet reached the age of thirty to be eligible for CFR term membership. We are pleased to extend this invitation to you through the recommendation of a CFR member. If you no longer wish to receive these invitations, please let us know by replying to this email. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and the transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
CFR experts discuss the implications of President Joe Biden authorizing Ukraine to use U.S. long-range missiles against targets inside of Russia, and the prospects for the Ukraine-Russia war under President-Elect Donald Trump.
-
Reflecting on past experiences, panelists discuss the critical aspects of the U.S. presidential transition, including the importance of a peaceful transfer of power, potential challenges that may confront the incoming administration, and strategies to prevent leadership gaps in essential roles during this period. Please make note of the log-in information listed in this invitation. Log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will also be provided the evening before the event to those who register. The audio, video, and transcript of this virtual meeting will be posted on the CFR website. This meeting is part of the Diamonstein-Spielvogel Meeting Series on Democracy.
-
Elliott Abrams, CFR senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies, and Elliot Cosgrove, rabbi of Park Avenue Synagogue, will discuss the evolving role of the Jewish diaspora in shaping U.S. policy towards the Middle East, the challenges of fostering unity within the Jewish community, and the broader implications for international relations. Asher Lopatin, rabbi of Kehillat Etz Chayim, will moderate the discussion.
-
In the inaugural launch of this new forum on science and foreign policy, U.S. State Department science envoys—specializing in fusion energy, ocean sustainability, and quantum technology—discuss the relationship between science and U.S. foreign policy in addressing global challenges through collaboration, and ways policymakers can support these efforts more effectively. Established in 2024, the Norman E. Alexander Family M Foundation Forum on Science and Foreign Policy is an endowed annual event that explores the interconnections among the natural sciences, emerging technologies, and foreign policy and national security. It was made possible through the generosity of the Norman E. Alexander Family M Foundation in recognition of Mr. Alexander’s lifelong engagement in all manner of discourse for the betterment of humanity. The forum provides a unique platform for interdisciplinary knowledge-sharing among scientists and foreign policy experts.
-
Jacob Ware, research fellow at CFR, discusses how serious the threat of political violence in the United States is and what the Trump administration must do to ensure that such threats do not prolife…
-
-
CFR's Technologist-in-Residence Sebastian Elbaum discusses the capabilities, failures, and future of artificial intelligence and its intersections with policy.
-
Panelists discuss the shifting information environment underpinning this year’s U.S. presidential election, generational differences in accessing information, the rising role of influencers, and how the campaigns’ overall strategies responded to these evolutions.
-
Panelists discuss the findings of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy Report, including the evolving security threats from China and its aligned partners: Russia, Iran, and North Korea. The Commission explores the need for the United States to strengthen its deterrence and response strategies by using all elements of national power, including diplomacy, investment, and commercial strategies, along with the critical role U.S. alliances play in shaping global competition. The U.S. Congress created the Commission on the National Defense Strategy in the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act as an independent body charged with assessing the 2022 National Defense Strategy. Its members are non-governmental experts in national security. The Commission released its final report on July 29, 2024. RAND contributed analytic and administrative support.
-
Panelists discuss the latest updates regarding the conflict in the Middle East, the risks of wider escalation, and the role of the United States. PLEASE NOTE: This meeting is part of the Twenty-Ninth Annual Term Member Conference. All CFR members are invited to attend this session virtually.
-
The Stephen M. Kellen Term Member Program is supported by a generous gift from the Anna-Maria and Stephen Kellen Foundation. Click here to download the conference agenda. Select sessions will also be available via Zoom. This invitation is not transferable. Guest requests will not be accommodated.
-
Chrystia Freeland discusses how democracies can stand together to protect their economic interests, preserve peace and prosperity for their citizens, and enhance trade at a time of rising geopolitical tensions. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Former Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd discusses the ideological worldview driving Chinese behavior both domestically and on the world stage, as well as that of President Xi Jinping, who now holds near-total control over the Chinese Communist Party. Rudd argues that Xi’s worldview differs significantly from those of the leaders who preceded him, and that this ideological shift is reflected in the real world of Chinese policy and behavior. The C.V. Starr & Co. Annual Lecture on China was established in 2018 to honor the trailblazing career of C.V. Starr and the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of C.V. Starr & Co., Maurice R. Greenberg. This meeting is presented in partnership with CFR's China Strategy Initiative. Copies of On Xi Jinping will be available for purchase.
-
Panelists with distinguished careers in government, business, and academia hold an in-depth, nonpartisan conversation on America's role in the word. They discuss the trade-offs presented by different…
-
Panelists discuss the intersection of climate change and national security, the emerging challenges for defense, and how the U.S. military is adapting to address these evolving threats.
-
We will livestream this conversation here. You can register to attend in person at the GVSU Hauenstein Center website. Join us for an in-depth, nonpartisan conversation on America’s role in the world and the foreign policy issues at stake in the 2024 election, including international trade and national security, the U.S.-China relationship, and U.S. engagement in global conflicts. Panelists with distinguished careers in government, business, and academia will discuss the trade-offs presented by different policy options both locally and globally and provide context on the international issues, choices, and challenges facing the next president. The forum will also be livestreamed and posted to CFR.org after the fact.
-
Bank of Korea Governor Rhee Chang Yong discusses monetary policy in South Korea and the implications of reshaping global value chains. The C. Peter McColough Series on International Economics brings the world’s foremost economic policymakers and scholars to address members on current topics in international economics. This meeting series is presented by the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies.
-
Martin Wolf discusses how the outcome of the U.S. presidential election might change the world’s political economy and the path ahead. The C. Peter McColough Series on International Economics brings the world’s foremost economic policymakers and scholars to address members on current topics in international economics and U.S. monetary policy. This meeting series is presented by RealEcon: Reimagining American Economic Leadership, a CFR initiative of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies.
-
Cait Conley, senior advisor to the director at the Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency (CISA), discusses protecting democratic processes from foreign cyber and disinformation attacks. A que…
-
CFR experts discussed developments in the Middle East and the implications of the death of the leader of Hamas, Yahya Sinwar. LABOTT: Thanks very much. And thank you to all of you for joining toda…
-
Join us for an in-depth, nonpartisan conversation on America’s role in the world and the foreign policy issues at stake in the 2024 election, including sustainability, artificial intelligence, national security, and trade and economics. Panelists with distinguished careers in government, business, and academia will discuss the trade-offs presented by different policy options both locally and globally and provide context on the international issues, choices, and challenges facing the next president. We will livestream this conversation here. You can register to attend in person. Don’t miss this opportunity to participate in an interactive discussion on how U.S. foreign policy decisions impact the trajectory of global affairs and your community. To learn more about the foreign policy issues at play in the 2024 campaign, explore CFR’s Election 2024 hub for candidates’ stances and expert analysis on international challenges facing the United States. Take a deeper dive into the foreign policy issues that could affect Georgia. The CFR Election 2024 initiative is made possible in part by a grant from Carnegie Corporation of New York.
-
This symposium was created to address the broad spectrum of issues affecting Wall Street and international economics. It was established through the generous support of Council board member Stephen C. Freidheim and is copresented by the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies and RealEcon: Reimagining American Economic Leadership.
-
The CFR RealEcon: Reimagining American Economic Leadership initiative looks to assess the role of the United States in the international economy, analyze what is at stake for the American people, and identify the trade-offs in different policy approaches. As part of this effort, the initiative seeks to understand the domestic preconditions for robust U.S. international economic engagement and explore relevant domestic policies. Panelists discuss policy-reform ideas to address the sources of inequality, which were featured in their recent piece for RealEcon, “Toward a More Prosperous, Less Polarized, Worker-Friendly Economy.” For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Adelle M. Banks, projects editor and national reporter for Religion News Service, and Adam Nicholas Phillips, chief strategy officer and chief of staff at Interfaith America, discuss the evolving role of religious constituencies in U.S. politics, as well as the intersection of religion with key political and social issues in the lead up to the 2024 election.
-
Global Board of Advisors Lunch With Members: What Does the World Think of the United States in 2024?
At the midpoint of CFR’s Global Board of Advisors’ annual two-day summit, we invite you to a seated lunch with members of CFR’s Global Board. The lunch will be followed by a discussion featuring a panel of Global Board members from various regions. The panel will explore external perceptions of current affairs in the United States, with a particular focus on the upcoming 2024 presidential election. -
Panelists with distinguished careers in government, business, and academia hold an in-depth, nonpartisan conversation on America's role in the word. They discuss the trade-offs presented by different policy options both locally and globally and provide context on the international issues, choices, and challenges facing the next president—including trade and national security, the U.S.-China relationship, and U.S.-Mexico relations.
-
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Brookings Institution Foreign Policy Program are collaborating to convene an expert discussion to examine the future of the Middle East. As part of a series of virtual events convened by CFR and Brookings in the lead-up to Election Day, the conversation will examine the escalating conflicts in the Middle East and the policy options and priorities for an incoming U.S. administration in the region. The series is a part of Election 2024, a CFR initiative focused on exploring the United States’ role in the world, how international affairs issues affect voters, and the foreign policy issues at stake in November, and Election ’24: Issues at Stake, a Brookings initiative aimed to bring public attention to consequential policy issues confronting voters and policymakers in the run up to the 2024 election. Both projects are made possible in part by grants from Carnegie Corporation of New York.
-
Panelists discuss Russia's broader strategy beyond Ukraine, including efforts to expand the conflict through cyberattacks and arson across Europe, as well as possible election interference in the United States.
-
The World Economic Update highlights the quarter’s most important and emerging trends. Discussions cover changes in the global marketplace with special emphasis on current economic events and their implications for U.S. policy. This series is presented by the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies and is dedicated to the life and work of the distinguished economist Martin Feldstein.
-
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Brookings Institution Foreign Policy Program collaborated to convene an expert discussion that examined the role of technology and electoral dynamics in the 2024 election. As part of a series of virtual events convened by CFR and Brookings in the lead-up to Election Day, the conversation examined how the perception of technology is influencing electoral credibility; cybersecurity and election integrity; and what is at stake for safeguarding our democratic processes in an era of disinformation. The series is a part of Election 2024, a CFR initiative focused on exploring the United States’ role in the world, how international affairs issues affect voters, and the foreign policy issues at stake in November, and Election ’24: Issues at Stake, a Brookings initiative aimed to bring public attention to consequential policy issues confronting voters and policymakers in the run up to the 2024 election. Both projects are made possible in part by grants from Carnegie Corporation of New York.
-
CFR experts discuss developments in the Middle East a year after the October 7 attacks in Israel. LABOTT: Thank you very much. And thank you to everyone for joining this media briefing. I’m Elise …
-
As the one-year anniversary of the October 7 attacks approaches, panelists discuss U.S. policy options regarding the Israel-Hamas conflict, including the administration’s proposed peace deal and the ramifications of the upcoming U.S. presidential election.
-
Josep Borrell shares his insights on the challenges facing the European Union, its role in supporting Ukraine against Russia, and transatlantic relations with the United States. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)
Jens Stoltenberg reflects on his ten years as the secretary general of NATO and what lies ahead for transatlantic relations. -
President Vjosa Osmani discusses security challenges in Europe, Kosovo's foreign policy priorities amid regional instability, and the future of the country's relationship with the United States.
-
Dr. Vivek Murthy, the 19th and 21st U.S. Surgeon General, discusses his role as the nation's doctor, including addressing the loneliness epidemic, the importance of social connection, and combatting the youth mental health crisis.
-
Despite contributing less than 0.01% of global greenhouse gas emissions, the country of Barbados faces dangerous vulnerabilities due to climate change. Prime Minister Mia Mottley discusses the need to support developing countries in addressing climate change, including global financial reforms such as the Bridgetown Initiative, and solutions for creating a sustainable and resilient future.
-
President Rashad Al-Alimi discusses Yemen’s foreign policy priorities, regional security, and the country’s humanitarian situation.
-
Panelists discuss the Agriculture Innovation Mission for Climate (AIM for Climate), a 5-year joint initiative launched in 2021 and co-led by the United States and the United Arab Emirates, and the importance of investing in climate-smart agriculture and food system innovation. For further information, please see www.aimforclimate.org.
-
Inaugurated in 1969, the Russell C. Leffingwell Lecture was named for Russell C. Leffingwell, a charter member of the Council who served as its president from 1944 to 1946 and as its chairman from 1946 to 1953. The lecture is given by distinguished foreign officials, who are invited to address Council members on a topic of major international significance.
-
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General CQ Brown, Jr. reflects on his first year as chairman and discusses his vision for the joint forces over the coming years. The David A. Morse Lecture was inaugurated in 1994 and supports an annual meeting with a distinguished speaker. It honors the memory of David A. Morse, an active Council on Foreign Relations member for nearly thirty years.
-
President Bernardo Arévalo discusses anti-corruption in Guatemala, the state of democracy in the region, migration, and the country's foreign policy under his new administration. This meeting is part of the Diamonstein-Spielvogel Meeting Series on Democracy.
-
Dr. Fatih Birol has served as Executive Director of the International Energy Agency (IEA) since 2015. He has overseen a comprehensive modernization program making the agency the global hub for clean energy transitions and broadening its energy security mandate. In this discussion, Fatih Birol shares his perspectives on the current state of global energy markets, new and emerging risks to energy security, the geopolitics of the energy transition, the implications for the global economy, and prospects for limiting global warming. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
FTC Chair Lina Khan discusses anti-trust, innovation, and U.S.-China competition. This meeting is part of CFR’s China Strategy Initiative.
-
Journalists with on-the-ground experience reporting from warzones and conflict areas discuss the lessons they have learned, the risks they face, and the importance of sharing these stories.
-
Heidi Crebo-Rediker, adjunct senior fellow in the Center for Geoeconomic Studies at CFR, discusses the state of American infrastructure since the passing of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act…
-
Panelists reflect on the past, present, and future of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) having reached its twentieth anniversary of operation, as well as the future of economic diplomacy and the challenging landscape of global poverty. This meeting series is presented by RealEcon: Reimagining American Economic Leadership, a CFR initiative of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies.
-
Foreign Minister Yusuf Tuggar of Nigeria discusses emerging issues in the sub-region and across the continent, including Nigeria's foreign policy initiatives and challenges to economic and regional security amid ongoing geopolitical turmoil.
-
Salam al-Marayati, president and cofounder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and Nazita Lajevardi, associate professor of political science at Michigan State University, discuss the domestic and international policies that affect and matter to American Muslim communities, as well as the diversity, trends, and priorities of the bloc.
-
Historian Timothy Snyder explores the concept of freedom, including what it is, how it has been misunderstood, and why it is worth fighting for both in the United States and globally. The John B. Hurford Memorial Lecture was inaugurated in 2002 in memory of CFR member John B. Hurford, and features individuals who represent critical new thinking in international affairs and foreign policy. This meeting is also part of the Diamonstein-Spielvogel Meeting Series on Democracy.
-
From best-selling biographer Max Boot comes this revelatory portrait, a decade in the making, of the actor-turned-politician whose telegenic leadership ushered in a transformative conservative era in American politics. Despite his fame as a Hollywood star and television host, Reagan remained a man of profound contradictions, even to those closest to him. Never resorting to either hagiography or hit job, Reagan charts his epic journey from Depression-era America to “Morning in America.” Providing fresh insight into “trickle-down economics,” the Cold War’s end, the Iran-Contra affair, and so much more, this definitive biography is as compelling a presidential biography as any in recent decades. The CFR Fellows’ Book Launch series highlights new books by CFR fellows. Please note that members will receive an offer to claim a complimentary copy of this book.
-
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Brookings Institution Foreign Policy Program are collaborating to convene a panel of experts to discuss the foreign, security, and economic policy challenges facing democratic governments in Europe and the United States; how key issues are playing out in elections and their aftermaths; and what is at stake for transatlantic relations across a range of policy areas. This will be the first in a series of virtual events cosponsored by CFR and Brookings in the lead-up to Election Day. The series is a part of Election 2024, a CFR initiative focused on exploring the United States’ role in the world, how international affairs issues affect voters, and the foreign policy issues at stake in November, and Election ’24: Issues at Stake, a Brookings initiative aimed to bring public attention to consequential policy issues confronting voters and policymakers in the run up to the 2024 election. Both projects are made possible in part by grants from Carnegie Corporation of New York.
-
Lael Brainard, White House National Economic Advisor, shares an updated assessment of the U.S. recovery. The C. Peter McColough Series on International Economics brings the world’s foremost economic policymakers and scholars to address members on current topics in international economics and U.S. monetary policy. This meeting series is presented by RealEcon: Reimagining American Economic Leadership, a CFR initiative of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies.
-
Journalists with on-the-ground experience reporting from dangerous areas of the world discuss the lessons they have learned, the risks they face, and the importance of sharing these stories.
-
Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield discusses the future of multilateralism and U.S. commitments to reforming the United Nations Security Council to be more inclusive, representative, and legitimate.
-
Please click here to view the full agenda with all speakers. The Supply Chain Summit, cohosted by the Council on Foreign Relations and the U.S. Department of Commerce, explores efforts taken by government and industry to shift from reacting to global supply chain disruptions to proactively strengthening supply chain resilience. The event gathers leaders from industry, government, academia, and civil society to collaborate and share best practices for preventing and addressing supply chain vulnerabilities, including launching a new supply chain risk assessment tool. This summit is presented by RealEcon: Reimagining American Economic Leadership, a CFR initiative of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies.
-
John C. Williams of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York discusses monetary policy and the economic outlook for the year ahead. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website. The C. Peter McColough Series on International Economics brings the world’s foremost economic policymakers and scholars to address members on current topics in international economics and U.S. monetary policy. This meeting series is presented by RealEcon: Reimagining American Economic Leadership, a CFR initiative of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies.
-
CFR President Mike Froman discusses his career, priorities for the Council, and the current events affecting U.S. foreign policy, including the 2024 U.S. presidential election. The CFR Young Professionals Briefing Series provides an opportunity for those early in their careers to engage with CFR. The briefings feature remarks by experts on critical global issues and lessons learned in their careers. These events are intended for individuals who have completed their undergraduate studies and have not yet reached the age of thirty to be eligible for CFR term membership.
-
James M. Lindsay, senior vice president, director of studies, and Maurice R. Greenberg chair at CFR, discusses the party nomination and electoral process in U.S. presidential elections and the foreig…
-
Henri J. Barkey, adjunct senior fellow for Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Laura van Waas, cofounder and codirector of the Institute of Statelessness and Inclusion, discuss the engagement of stateless populations—specifically religious and ethnic minority groups—with international relations, the international legal dimensions of statelessness, and the policy changes necessary to expand the right to nationality and citizenship.
-
General Cavoli discusses the Euro-Atlantic Partnership, security challenges in the region, Russia's war in Ukraine, and his takeaways from the NATO Summit in Washington.
-
State and Local Governments (U.S.)
Diana Fuentes, executive director of Investigative Reporters and Editors, discusses accountability journalism and reporting on state politics. The host of the webinar is Carla Anne Robbins, senior fe… -
Since conflict erupted in Sudan on April 15, 2023, between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces, Sudan has become the site of the world's worst humanitarian crisis. Over 10 million people have been displaced, over half of the population needs humanitarian assistance, and over 750,000 people are facing a catastrophic level of hunger. Panelists discuss ongoing humanitarian efforts, the challenges faced by aid workers, and potential solutions to mitigate the worsening crisis in Sudan.
-
In a collaboration between CFR and Open to Debate, panelists debate whether or not the two-state solution is still a viable path for peace in the Middle East. Open to Debate is the nation’s only nonpartisan, debate-driven media organization dedicated to bringing multiple viewpoints together for a constructive, balanced, respectful exchange of ideas. Open to Debate is a platform for intellectually curious and open-minded people to engage with others holding opposing views on complex issues.
-
Jay Shambaugh discusses U.S.-China macroeconomic engagement and dialogue with Chinese leadership on overcapacity and economic imbalances. The C. Peter McColough Series on International Economics brings the world's foremost economic policymakers and scholars to address members on current topics in international economics and U.S. monetary policy. This meeting series is presented by RealEcon: Reimagining American Economic Leadership, a CFR initiative of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies. This meeting is also part of CFR’s China Strategy Initiative. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Panelists discuss the Silicon Valley’s role in the future of war and whether or not the Pentagon is successfully innovating rapidly enough to keep up with the technological changes facing the military. Copies of Unit X: How the Pentagon and Silicon Valley Are Transforming the Future of War will be available for purchase.
-
CFR experts discuss the results of presidential elections in France and the United Kingdom, as well as what to expect from the 2024 NATO Summit in Washington, DC.
-
Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis of Greece discusses the nation's strategic defense efforts and opportunities for security cooperation in the Mediterranean.
-
Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen of Denmark discusses transatlantic cooperation, Russia's war in Ukraine, and her priorities for the NATO Summit in Washington.
-
The Oscar and BAFTA-nominated Bobi Wine: The People’s President, is set during Uganda’s 2021 presidential election, where music star, activist, and opposition leader Bobi Wine, together with his wife Barbie, rallies supporters in a dangerous fight for freedom from President Museveni’s 35-year regime. Join us for a special screening of the documentary, followed by a discussion examining the outlook for democracy in Uganda and the region. The Darryl G. Behrman Lecture on Africa Policy is held in memory of Darryl G. Behrman, who was originally from South Africa and had an abiding passion for Africa and international peace. The annual lecture is funded by members of the Behrman family.
-
Please join us for two panels to discuss the agenda and likely outcomes of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit, taking place in Washington DC from July 9 to 11. SESSION I: A Conversation With NSC Director for Europe Michael Carpenter 12:30 p.m.—1:00 p.m. (EDT) In-Person Lunch Reception 1:00 p.m.—1:30 p.m. (EDT) Hybrid Meeting SESSION II: NATO’s Future: Enlarged and More European? 1:30 p.m.—1:45 p.m. (EDT) In-Person Coffee Break 1:45 p.m.—2:45 p.m. (EDT) Hybrid Meeting
-
Innovation power is playing a critical role in today’s world order, affecting global economies, militaries, and societies. Panelists discuss the strategy needed for the United States to compete in this space to ensure its national security, economic prosperity, and global influence.
-
The COVID-19 pandemic and chronic U.S. drug shortages highlight the health security and strategic importance of U.S. pharmaceutical and biotechnology capabilities during and between pathogenic crises. Geopolitical competition and interest in industrial policy for biotechnology further underscore the national security role of domestic biopharmaceutical infrastructure. Policymakers confront competing health, economic, and strategic priorities in maximizing innovation in technology, business models, and health-care systems in facilitating safe, accessible, secure, and sustainable products, services, and supply chains. Please join our speakers, Monique K. Mansoura, executive director for global health security and biotechnology at The MITRE Corporation, and Victor Suarez, Colonel (ret.), U.S. Army, senior fellow (visiting) at The Council on Strategic Risks and founder of BluZoneBio, to explore challenges facing the U.S. pharma and biotech industries and approaches to strengthening the national security resilience of those industries in a world marked by health and geopolitical threats.
-
The C. Peter McColough Series on International Economics brings the world's foremost economic policymakers and scholars to address members on current topics in international economics and U.S. monetary policy. This meeting series is presented by RealEcon: Reimagining American Economic Leadership, a CFR initiative of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Led by Senior Fellow Rush Doshi, the China Strategy Initiative will study and debate the questions that go to the heart of U.S. China strategy. It will launch several new programs that undertake fresh analysis, provide granular policy recommendations, and convene experts from around the world.
-
The Netflix series Turning Point: The Bomb and the Cold War is an exploration of the decades-long conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union framed by current events that reveal the Cold War continues and the world remains on the precipice of nuclear war. Join us for a special screening of episode nine of the series, followed by a discussion on the ongoing danger posed by nuclear weapons amidst present-day conflicts and how recent advancements, including artificial intelligence, influence the risks related to nuclear warfare. The full series of Turning Point: The Bomb and the Cold War is out on Netflix now. The Paul C. Warnke Lecture on International Security was established in 2002 and is endowed by a number of Council members and the family and friends of Paul C. Warnke. The lecture commemorates his legacy of courageous service to the nation and international peace.
-
Benn Steil, senior fellow and director of international economics at CFR, gives an update on the state of the U.S. economy and forecast trends in the coming months. The host of the webinar is Carla A…
-
In response to COVID-19, member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) have been negotiating to create a pandemic agreement and to amend the existing International Health Regulations (IHR). The negotiations have been closely watched as indicators of global health diplomacy's future in an increasingly divided world. On June 1, the WHO's World Health Assembly approved amendments to the IHR and extended negotiations on a pandemic agreement. Dr. Suerie Moon, codirector of the Global Health Centre at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva; David Fidler, senior fellow for global health and cybersecurity at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR); and presider Thomas J. Bollyky, Bloomberg Chair in Global Health at CFR discuss what the World Health Assembly's decisions on the IHR amendments and the pandemic agreement negotiations mean for global health security, equity, and governance.
-
Lost Decade is an essential guide for understanding the historic shift to Asia-centric geopolitics and its implications for the United States’ present and future. More than a decade on, Robert D. Blackwill and Richard Fontaine conclude that while the Pivot to Asia’s strategic logic is strong, Washington's failure to respond to China's rise represents one of the three greatest mistakes in U.S. foreign policy since WW II, along with the 1965 escalation in Vietnam and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. They examine the Pivot through various lenses: situating it historically in the context of U.S. global foreign policy, revealing the inside story of how it came about, assessing the effort thus far, identifying the ramifications in other regions (namely Europe and the Middle East), and proposing a path forward. As the international order becomes more unstable, Blackwill and Fontaine argue that it is imperative that policymakers fully understand what the Pivot to Asia aimed to achieve—and where it fell short—in order to muster the resources, alliances, and resolve to preserve an open order in Asia and the world. Crafting an effective policy for the region, they contend, is crucial for preserving American security, prosperity, and democratic values.
-
The World Economic Update highlights the quarter’s most important and emerging trends. Discussions cover changes in the global marketplace with special emphasis on current economic events and their implications for U.S. policy. This series is presented by the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies and is dedicated to the life and work of the distinguished economist Martin Feldstein.
-
In The End of Ambition, Steven A. Cook boldly claims that despite setbacks and moral costs, the United States has had a record of success in the Middle East. Yet, beginning in the 1990s, those achievements bred ambitious policies to remake the region that ended in failure and regional instability. While making the case that retrenchment is not the answer to America’s problems in the Middle East, Cook highlights how America’s interests in the region have begun to change and examines alternative approaches to U.S.-Middle East policy. The John B. Hurford Memorial Lecture was inaugurated in 2002 in memory of CFR member John B. Hurford, and features individuals who represent critical new thinking in international affairs and foreign policy.
-
Cindy McCain shares her vision to combat hunger and malnutrition around the world. The World Food Programme (WFP) works in the most challenging contexts around the world, reaching more than 150 million people a year. As food becomes an increasingly important issue for stability and peace, she will discuss how WFP navigates crises and works to put in place a more stable and resilient future for the most vulnerable communities. The Sorensen Distinguished Lecture on the United Nations was established in 1996 by Gillian and Theodore C. Sorensen to highlight the United Nations and offer a special occasion for its most distinguished and experienced leaders to speak to the Council membership.
-
David E. Sanger discusses U.S. rivalry with the other two great nuclear powers—Xi Jinping’s China and Vladimir Putin’s Russia—the choices that lie ahead, and what is at stake for the United States and the world. This special event is being held to honor the memory of Leslie H. Gelb, CFR’s president from 1993 to 2003 and a dedicated member for forty-six years. Gelb modernized the institution to reflect the changing realities of the post-Cold War era, and was a passionate advocate of common sense and strategy in U.S. foreign policy.
-
Stephen Schneck and Eric Ueland, commissioners of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), will join Elizabeth Cassidy, senior strategic advisor of USCIRF, to present the key policy recommendations of the USCIRF 2024 annual report and the foreign policy implications of international religious freedom today. USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal government agency created by the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act that monitors the universal right to freedom of religion or belief abroad; makes policy recommendations to the president, secretary of state, and Congress; and tracks the implementation of these recommendations. USCIRF’s nine Commissioners are appointed by either the president or congressional leaders of each political party, and are supported by a non-partisan professional staff.
-
Panelists discuss the global rise of anti-LGBTQ+ sentiments and the intersection of the deterioration of LGBTQ+ rights and democratic backsliding.
-
CFR experts discuss President Joe Biden's first state visit to France, U.S.-Europe relations, and the future of support to Ukraine.
-
Liz Allen, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, discusses her role in countering disinformation, combatting foreign malign influence, and fostering a resilient global information space. Please note there is no virtual component to this meeting. The audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Public Health Threats and Pandemics
David Fidler, senior fellow for global health and cybersecurity at CFR, discusses the factors shaping U.S. health and climate policy included in his Council Special Report, A New U.S. Foreign Policy … -
Public Health Threats and Pandemics
Jennifer Nuzzo, senior fellow senior fellow for global health at CFR, discusses the spread of the avian influenza in poultry and dairy cows in the United States and risks that zoonotic diseases pose … -
Steven Cook discusses the modern history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East and how economic interests, including secure access to oil reserves, continue to influence U.S. priorities in the region today. In a preview of his forthcoming book The End of Ambition: America’s Past, Present, and Future in the Middle East, he provides his vision for the future of U.S.-Middle East relations and what that could mean for U.S. energy security and global trade.
-
Using visual mediums and narratives, an artist and a documentary producer discuss the urgent challenges of climate change and what it will take to solve the climate crisis through science, the power of collective action, and a myriad of hopeful efforts currently underway. Oliver Jeffers produced exclusive art for this CFR event which was on display for viewing during the reception.
-
U.S. Special Representative Penny Pritzker discusses ongoing Ukraine recovery and reconstruction efforts, having just returned from three trips to Ukraine in six weeks, including joining the Secretary of State in mid-May. She outlines U.S. priorities for supporting Ukraine in advance of the Ukraine Recovery Conference on June 11-12 in Berlin.
-
Panelists review the humanitarian situation in Gaza and discuss U.S. policy options to address the crisis.
-
-
In a conversation with David Miliband, Senior Advisor to the President for International Climate Policy John Podesta discusses the relationship between climate vulnerability and conflict zones. In the lead-up to COP29, he shares how the United States is boosting climate resiliency and adaptation to support communities around the globe affected by both climate and conflict.
-
Dr. Phil Gordon was the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs (2009–2011) and Special Assistant to the President and White House Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf Region (2013–2015). He is currently the National Security Advisor to Vice President Kamala Harris. For more information about the International Affairs Fellowship (IAF), please visit CFR’s Fellowship Affairs Page.
-
Foreign policy institute leaders from around the world discuss the dynamics of global migration, including the importance of international cooperation in managing both the documented and undocumented movement of people. The Council of Councils (CoC) is an international initiative created by the Council on Foreign Relations to connect leading foreign policy institutes from around the world in a dialogue on issues of global governance and multilateral cooperation. The CoC is composed of twenty-eight major policy institutes from some of the world’s most influential countries. It is designed to facilitate candid, not-for-attribution dialogue and consensus-building among influential opinion leaders from both established and emerging nations, with the ultimate purpose of injecting the conclusions of its deliberations into high-level foreign policy circles within members’ countries.
-
CFR experts discuss the implications of the death of Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi, new International Criminal Court charges against Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas leadership, and other updates from …
-
Bipartisan leaders of the House Armed Services Committee, Ranking Member Adam Smith (D) and Vice Chairman Rob Wittman (R), discuss the interconnected nature of U.S. military support abroad and the imperative of diplomatic engagement with hostile actors for global stability.
-
CFR experts discuss President Joe Biden’s decision to increase tariffs on various Chinese imports and the implications for the U.S. economy and U.S.-China relations. Please join the Zoom event at least five minutes before the start of the presentation by using the below details:Link: https://cfr.zoom.us/j/85410189561Passcode: 712898Webinar ID: 854 1018 9561
-
Lisa Curtis, senior fellow and director of the Indo-Pacific Security Program at Center for a New American Security, and Milan Vaishnav, senior fellow and director of the South Asia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, discuss the geopolitical implications of India’s general elections and the influence of religion on politics in India. Alyssa Ayres, dean of the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University and adjunct senior fellow for India, Pakistan, and South Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations, moderates the discussion.
-
-
The U.S. military service chiefs discuss U.S. defense priorities around the world and the state of the American armed forces. The Robert B. McKeon Endowed Series on Military Strategy and Leadership features prominent individuals from the military and intelligence communities.
-
New fertility forecasts from the Global Burden of Disease Study stress our world's trajectory towards a low-fertility future. By 2050, fertility rates in three-quarters of countries will not sustain their populations, increasing to ninety-seven percent of countries by 2100. At the same time, relatively high fertility rates in low-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa will continue to drive population growth, leading to a ‘demographically divided world.’ Please join our speakers, Ann Norris, senior fellow for women and foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations and Christopher J. Murray, director of the institute that oversees the Global Burden of Disease Study, for a discussion about the latest regional fertility data and how national governments can prepare for projected threats to health, economies, food security, the environment, and geopolitical stability brought on by these demographic changes.
-
Jason Johnson, Chris Tuttle, and Margaret Talev discuss predictions for and reporting on the U.S. presidential election in 2024.
-
Katherine Hardin, Andres Revkin, Alice C. Hill, and Meaghan Parker discuss local stories around climate change in the United States and advice for journalists reporting on extreme heat and weather, property insurance, climate justice, and the energy transition.
-
Amy Webb, Joan Donovan, and Mehtab Khan discuss implications for artificial intelligence in journalism, the risk of its spreading of disinformation and malign influence, and advice for using artificial intelligence in newsrooms with Carla Anne Robbins as part of the 2024 CFR Local Journalists Workshop.
-
ABC News Chief Global Affairs Correspondent Martha Raddatz discusses her career covering the news, reporting from conflict zones, and gives advice to journalists on connecting local stories to international trends and events with CFR President Mike Froman, as part of the 2024 CFR Local Journalists Workshop.
-
-
The 2024 Conference on Diversity in International Affairs is a collaborative effort by the Council on Foreign Relations, the Global Access Pipeline, and the International Career Advancement Program. For information about the conference in previous years, please click here. Click here to download the conference program. All participants must be over the age of 18. The goal of this conference is to increase access to and preparedness for foreign policy careers for groups that have been historically underrepresented in the field, including but not limited to people of color as well as those who work to support and advance those groups.Registration for the conference is by invitation only. To attend this conference, please register for all sessions you wish to attend, either in person or virtually.
-
Ambassador Fick discussed the release of the United States’ International Cyberspace and Digital Policy Strategy. Ambassador Fick also addressed the role of technology diplomacy in advancing an affirmative agenda for digital freedom, cyberspace, the digital economy, and emerging technologies, as well as the Biden administration’s ongoing efforts in public-private collaboration.
-
-
Panelists discuss the escalating threat of foreign disinformation and other forms of election interference and what the United States and its allies can do to combat this risk. This meeting part of the Diamonstein-Spielvogel Meeting Series on Democracy.
-
Matthew Goodman, distinguished fellow and director of the Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies at CFR, discusses CFR’s new RealEcon initiative and the role of state and local officials in contrib…
-
An outbreak of H5N1 avian influenza that was detected for the first time in a milking herd of cattle in Texas one month ago has now infected thirty-three herds in eight states and at least one farm worker, spurring alarm among some experts that human-to-human transmission could be next. Please join us for a discussion with Dr. Nirav D. Shah, Principal Deputy Director of the U.S Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, on the U.S. response to this avian flu outbreak and on how the CDC and its U.S. government counterparts are applying lessons from COVID-19 to respond to the potential threat.
-
Aging, Youth Bulges, and Population
Panelists discuss the longevity challenges facing countries around the world, the foreign policy implications of dealing with aging societies, and the comparative advantage opportunities for countries successfully managing older populations. Please note there is no virtual component to this meeting. The audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website. -
Drawing from his distinguished career in the pharmaceutical industry, Cerevel Therapeutics Chairman and former CEO Tony Coles discusses developments in biotechnology, the implications of health policy on economic security, and leadership lessons learned throughout his career. The Bernard L. Schwartz Annual Lecture on Economic Growth and Foreign Policy series focuses on two areas: the evolution of the relationship between business and government in the making of foreign policy, and ways for government to make better use of business in solving foreign policy problems.
-
Kevin Stitt, twenty-eighth governor of Oklahoma, discusses his international priorities, including Oklahoma’s growing role in the renewable energy landscape, ensuring access to a sustainable supply of critical minerals, and deepening trade relations. This meeting is part of CFR’s State and Local Officials Initiative which offers resources on pressing international issues that affect the priorities and agendas of state and local government officials. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)
This year NATO celebrates seventy-five years of collective defense, expanding from twelve founding members in 1949 to thirty-two today. Panelists discuss the evolution of NATO as it has sought to adapt to geopolitical shifts throughout the years, the challenges it faces in responding to global threats today, and the role of NATO in the future. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website. -
The “Dinner of Extinction” will address the dangers the world faces due to climate change and rapidly deteriorating ecosystems. Sam Kass, former White House Chef and Senior Policy Advisor for Nutrition to President Barack Obama, will open the dinner with an introduction to the courses that will be served, highlighting the importance of the ingredients used. Those ingredients and other resources people rely on and enjoy will be depleted, if not extinct, within the next few decades if human beings do not act effectively and quickly. The dinner program will also include a panel discussion on the future of climate change and what can be done to protect food security and the world’s fragile ecosystems. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of the discussion portion of this event will be posted on the CFR website. Please note there is no virtual component to this meeting. **Space for this event is limited. Please respond to this invitation at your earliest convenience by clicking the Register or Decline button, responding to this email, or calling the Meetings Response Line at 646.558.8656.
-
Panelists discuss the strategic opportunities and challenges of the U.S.-ASEAN partnership in addressing pressing regional and global issues, including trade, maritime security, human rights, climate, and technology.
-
Panelists discuss global financial efforts to support the reconstruction of Ukraine and help rebuild the country’s infrastructure and economy following Russia’s military aggression. This meeting is held in collaboration with the Peterson Institute for International Economics. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
The European Commission’s Executive Vice President and Commissioner for Trade, Valdis Dombrovskis, discusses the trends and shocks affecting international trade, the value-added of multilateralism, and how economic security is enhanced by trade openness between the European Union and United States. The C. Peter McColough Series on International Economics brings the world's foremost economic policymakers and scholars to address members on current topics in international economics and U.S. monetary policy. This meeting series is presented by the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies.
-
Panelists discuss the trends revealed in this year’s AI Index Report, including technical advancements in AI, public perceptions of the technology, and the geopolitical dynamics surrounding its development. The AI Index is an independent initiative at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI) that tracks, collates, distills, and visualizes data related to artificial intelligence. Its mission is to provide unbiased, rigorously vetted, broadly sourced data in order for policymakers, researchers, executives, journalists, and the general public to develop a more thorough and nuanced understanding of the complex field of AI.
-
European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde discusses the state of the European economy, U.S.-EU economic cooperation, and the implications of international geopolitical conflicts on the global economy. This meeting is held in collaboration with the Peterson Institute for International Economics. The C. Peter McColough Series on International Economics brings the world's foremost economic policymakers and scholars to address members on current topics in international economics and U.S. monetary policy. This meeting series is presented by the Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies.
-
Admiral John Aquilino discusses his work as commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, as well as the security challenges in the Indo-Pacific region, solutions to deliver integrated deterrence, and multilateral partnerships. Please note there is no virtual component to this meeting. The audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
CFR experts discuss Iran’s attack on Israel and the escalation of the conflict. FROMAN: Well, thanks very much. Thanks, everybody, for joining. And thank you to our six senior fellows here who’ve …
-
Edward Alden, CFR’s Bernard L. Schwartz senior fellow, discusses U.S. immigration policy and how it is shaping political conversations in this election year. Ruth Conniff, editor-in-chief of the Wisc…
-
Central bank governors from some of the largest emerging markets discuss the economic outlook in their countries, how their banks have addressed global inflation, and opportunities for sustained economic growth. This meeting is held in collaboration with the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
-
CFR experts preview the upcoming World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) Spring Meetings taking place in Washington, DC, from April 17 through 19.
-
Roberto Campos Neto discusses Brazil Central Bank’s priorities for the digital agenda in 2024, and prospects for Brazil’s economy. The C. Peter McColough Series on International Economics brings the world’s foremost economic policymakers and scholars to address members on current topics in international economics and U.S. monetary policy. This meeting series is presented by the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies.
-
The PBS series Changing Planet embarks on its third year of this seven-year project examining the issues facing the planet’s most threatened ecosystems. The “Coral Special” episode takes us to the Maldives for an in-depth look at coral reefs and the urgent efforts to help them survive climate change. In partnership with PBS and Conservation International, join us for a sneak preview of clips from the episode and a panel discussion with climate experts discussing efforts to save some of the most diverse and valuable ecosystems on Earth.
-
CFR experts Steven A. Cook and David J. Scheffer join Amnesty International’s Agnes Callamard and Refugee International’s Jeremy Konyndyk to discuss the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
-
Eric Doucette, captain in the U.S. Coast Guard and visiting military fellow at CFR, discusses the primary missions of the coast guard including disaster management, protecting U.S. ports and shorelin…
-
Public Health Threats and Pandemics
Yanzhong Huang, senior fellow for global health at CFR, and Rebecca Katz, professor and director of the Center for Global Health Science and Security at Georgetown University, lead the conversation on global health security and diplomacy. FASKIANOS: Welcome to the final session of the Winter/Spring 2024 CFR Academic Series. I am Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Thank you for being with us. Today’s discussion is on the record, and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/Academic, if you would like to share these materials with your colleagues or classmates. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have Yanzhong Huang and Rebecca Katz with us to discuss global health security and diplomacy. We circulated their bios in advance, but I will give you some highlights now. Yanzhong Huang is a senior fellow for global health at CFR. He is also a professor and director of global health studies at Seton Hall University’s School of Diplomacy and International Relationships—sorry, Relations. Dr. Huang has written extensively on China and global health, and is the founding editor of Global Health Governance: The Scholarly Journal for the New Health Security Paradigm. And he is author of—his most recent book is Toxic Politics: China’s Environmental Health Crisis and Its Challenge to the Chinese State (2020). Rebecca Katz is a professor and director of the Center for Global Health Science and Security at Georgetown University. She previously served as faculty in the Milken Institute School of Public Health at the George Washington University. Dr. Katz’s work primarily focuses on the domestic and global implementation of the International Health Regulations, as well as global governance of public health emergencies. And her seventh book is coming out next week, I believe on Monday, and it is entitled Outbreak Atlas (2024). So you should all look for that. Dr. Huang and Dr. Katz coauthored a Council Special Report entitled Negotiating Global Health Security: Priorities for U.S. and Global Governance of Disease, so we did circulate that in advance. And I think we will begin with Dr. Katz to talk a little bit about global health security and diplomacy, and some of the findings from your report. So over to you. KATZ: Thank you so much, and really appreciate the opportunity to speak with everybody today about global health security and diplomacy. I could note—a quick disclaimer that like many people in Washington I wear multiple hats, including one that works for the United States government, but I am speaking today only in my academic capacity and not representing anybody else. So we are—we’re living in interesting times in the global health security and diplomacy space, and just the work of global governance of disease. As we speak, negotiators are working through what is hopefully a final agreement on amendments to the International Health Regulations. And in about a week, yet another version of possible text of a proposed pandemic agreement will be circulated to member states in advance of the resumed—the INB, Intergovernmental Negotiating Body, negotiations that are now scheduled, I believe, starting the 29th of April, where they may possibly finalize substantive negotiations in advance of the World Health Assembly. It is not a surprise, though, that the negotiations themselves have stalled, and they’ve stalled primarily over issues around access and benefit sharing, and the relationship between developed and less-developed countries. There are significant remaining redlines, including related to the way that pathogens are shared or the information around pathogens is shared. It’s related to the production of medical countermeasures, access to medical countermeasures. There continues to be an evolving power dynamic at this time of call it strained geopolitical tensions. And there are some real questions about the future of multilateralism and just the global governance of the disease space in general. So while this is all sorting out, the world is also working on questions like how do we fund pandemic preparedness and response. So there are questions around the World Bank’s Pandemic Fund, and the breadth and scope. There’s the role of what is the evolving role of the more horizontal entities like the Global Fund. There is limited response funding in general and overall kinds of shrinking budgets. In the academic space, there is a really interesting space set evolving looking at predictive analysis, and some of the technologies and scholarship that’s coming out to think about how do we predict and adapt, both from surveillance and thinking about the evolution of outbreaks. There is the rise of wastewater surveillance. And as the disease threats continue to evolve, we’re also looking at these threats as part of the climate crisis, and a community that’s very keen in looking at the role of artificial intelligence and changing biothreat landscapes. So there is—there’s a lot of movement. There’s a lot of things that are going on. But at the same time, there is diminished interest of governments as competing priorities reenter the fray, and increasing challenges thinking about response capacity in an age of mis- and disinformation and eroding trust in science. So, all this is to say that the space is challenging. It’s dynamic. There is a tremendous amount of work still to be done. Which is one of the reasons that we need to be thinking about how do we use all the roles and approaches that are available to us, including enhanced efforts to focus on the role of diplomacy. I am delighted to see the launch of a Foreign Ministry Channel for Health last month, and we’re now seeing ministries of foreign affairs around the world organize—better organize to address these health challenges. So not all the challenges are easily solvable, but heartened to see this coordinated effort. We’re trying to more fully realize diplomacy for health. There are—there is a lot—there’s a lot of swirl, but why don’t I stop there and turn to my colleague Yanzhong. HUANG: Thank you, Rebecca. Thank you, Irina, and for the Council for invite me to speak at this important event. Thank you for participating. And Rebecca just talked about this progress for the ongoing negotiation over the Pandemic Accord; the need to better organize to address the challenges we are facing. When we’re speaking of the challenges, you know, we—you might have—if you read just the CFR Negotiating Global Health Security—I’m seeking to advertise that one more time—(laughs)—you know, we basically talk about all those different global health security challenges, which are real. We already in the United States experienced a major global health crisis, that officially is not over yet, but—(inaudible). All of the important threat—serious threat we are facing, you know—mind you that COVID caused more than 7 million deaths, right, more than 700 million infections. That 700 million is a clear underestimate, right, because to my knowledge, right, in China alone they have more than 1 billion people infected, right? And now WHO is talking about Disease X, you know, the name given by WHO scientists to an unknown pathogen which they believe could emerge in future, maybe. So it could be, you know, anything, right, with pandemic potential. Like, it could be Zika. It could be Nipah. You know, or it could be another coronavirus, you know, that could cause a serious international epidemic or pandemic. You know, and unfortunately, Rebecca just mentioned climate change is the major contributor to this increasing risk, right? Warmer temperatures can affect the transmission dynamics of pathogens. But the climate change alone could also cause direct loss of life and morbidity, right? The projection is that by the end of this century the millions of heat-related death could be comparable in scope to the total burden of all the infectious diseases. And we also face the threat of antimicrobial resistance, or AMR, which is one of the top global public health threats. The estimate is that bacterial AMR is directly responsible for 1.27 million global deaths and contributes to 4.95 million deaths in 2019. So you combine those two and it’s, like, pretty much close to the COVID death in three years, right? And then there’s the problem of food insecurity. You know, we are facing a global food crisis. This is the largest one in modern history. We talk about nearly 350 million people around the world experiencing, you know, the most extreme form of hunger right now, right? And then—and finally, last but not least, the threats of violence and revolution, you know, that presents new risks to global health security. You know, last time the Council had an event, you know, we saw the former national security advisors participating, speaking, and weighing the—they were asked: Is there an issue that’s on your mind that’s not in the news all the time? I remember former Secretary Condoleezza Rice, you know, said that I worry that we are not paying attention to things like synthetic biology, which could have a huge impact on things like pandemics. So, all the threats call for good health governance, right, global/national level, you know, giving it, right, this—the implication. But I want to emphasize that geopolitics actually are complicating, not undermining, this prospect, right? When you talk about, certainly, right, the armed conflicts, right, worldwide, you know, they can lead to widespread displacement of populations, wide destruction of health-care infrastructure, disruption of supply chains of essential meds and medical equipment, and also increase the risk of the infectious disease outbreaks, right? And certainly, civilian population will bear the brunt of all—most of those impacts, right, that we saw, right, in Ukraine, Syria, now in the Gaza Strip. Sometimes this—that is of particular importance to global health security, the issue of lab safety, right? You know, laboratories taken over by warring parties or in areas under direct attack risk releasing the dangerous pathogens that could start an epidemic, not a pandemic, right? We all—you might recall in April last year, the WHO said, there was a high risk of biological hazard in Sudan’s capital, Khartoum after one of the warring parties seized a lab, holding measles and cholera pathogens and other hazardous materials. Rebecca talked about misinformation and disinformation. You know, the—in a way, the wars and conflicts also encourage, right, disinformation/misinformation, right? For example, the wars in Ukraine, right, they essentially reduced Russia’s incentives to participate constructively in global health governance, right? Russia, in order to justify its invasion, launched a disinformation campaign claiming the United States was secretly aiding Ukraine developing biological weapons. You know, that conspiracy theory sort of echoed, you know, by the U.S. Five Eyes and in China, right? The wars, of course, also exacerbate the other global health issues like food security, right? We know the war in Ukraine, combined with the COVID pandemic actually disrupted the supply chain, fueled inflation, and aggravated the food insecurity problem. But, I think it’s equally important when we look at the issue of how geopolitics or geopolitical tensions actually curbs the prospect of international cooperation addressing all the threats we just talked about, right? Because geopolitical tension, rivalries between nations, can hinder international cooperation and funding for global health initiatives like disease surveillance, sample sharing, vaccination campaigns, research and development of new treatments and preventive measures. Just to use my familiar area—(laughs)—the U.S.-China geopolitical competition, as an example, most certainly U.S.-China geopolitical competition is not new, right? But it is only recently that China became so-called America’s most consequential geopolitical challenge, right? You know, that sort of leads to zero-sum thinking even by the international cooperation over issues like the probe of the COVID-19 pandemic’s origins, sample sharing, supply-chain resilience. And in fact, during the beginning stage of the pandemic we saw China basically threaten to use this leading—the status of being a leader in pharmaceutical—active pharmaceutical ingredients manufacturing to sort of—like as a weapon, right? When the Xinhua News Agency said that—because the U.S. instituted travel bans on China, basically, China at that time was unhappy and said, you know, here we decided to ban our export of APIs to the U.S., so we are going to be plunged in the what they call the sea of COVID, right? So this is an example of how even the medicine could be weaponized during—as a result of geopolitical tensions. And then if you also look at how this U.S.-China geopolitical rivalry could be combined with the lack of personnel—personal exchange, right, sort of deepened by these mutual misunderstandings and misperception, you know. So, you know, now we’re seeing that even after almost the end of the pandemic, right, that the two nations still have no serious discussions over public health issues, even though we think, like, China is actually one of the biggest risk factors. But there is just not much enthusiasm in supporting, like, a serious dialogue with China on cooperating on disease surveillance, sample sharing—not to mention, like, co-development of vaccines or therapeutics. And finally, I want to add that these geopolitical factors could influence the availability and affordability of health-care services and medical supplies, particularly in developing countries or regions affected by conflict or economic sanction. That sort of leads to disparities between North and South in access to essential health care and drugs. Again, the U.S.-China geopolitical competition during the COVID, when China launched this—the so-called vaccine diplomacy or mask diplomacy, the U.S., you know, sort of viewed that as a threat; they—it launched its own mask—vaccine diplomacy. You know, this competition sort of mitigated this so-called vaccine apartheid between the developed world and developing countries; but it also meant that, you know, the vaccine diplomacy would prioritize those countries that’s viewed as strategically important, right? That, in turn, exacerbated the global disparities in access to the vaccines—(all the ?) COVID vaccines—(inaudible). So, to address these challenges, I think we need to have a global health détente with geopolitical rivals. We need to embed the health diplomacy in a multilateral instead of a bilateral framework, right, and support WHO Global Health and Peace Initiative—the GHPI—to better address the underlying diverse critical health needs in fragile, conflict-ridden settings. So, with that, I can stop there. (Laughs.) Thank you. FASKIANOS: Thank you both. Appreciate it. Let’s go to all of you for your questions and comments. (Gives queuing instructions.) OK, so with that, let’s go to the first question. I’m going to go to Mojúbàolú Olufúnké Okome to ask her question. Q: Thank you very much. I’m Mojúbàolú Olufúnké Okome. And I teach political science at Brooklyn College. I’m also Nigerian. And the pandemic showed a lot of the fault lines in terms of the global governance arrangements for health issues, because there were—I mean, the vaccine—the disparity in access was profound for Africans. And, you know, the lucky thing is that not as many people as could have died, died. But I’m just wondering, because we’ve had the HIV/AIDS epidemic, we had Ebola, what is the learning from that? And how come we had all these challenges with the pandemic that we went through, the COVID-19? The other thing about it—that I want to talk about is food. And then there is—I don’t think the problem is insufficiency of food in this world, but distribution equitably. So, what would it take? I mean, and there are all these really heartbreaking photos and, you know, documentaries and reports. What is it going to take to solve this problem and make things equitable so that lives are not being lost unnecessarily, and then health challenges that come from malnutrition are not generationally affecting human populations? Thank you. FASKIANOS: Who wants to go first? KATZ: I will, very briefly and inadequately, try to address the question around vaccine equity. And then—and then I will—I will punt on food security. Since that’s more of Yanzhong’s expertise. I think the point you bring up is critical. And the issues of vaccine nationalism, of vaccine inequity are what is driving current discussion, debate, the feelings around global governance of disease and the effectiveness of it at all? It is—it is the issue that prompted the beginning of a negotiation for a new—(inaudible). And it is—but the solutions are why nations are actually stalled right now. I think your question around what have we learned, well, I think what we have learned is that there’s—whenever anybody talks about future of global governance of disease, you could probably count the number of times somebody says the word “equity.” Yet, operationalizing that is extraordinarily complicated. And unfortunately, we haven’t seen it yet. And I think that you can see that with, you know, the mpox outbreaks and the number of cases that were—you said, you’re from Nigeria—the number of cases that were in Nigeria, the number of cases that have been in the DRC. And the, I think it’s fair to say, insufficient amount of medical countermeasures that have reached populations in sub-Saharan Africa, just for mpox. So, I think there is—there is certainly widespread understanding, realization that we need to fix this—we need to fix this. Because we can’t—we can’t actually talk about we’re all in this together, disease spreads, knows no borders, we all need to work together, and then have situations like you did during COVID where populations just didn’t get access to lifesaving vaccine. So but now getting to the point of trying to figure out how we solve that is exactly what is—what is causing the discord in Geneva right now. And I’m not sure there’s an easy answer for you on how it’s going to be solved. HUANG: Well, I have—(laughs)—well, I really agree with Rebecca, right? There’s no easy answer, right, to all these questions that the professor just raised, you know, that—like the vaccine aspect, right? We know many of the low-income countries, right, that the vaccine—the vaccination rate was even low—very low even by the end of the COVID pandemic. But you know, there’s, like, multiple factors that contributed to that. Certainly, vaccine nationalism is one reason. But you know, even weighing we have all these vaccines available, right, they—the COVAX did a very good job of trying to reach this segment of the population, but then there’s the other issues, right? The shipment, right? How do we make sure they ship and distribute these vaccines in a timely manner? That’s become another issue. And so, I think, well, at this moment the solution that—for the—I think the transport technology for the vaccine technology, that is important. Now, I believe that the Pandemic Accord will talk about—is talking about that in the negotiation. But in the meantime, I think we should also invest to make sure those countries, especially with the manufacturing capacity, will repeatedly sort of have that—some investing there, like their capacity to manufacture the vaccine, right, to sort of—to scale the access. You know, that could be one of the solutions. Then, speaking of the lessons we learned from the pandemic, certainly what we have, right, the—(laughs)—I think it’s fair to say we know the problems, right? The experts—the global health experts, public health experts—they know where the problems are. It’s just that, you know, many of the issues—(inaudible)—only, you know, that it can easily slow them down. For example, we know that the WHO—(inaudible)—by strengthening its capability, enforced by the International Health Regulations. But in the—(laughs)—international system, where anarchy is the rule of the game, you know, that, yeah, I think much of this improvement will be still, you know, state-centric, that—and driven by national interest, just like we saw during the pandemic. Essentially, the IHR was talking about avoiding the disruptions in trade, disruptions to people’s movement, essentially tend to be ignored, right, by the nations there. But there’s another issue, is the lack of coordination. When states tried to use to institute all the travel, you know, the trade barriers, you know, they—there was no, like, coordination, no cooperation. You know, that sort of created this little tragedy of common situation, that then everybody actually was hurt. Finally, the issue of the food insecurity. Well, this is, again, not something new, but that clearly the pandemic, right, exacerbated the problem, in part because of the—this disruption of the supply chain. But in the meantime, there’s some other issues that, you know, could exacerbate that problem. Yeah, like in particular countries like North Korea, for example, we know that in this country—what is arguably the world’s most isolated state, right—they say—the people say—suggested a situation where it’s the worst, right, it has been since the 1990s, you know. But you know, people—the North Korean government certainly could blame the international sanctions. But in the meantime, the government mismanagement, right, is also to blame. In actually still—better still in the pandemic 2020 that cut off, right, the virus supplies, and that is also to blame. You could also talk about the—(inaudible)—killed more by starvation. Is this part of the humanitarian warfare, and especially, you know, in the war setting, where the humanitarian aid is twisted into the conflict by the—(inaudible)—and warlords that seeks to control the food supply as a means of increasing their military and political power, right? So, you know, that—the deliberate use of starvation, this the term we use, kind of war by starvation, right, that’s also was exacerbating in those that conflict zones. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to go next to the Fordham IPED. Q: Hello. I’m Genevieve Connell with Fordham Program for International Political Economy and Development. Thank you for being with us today. And my question is: During the COVID-19 pandemic we saw dissent where many people blamed China for the pandemic, which has catalyzed racial violence against people of Chinese or Asian descent in many cases. What implications do such social upheavals and demonization of a specific group have on global diplomacy and our ability to collaborate in future health response efforts? HUANG: Well, I’ll try to be—(laughs)—to be the first, whether Rebecca could weigh in. Well, this is, again, not something new, right? During the SARS epidemic, you know, that you also saw that the Chinese were sort of, like, blamed, you know, for sort of causing epidemic. You always, you know, target the certain group of people to blame. You know, you could—(inaudible)—like, historical, that could be traced—there’s a pattern there, right, that during the Bubonic Plague, for example, European Jews were blamed, right, the—for causing the pandemic, you know, that sort of to enforce to them to migrate towards Eastern Europe. You know, that certainly sort of the—poisons the atmosphere for tackling the crises, especially, like, when there’s intertwining geopolitical tensions between China and the United States. You know, that—remember that—and also, you have internal politics by the way, the Trump administration trying to find a scapegoat, right, for its mismanagement of the crisis, you know, that China become an easy one. So he sort of, like, started to talk about, you know, this is sort of a China virus, or kung flu, right, the thing that only—that sort of intoxicated the atmosphere of cooperation with China, making it even less willing to cooperate with the United States, especially on issues like the origin probe. So now, you know, we’ve seen how that—we were probably—given this sort of lack of cooperation, China, you know, really probably we are never going to find where that virus actually come from. But in the meantime, you know, also this created—sort of contributed to, like, a more divisive society in countries like the U.S. given this anti-Asian sentiment. Rebecca? KATZ: You know, I don’t have too much more to add, except that I just—it’s an interesting question. And I actually would put it back to you a bit too. That I think it’s important to separate out the challenge—I bucket the challenges slightly differently. So the challenges of the types of stigma and bias that might arise for subpopulations within our own country. And we’ve, as Yanzhong just mentioned, we’ve seen that over and over and over again. And so you think about the types of ways that that can be addressed, and people can be protected, and how we can think about, you know, it’s not really a vulnerable population, but populations at risk of inappropriate stigma. So I think there’s that question. And then there’s—I bucket into a separate issue of how the government response and dealing with other countries, and the geopolitical tensions that might arise, and how that affects the response into a different category. And that’s—and Yanzhong already kind of addressed some of those—some of those challenges along the way. But none of it—none of it is easy. And it’s often not done sufficiently. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to take the next question from a written question from José David Valbuena. He’s an undergraduate student at Buffalo State University. And the question is, what are the potential risks and limitations of implementing economic structuralism to improve global health security? HUANG: Define economic structuralism. KATZ: Yeah, I was going to say, I’m not sure how to answer that because I’m not sure what your—what you want us to get at? FASKIANOS: All right. So, José, I think if you’re in a place where you can—you can join in live, or unmute yourself, why don’t you do that? And if not, then we’ll move to the next question. KATZ: Here he comes. HUANG: To use that—something like the Marxism sort of argument, the economy, right, just determines the—(laughs)—almost the upper infrastructure, or whatever. If that if that is the case, right, there, you know, they—I think, you know, a single focus on economic development certainly does not help, right, in improving public health, even though a well-developed economy, you could find the policy high correlation, right, between the, like, high level of economic development improved, right, the health-care standards and, like, the average life expectancy increased. But in the meantime, the single focus on economic development could hurt the public health and global health, you know? One of the examples is urbanization, the industrialization, like, the—could, right, the—sort of make us more likely to be exposed to those dangerous pathogens that increase the likelihood of a dangerous pathogen of jumping species to human beings, you know, then start a—potentially, right, that if it obtained that capacity for efficient human-to-human transmission, right, the potential for a pandemic. KATZ: I think I just saw a note that he’s going to reframe the question, but maybe talk about economics, just one point I would love to be able to add to maybe help frame some of the—some of that discussion with a little bit of data. When we talk about what do we need for health security—and we can talk about the threats, and Yanzhong was talking about, you know, the challenges of urbanization and globalization—(inaudible)—land, and the competing challenges of looking at economic development and—but I do want to note—so one of the things that our research team has been doing for about a decade is trying to figure out what it costs each country to be able to develop their capacity to be able to prevent, detect, and respond effectively to public health emergencies, based off of their international legal obligations and then also looking at each region in context. And it—just so everybody has a number in the back of their head, the number that we currently have is approximately $300 billion that would cost at the global scale for every nation to be able to build sufficient—and sustain—sufficient capacity for health security. That’s in addition to approximately $60 to $80 billion that’s required at a global scale for things like research and development, and supply chain, and manufacturing. So just to note, we have approximately $380 billion problem. And we are definitely not spending that right now. And if we think about it as a problem, the pandemic itself cost—well, we’re not exactly sure what it cost—but somewhere around $15 trillion dollars. So $300 billion dollars sounds like a lot, but it’s actually very little if you’re looking at your return on investment for being able to address a future pandemic. But it’s a lot in the world of public health, where there’s very little money, and there’s shrinking budgets, and there’s shrinking opportunity for nations to be able to actually invest themselves, as well as international financing. So I’m using—I’m using the question as an opportunity to just throw that out there, so folks understand. HUANG: Yeah. I forgot to throw out, again, with the pandemic example, right, that the countries that are most developed, doesn’t necessarily mean that is the most—or, the best prepared for a pandemic, right? Before the pandemic, there was Global Health Security Index, that showed the U.S. was one of the best prepared. But as it turn out, it was the worst—one of the worst hit by the pandemic. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to take the next question, raised hand from Braeden Lowe, who also wrote his question. But why don’t you ask it? And if you could identify yourself, that would be great. Q: Yes. Can you hear me? FASKIANOS: Yes. Q: Perfect. My name is Braeden Lowe. I’m a graduate student at Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, studying international trade. My question is, how effective have multilateral development banks been in the development of health infrastructure in countries that need them? And could there be a greater role for them in the future, such as maybe development banks that are focused primarily on the development of medical infrastructure, and facilities, and the development of medical technologies? Thank you. HUANG: Rebecca. KATZ: Yeah. I mean, Braeden, it’s an excellent question. And I think that the history of the development banks has been mixed over—pre-pandemic and in the current situation. Let me start with—well, so, yes. The banks have been involved in developing health security capacity and including medical countermeasures—less on the medical countermeasures, more on mostly national capacity and regional capacity. And some have been more involved than others. The Asian Development Bank was really engaged for a long time. ASEAN was really the driving factor for coordination in that region. The Inter-American Development Bank has been engaged. IMF had programs. So there have been programs. And prior to the pandemic, the World Bank had something called the PEFF, the Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility, that they stood up both for preparedness as well as a response window. That came under a decent amount of criticism because the triggers for using that mechanism were so stringent that it basically became not helpful. And while the Bank and IMF and the regional development banks did assist throughout the pandemic, you could have a pretty lively debate on how effective they were, how fast they got into the game, where they could have done more. I think the general lesson is everybody could have done more. But where we are right now is that the G20 High-Level Independent Panel—well, the G20 appointed a high-level independent panel that was—that came up with some proposals for how to better position the world for being able to support national-level development of pandemic preparedness and response. And the recommendation was to use the World Bank as the mechanism for that. So about a year and a half ago, the World Bank—the World Bank board approved the creation of the Pandemic Fund. As I mentioned before, we have about a $300 billion problem. The first round of funds that was given out over the summer was for $337 million dollars. So we got a—$337 million dollars went out on a $300 billion problem. And there were—and that went to thirty-seven different countries where there were proposals, however, from—there were 600 proposals that were submitted. And these thirty-seven went out. So the next round is out right now. And the plan is for the Pandemic Fund to provide approximately $500 million dollars in this round. But, again, so it kind of—it depends on if you’re a glass half empty, glass half full kind of person, and whether you think that the banks are super engaged in doing all that they can, or if they’re really—if there’s a lot more that they could do. And that’s not even getting into all the other mechanisms that that they have contemplated and thought about in terms of being able to use to help countries, particularly being able to mobilize resources quickly. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. I’m going to take two—combine two written questions. The first is from Nicole Rudolph, who is an assistant professor at Adelphi University. Who is leading initiatives to integrate health security with climate resilience efforts? And then there’s a question from Izabella Smith. I don’t know her affiliation. How do you deal with the mass politicization of health safety, specifically before and after COVID-19? KATZ: Easy ones, right? (Laughs.) FASKIANOS: Yeah, very easy. (Laughs.) KATZ: Well, Yanzhong, why don’t I—why don’t I do a really quick answer, and then and then turn to you, particularly on the health and climate space. Except for, Nicole, I would say that I’m glad you’re working on this. We’ve always considered one health and climate as first principles of health security and health security threats. So they are, in our head, completely intertwined, and really need to be addressed that way. I think to Izabella’s, man, how you deal with the politics? It’s—we are in a really, really complicated environment right now. I’m a public health professional. Before the pandemic, most people did not know we existed. (Laughs.) And maybe that was OK. It was difficult because there was no money, but we were kind of quietly left to do our job. And we were most successful when people didn’t know we existed. What happened during the pandemic, particularly in the United States but also around the world, we saw the—a lot of these issues have always been political. They had never been partisan before. They became very partisan. And there was a tremendous amount of backlash against public health officials. There are—there are academic efforts underway to help and capture the—just the type of backlash that existed. The fact that there are academics who are measuring—there is categories for how many public health officials were threatened with gun violence and didn’t get support from their local law enforcement. And the fact that that number is so large, that there is a category for counting it, gives you a sense of the type of backlash that’s been experienced. I think what we’re seeing right now—I can talk to the United States—but a massive movement to roll back public health authority legislation and regulations. There are state legislatures across the country that are stripping their governors of emergency powers and putting that authority into the state legislative branches, which is basically going to make it almost impossible to take rapid action in the—in the next event. And, you know, there will be a next event. So it is—it is really difficult. We are seeing the—based on the vaccine—the increase in vaccine hesitancy, and in part due to the rise in mis- and disinformation. And now we’re seeing measles outbreaks across the country. And, you know, situations where the current public health officials are not taking scientifically based action to stop those outbreaks. So we’re—it’s rough out there. Let me just put it that way. As well—at the same time that people are quitting in droves because people did not sign up for this. So just that. HUANG: Yeah— FASKIANOS: So before—Yanzhong, before you—before you weigh in, and I’ll give you an opportunity. Rebecca, this is a group of professors and students. And so what would you advise—what’s the call to action for this group to—you know, to help, you know, push back on or help sort of make—to ensure that guardrails remain? KATZ: I don’t have any—I don’t have a great one-liner on that, right? Except there is, how do we—how do we rebuild trust in science, in public officials, in governance? There is a need to raise public literacy. And so I start there. There are a lot of folks who are working on how do we counter mis- and disinformation. I think those are two very different things. There is—you know, there’s a need to—you know, it’s everything from being able to do the policy surveillance of what’s happening in the world, to being able to—all the way towards advocacy and trying to help, you know, get programs and policies sufficiently implemented. But I think also just having kind of a strong evidence-informed voice. I wish I had a great, better answer that said, if you just pushed this button or did this thing, it would all be better. But I don’t. And I think—I think this is why a lot of people in the community are really struggling with how do we—how did we get here, and how do we fix it? FASKIANOS: Great. Yanzhong. HUANG: Well, I—just follow what Rebecca said, I think trust is, like, the key, right? You know, our colleague Tom Bollyky, his research has just already, like, demonstrated how important trust is in fighting the—dealing with a public health crisis, like COVID-19. You know, and to the question, actually, the challenge is how to build the trust, right? You can talk about maybe better transparency, better accountability. But you know, I think in a country like the U.S. which is so divided now, I think in order to rebuild that trust it’s very important for the—these different groups, like even—like, I’m talking about, you know, the two groups, they need to be able to have a dialogue, basically, need to speak with each other. There needs to be able to build consensus. But maybe I’m asking for the impossible. But the—so when we talk about politicization, I want to also add that it’s not just happened at the national level; it certainly has been—this past pandemic has shown that this also occurs at the international level. In fact, you know, I think, you know, we never have, you know, a public health event that has been so politicized as the COVID-19. You know, just to give you an example, the SARS, right, when we talk about the origins of SARS, you know, people never thought of, like, politicizing the origin probe. But it’s become a big issue during the COVID pandemic, in part because this is, like, the first time we’re seeing, like, ideology being encouraged by the pandemic response. This entire response to the pandemic is sort of framed as a competition between authoritarianism and liberal democracy, right. And also, geopolitics, like, again, right, the tensions between U.S.-China sort of also was driving, right, the global pandemic response. So I think, you know, in order to sort of—we need to start to depoliticize—(laughs)—this process of depoliticization. We need to reduce the geopolitical tensions. But in the meantime, we need to start the—sort of have—investing in those trust—or, confidence-building measures like having, like, a track-1.5 dialogue between the two countries. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to go next to JY Zhou, please. Q: Hello. FASKIANOS: Yes. Thank you. Q: Hi. Awesome. Well, my name is Chris Nomes. I’m an intelligence analysis student at James Madison University. And my question is about threats to global health. Specifically, do we—do we face any risks, like, from our adversaries or from lone groups that want to purposely tear down global health? Are there any risks? And how do we counter those risks, if they exist? HUANG: That is Rebecca’s expertise. (Laughs.) KATZ: I got it. Maybe I got it. I mean, I think—listen, you know, when you start the question you asked about threats to global health. And immediately I start making lists of, like, oh my gosh, right, how are we going to talk about the signal—the, what, 90,000 signals that WHO received this month and the, you know, 300 that they’re investigating, and then the thirty, like, field investigations are happening in a given month, and all the—all the emerging infectious disease challenges, including, you know, H5N1 in cows in the U.S., to mpox, to, you know, again the long list of infectious disease challenges that nature throws at us every day. But your question then pivoted to talk more about the threats of deliberate biological events. And that is definitely a thing. I mean, so let’s just say that. That is a thing. That is an area of work. I will say that for about fifteen years I supported the U.S. delegation for the Biological Weapons Convention. So there are—there are people who get together often and work through trying to assess what that threat is and how it’s best addressed. There are—there are mechanisms for trying to investigate allegations of deliberate biological weapons use, and the use of the UN Secretary-General’s Mechanism. And there are now a lot of folks who are deeply concerned about how AI is changing the threat space. And so, you know, in this forum, I think the answer we can give you is, yes. It is a threat. It is a thing. And there is a world of people who work on this, including within the intelligence communities around the world, to better address that threat and then feed that into response and planning efforts. I will say, though, that in the—in the event—the challenge is if there is an actual event, the response may not be very different from a naturally occurring event, at least not initially. And putting attribution assessments aside, and any kind of political response you might have. But that that’s the other thing that is trying to be sorted out, is that, you know, if you are in the midst of a response to what looks like a naturally occurring event and suddenly there is information there or an entity claims responsibility for having released an agent, how does that change? What stakeholders now need to be involved? And also, who—how is that managed at the national, regional, and international system? So, basically, you opened a can of—a huge can of worms for me. But I think the answer is, yes, it is a—it is a thing. And it is a thing that there are—there is a community of people who think very deeply about it. HUANG: Yeah. I’ll just—you know, I think what the problem we’re dealing with, like, deliberate-caused outbreaks, right, the challenge here is that this is not like a war against, you know, terror, because we are facing—we don’t know, actually, even who actually started the attack, right, whether it’s from individuals or states, because in part of this—(inaudible)—of the biological weapons or the use of, you know, the dangerous pathogens, you’re not going to find out whether, like, something unusual is happening. And here, right, a large number of people flooded the ER rooms complaining about the same kind of acute symptoms. So the logic of, like—of deterring such an attack would be different from logic of deterring, like, a nuclear attack, right? Because we have to rely on the building of the health infrastructure, greater trained health professionals, you know, the so-called deterrence by denial, in order to sort of decentivize the potential perpetrators from giving up such an attack. FASKIANOS: (Off mic.) HUANG: Irina, you are on mute. FASKIANOS: I am muted. And how long have I been doing this? (Laughs.) We’ve had a lot of questions and written and raised hands that we could not get to. So I apologize to all of you. Rebecca, I want to give you thirty seconds to talk about your book, Outbreak Atlas. KATZ: Oh, yay! (Laughs.) Sure! I was telling folks before we started the webinar, in academia we write a lot of words, and often we write words and they’re, you know, meant for four people in the world to read. But we put a book together that is designed for hopefully addressing some of the public literacy issues that we brought up earlier. For years we had been supporting public health emergency operation centers around the world in helping provide information about kind of all the activities that happen in an outbreak response. And what we’ve done is we’ve taken that and we’ve written it for a public audience. So, it is illustrated. It has 120 different case studies. Anything you ever wanted to know about what happens in an outbreak, or every epidemiologic term that you heard your grandmother talk about that you’re, like, wait a second, is that right? So we’ve written it all out. If anybody’s interested, Outbreak Atlas. And it comes out on Monday on Amazon, and all those other places. So I’m really excited. FASKIANOS: Great. Fantastic. And, Yanzhong, is there anything you want to highlight that we’re doing at CFR in the global health space? HUANG: Well, thank you, Irina. Thank you for your patience of staying through that one-hour conversation. So, yeah, we are facing a lot of threats. We are—you know, we are aware of many of these challenges we are facing. We know the loopholes in the global health governance areas. It’s just that, I think the—(laughs)—the challenge is how to fix them; you know, don’t expect those negotiations in Geneva can you solve all the problems. The problems are going to rise up all the time in many decades to come. But if you want to learn more about this area, in addition to reading Rebecca’s Outbreak Atlas, read our—this is more CFR’s Negotiating Global Health Security. Thank you. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Thank you both. So you can also follow them on X, formerly known as Twitter, at @YanzhongHuang and at @RebeccaKatz5. This is the last webinar for this semester. Good luck with your finals, and everything that comes with this lovely month of April and May. And for some of you who are graduating, you can learn about CFR paid internships for students and fellowship for professors at CFR.org/careers. We’re open right now. We’re accepting applications for summer internships. And they can be virtual. So that’s always a plus. And they are paid. Please follow us at @CFR_Academic, visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com—and I’m going to really highlight; I do it every call—but our ThinkGlobalHealth.org site, which provides a forum to examine why global health matters and to engage in efforts to improve health worldwide. So, if you’re interested in these issues, you can—you should go there. We hope to be a resource for you all. Again, good luck with your finals. Enjoy the summer. And we look forward to reconvening in fall 2024. So thank you, again, to Dr. Katz and Dr. Huang. (END) -
Panelists discuss the escalating economic and political situation in Haiti with a focus on the humanitarian crisis, how the destabilization of the region has impacted Haitian people both domestically and across the diaspora, and policy options to help de-escalate and stabilize the nation. If you wish to attend virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio, video, and transcript of this hybrid meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
Panelists discuss new and emerging commercial defense technology, current opportunities and challenges in defense innovation, and the future landscape of national security. For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio and video of this virtual meeting will be posted on the CFR website.
-
The United Nations recognized rape as a war crime in 2008 through the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1820. Despite this step, sexual violence remains a widespread practice in wars and conflict zones globally. Panelists discuss the extent of sexual violence used as a tool of war and policies that can address it and help prevent future atrocities. The Arthur C. Helton Memorial Lecture was established by CFR and the family of Arthur C. Helton, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who died in the August 2003 bombing of the UN Headquarters in Baghdad. The Lecture addresses pressing issues in the broad field of human rights and humanitarian concerns. The audio, video, and transcript of this meeting will be posted on the CFR website. **For those attending virtually, log-in information and instructions on how to participate during the question and answer portion will be provided the evening before the event to those who register. Please note the audio and video of this virtual meeting will be posted on the CFR website.**
-
Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger discusses developments in the tech industry, implications of geopolitical conflicts on global trade, and leadership lessons learned.
-
The CFR luncheon event held in conjunction with the International Studies Association featured a discussion on Foreign Policy in the Age of Artificial Intelligence on Thursday, April 4, in San Francisco. The conversation featured Rachel Gillum, vice president of ethical and humane use of technology at Salesforce; Andrew W. Reddie, associate research professor of public policy at University of California, Berkeley; and Carla Anne Robbins, senior fellow at CFR. James M. Lindsay, senior vice president, director of Studies, and the Maurice R. Greenberg chair at CFR, moderated the discussion.
-
With RealEcon, CFR is creating an initiative to study and debate the role of the United States in the international economy. The launch event of this multiyear, multifaceted initiative will explore what the challenges are for U.S. leadership, what is at stake for American interests, and what new approaches would be helpful to rebuild an affirmative consensus on American economic leadership.Chair Jared Bernstein of the Council of Economic Advisers discusses the future of U.S. economic leadership as CFR launches its new RealEcon initiative.Immediately following the conversation with Chair Bernstein, there will be a panel discussion on the new initiative.Members may bring a guest to this event.
-
In a collaboration between CFR and Open to Debate, panelists debate whether or not Congress should stop funding the war in Ukraine. Open to Debate is the nation’s only nonpartisan, debate-driven media organization dedicated to bringing multiple viewpoints together for a constructive, balanced, respectful exchange of ideas. Open to Debate is a platform for intellectually curious and open-minded people to engage with others holding opposing views on complex issues.
-
Moisés Naím, distinguished fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, leads the conversation on authoritarianism. CASA: Welcome to today’s session of the Winter/Spring 2024 CFR Academic Webinar Series. I’m Maria Casa, director of the National Program and Outreach Department at CFR. Thank you all for joining us. Today’s discussion is on the record, and the video and transcript will be made available on our website, CFR.org/Academic, if you would like to share them with your colleagues or classmates. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have Moisés Naím with us for a discussion on power and authoritarianism. Moisés Naím is a distinguished fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and an internationally syndicated columnist. Dr. Naím’s experience in public service includes his tenure as Venezuela’s minister of trade and industry, director of Venezuela’s central bank, and executive director of the World Bank. He has held appointments as a professor at IESA, Venezuela’s leading business school, and Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Naím is the host and producer of Efecto Naím, an Emmy-winning weekly television program on international affairs that airs throughout the Americas on Direct TV. He was the editor in chief of Foreign Policy magazine for fourteen years, and is the author of many scholarly articles, and more than ten books on international economics and politics. Welcome, Dr. Naím. Thank you very much for speaking with us today. NAÍM: Thanks for inviting me. Delighted to be with you. CASA: You have been reflecting on the nature of power, authoritarianism, and autocracy for many years, and have written a series of books that focused on these themes. Could we begin with you telling us a little bit about your current thinking on the subject? NAÍM: Of course. I am as concerned, as many other people are, about the fact that democracy is in retreat and authoritarianism is moving. This is not just an opinion; this is solid data from Freedom House, which is an institution that analyzes and surveys the world in terms of its propensities towards freedom or not. And in the most recent report about the state of freedom in the world, they show that it has—global freedom has declined for the eighteenth consecutive year. So for every year in the last eighteen years, democracy was declining and authoritarian regimes, of different stripes and forms, were taking over. Political rights and civil liberties were diminished in fifty-two countries, and the fact is that the majority of the people in the world today live in authoritarian regimes, or regimes where the checks and balances that define a democracy are not functioning—fully functioning and are limited and constrained. This is a very complex, surprising world in which a lot is happening for the first time—or a lot that we believe is happening for the first time, in fact, has happened before. I have here a phrase—a couple of phrases by European thinkers in the 1930s. After the First World War and before the Second World War, they saw it coming. They did not know exactly what form would it take. But José Ortega y Gasset is a famous Spanish thinker of that time, and in 1930 he wrote a book, and one of the phrases in the book is, “we don’t know what is happening to us.” And that is exactly what is happening to us—that we don’t know what’s going on. We know that something big is going on, but we don’t know exactly how is it going to affect our jobs, our companies, our politics, our life, our society, and so on. Another politician, at the same time—an Italian this time—in the 1930s, wrote a book. Antonio Gramsci was his name. He was in jail for political reasons, and Gramsci wrote, “the old is dying and the new is yet to be born. In this interregnum, monsters are hatched.” I repeat: “The old is dying and the new is yet to be born. In this interregnum, monsters are hatched.” And we have the same feeling now, that first, yes, there is a lot that we don’t know, and that surprise us all the time, and happens for the first time. It’s almost—I wrote a column recently about that, the unprecedented planet, in which a lot of things were happening for the first time, typical in most—a well-known example of this is climate change, right? It’s creating all sorts of unprecedented situations and points of view. I have been tracking the world from this perspective, as you said, for a long time, and there are two books of mine—or three books of mine that I think do not answer all the questions, but do answer most of the important questions of our time. They are thirty years in the making. There was one in 2005, another ten years later, and another ten years. The first one is Illicit: How Smugglers, Traffickers, and Copycats are Hijacking the Global Economy (2005). And the book showed how, at the time in which everyone was globalizing and—going global it was called—very fashionable. The group that—you know, that took most advantage early on and were early adopters were criminal cartels, and they were very good at using borders as ways of leveraging their capacities, possibilities, and goals. So Illicit—the role of illicit, the role of criminalize, and governments is something that I’m sure we’ll have speak today. But looking at this, what’s happening was also that the governments were waging war on all these criminal activities, in the trafficking of people, of drugs, of narcotics, of money, of weapons, of—even human organs, and art, and everything else. And governments were losing this battle. You know, they won some skirmishes here and there with the cartels and the criminals, but all in all, they were losing. So that led me to my following book, The End of Power (2013), in which I analyzed—I started with thinking that this is a government thing only to discover that this was happening everywhere; not that power was disappearing, but yes, power was more constrained. People that had power had now more limits, more restrictions on how it can use power. And the central theme of that book was that, in the twenty-first century, power had become easier to obtain, harder to use, and easier to lose. And that is directly relevant to the subject of authoritarianism that we’re discussing here. Ten years later, I wrote a book called The Revenge of Power (2022), which is what we’re—those who have power in massive quantities, what we are doing to limit the erosion of the power, and the ways, and the sharing of power, and the distribution of power, the sources, the origins, the usages, the possibilities of power at this time. And I came up with the idea, recognizing that what the revenge of power is is that some authoritarian regimes were using the three Ps to retain government. The three Ps are populism, polarization, and post-truth. The three are very well-known characteristics, but they have acquired unprecedented potency under the new circumstances, and they define very quickly what are the new breed of authoritarian regime that appear to look like democrats, but in fact, they are undermining democracy from the inside. We have a long list of leaders that were elected, some in fair and free elections; others by just stealing the elections, but once they got in government, they started limiting, constraining, and diminishing the powers that constrain, the power of the public chief executive. So that is a context in which we are moving. And one of the themes that I would like to—hope to chat with you all has to be with what I mentioned before: the criminalized nature of the state, and how this is related to authoritarianism, and to globalization. Let me stop here and start the conversation, Maria. CASA: Oh, thank you so much for that introduction. Now let’s open it up to questions. (Gives queuing instructions.) We’ll start with a raised hand from Carl Gilmour, an undergraduate student at Stanford University. Carl? (Pause.) We’ll give Carl another second—otherwise we can come back to him. Well, let’s move on to a written question. It’s from Michael Strmiska, professor of world history at SUNY Orange in New York state, who writes, “I see a dilemma with the need to restrict communications and mis- and disinformation from extremists and authoritarians, though this would seem to mean a restriction of free speech. However, free speech is never an absolute right. What can governments do to prevent authoritarians and extremists from taking power through manipulation of the information and social media sphere? I no longer believe the argument that the solution to hate speech or other such disinformation is more speech because, with social media, lies and hate can be spread at lightning speed in great mass and force. NAÍM: Well, the question has many good answers embedded in it. It’s hard to disagree with the professor’s perspective, and his caution. We have been surprised by what’s happening in social media and how that has changed a lot in the world of politics and so on. That, we should remember, was driven by technology. It was driven by all sorts of innovations. I think his question is the question for our time: how do we protect free speech and democracy while at the same time limiting the impact of the wrongdoers, or the people that are abusing the system, or using the system for very nefarious goals. We don’t know; nobody knows. That question is at the core of the great debate of our time. All I want to stress—perhaps in addition—is that expect surprises, and it’s very likely that the surprises will come more from the world of politics and from the world of technological innovation. But we don’t know what those are. CASA: Next we’ll go to Buba Misawa, who is professor of political science at Washington and Jefferson College. Please go ahead, Buba. Q: Can you hear me? CASA: Yes. Q: OK. Professor Naím, that was a great conversation you started. But let me ask a simpler question, and I know, between you and Gramsci you can answer. Why are we attracted to this new model or this old model of authoritarianism? Is it because democracy has failed, or why? NAÍM: Another great question at the core of a lot of the debates that are going on, so thank you very much, Professor Misawa. The answer has a lot to do with the underperformance of governments and the—you know, broken expectations. The expectations of people—very justifiably—grow much faster than the capacity of the state to respond to their needs, and hopes, and ambitions, and expectations for a better life. That is happening. That was also always happening, and somehow I think the famous professor identified it, that the gap between the expectations of the voters, or the people, and the capacity of the state to deliver on that, that has always existed, but now it has been amplified with technology, and with the globalization, and with all kinds of new ways of doing things, and changing the regime. The essence of the story is that we will have to deal with the non-performance of governments, and what is happening is that we need to—I don’t think we have to relaunch everything and throw the baby with the bath water, but capitalism in the twenty-first century and democracy in the twenty-first century need adjustment. The world and assumptions that were—on which these were based are no longer with us, and we have not replaced them yet. And that’s where Gramsci is so relevant, you know. In this interregnum—he called it—a lot of very bad things can happen, but also very good things can happen. But the essence of the story is that expectations are making governments very hard to function and very—there is a need to—as I said, and I’m repeating myself—there is a need to adjust our capitalism and democracy that we have until now to the new realities. And we all know the long list of new things that are happening that need a response; climate change being, you know, very important in this story. CASA: Our next question is from Bernard Haykel, professor at Princeton University. Q: Thank you, and I hope you can hear me. Thank you, Professor Naím. I’m a great admirer of your work. NAÍM: Thank you. Q: I have two questions, so one is that you have different petrostates, both of which are authoritarian, but they deliver very different goods and services to their populations. So take, for example, the UAE or Saudi Arabia, on the one hand, and Venezuela, on the other. So what accounts for that difference? And the second is that in countries like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, they tell you, you know, we’re a tribal society. If we had democracy we would have inefficient government, we would have chaos, we would have Islamists who would come to power, as you can see, for example, in Kuwait where they have a parliament. And so, therefore, there is an argument that authoritarianism is really the best way to contend with the global problems and with providing services to their populations. Thank you. NAÍM: Yes, yes, Professor Haykel, that’s absolutely right, and we don’t know—there is a respect for authoritarianism that is essentially grounded on the performance, and so we now give very—a lot of importance to governance and to the capacity to govern. And they are doing a good job down there in the Gulf countries, surely. But it is so specific—their set of circumstances, their origins, their history, their society, the geopolitics, their economy—is so specific to them that it’s hard to replicate elsewhere. We have not seen it. And then we don’t know how resilient these governments are like that without starting in the route of repression in, you know, the underlying assumption in this conversation. The elephant in the room, of course, is the capacity of these governments to be repressive, and then what happens. We saw, for example, the admiration for the Chinese model and its capacity to build infrastructure and to build all kinds of things. And it was presented to us as an example to follow. And remember the Beijing Olympics. It was this perfect display of organization and performance, but we—as you know now, that China has been entangled in all kinds of problems and all kinds of difficulties. So yes, we need to look at other examples, but remember the context and understand that this is a picture in a moment, but over time the sustainability of this governance is going to change. CASA: Our next question is a written one from Rodrigo Moura, who is an undergraduate student at the University of Essex. He asks: You have mentioned the three Ps that authoritarians use to gain and consolidate power and influence. What about money? How do you see the use of economic incentives by authoritarian regimes, mainly abroad, to gain influence? NAÍM: Yes, there are two themes there. One is the economic performance of a nation and a regime, and can it provide the prosperity that people need, want, and fight poverty, and fight inequality, and so on. That’s one dimension on the theme of power. The other dimension on the theme of power is one that is a very complicated one, and it has to do with money and politics, and how money can replace the will of the voters. And we are seeing that even in democratic societies in which money defines political outcomes with the negligible contribution of participation of the rest of the people. So money has many dimensions, but the two main ones are that money and politics, and the necessity to provide for a better life for as many of the people in the country as possible, and those are two challenges that a lot of governments are not meeting. CASA: Our next question—let’s take our next question from Lindsey McCormack, a graduate student at Baruch College. Lindsey? Q: Thank you. Professor Naím, I have a question—a follow-up to your piece in El País from—it was included in the background materials for this webinar. You discussed how today’s dictators don’t really have an out like maybe a generation ago that they could, you know, take a lot of money, and go somewhere and retire in luxury. (Laughs.) That was a very interesting point, and you suggested that’s a reason—a reason it can be so difficult to transition away from authoritarian regimes, that essentially their leaders are trapped in the situation of their own making. And I was wondering if you have any idea what to do about that? It wasn’t a good situation in the past where you could steal a bunch of money and go to the French Riviera, but at least it gave an out and the possibility of change. NAÍM: Yes, that’s a very thorny issue, as Ms. McCormack indicated—as she—as you mentioned. The challenge here is what do you do with dictators. And most of them cannot run the risk of not being in power because if they are not in power, they are in jail. So government is not just for service or for corruption, but also for protection. And unless you can provide an exit ramp out, it’s going to be very difficult for these people to go anywhere because no other governments would protect them as much as their own government and their own—typically their own military. So that is going to be with us for a while. An international coalition of democracies could do something, but as we know, multilateral work is as desirable as it is often ineffective—too ineffective, in fact. That’s a good question. Thank you. CASA: Our next question is written. It’s from Alfredo Toro Carnevali, professor of political science at Montclair State University. He writes: I was perplexed by the speed with which Ecuador, a relatively stable country a few years ago, was overtaken by organized criminal organizations from Mexico and Armenia, competing for access to the port in Guayaquil. How could this happen so quickly and so dramatically? What can Ecuador do? Could you comment on this? NAÍM: Yeah, it’s an incredible situation. Ecuador was one of the most stable of countries in that tough neighborhood of high political volatility and instability. And then it fell into the trap that met—so many other countries in that neighborhood are having, which is being complacent with the presence of drug cartels and criminals, and that have infiltrated the government, have infiltrated society, that have access to huge quantities of money. And we saw, you know, the globalization of organized crime because a lot of these things—for example, you saw a lot of the Mexican cartels operating in El Salvador—in Ecuador, sorry—and that is part of the answer. It was—it always existed, but never at the speed and scope that it exists now. CASA: We’ll take our next question from Björn Krondorfer, director of the Martin Springer Institute and an endowed professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University. Björn? Q: Can you hear me? CASA: Yes. Q: Yeah. I brought my question. It’s about the role of religion in authoritarian regimes. We see this with white Christian nationalism in the United States, with Putin’s embrace of Russian orthodoxy, in Orbán’s Hungary—I mean really across the world at different—in different religious traditions. What is your sense of the religious power or the religious force in relationship to political authoritarian power? NAÍM: Thank you for the question, Professor Krondorfer. The magic word in global politics or politics today, everywhere, is legitimacy, legitimacy, and legitimacy. There is a huge deficit of legitimacy in which governments are not legitimate, either because they acquired power through sham elections or because they had a coup. But the need to have legitimacy, to be respected, to be recognized as a valid regime is there. And one of the tools for legitimacy is religion, as you well said. And yes, in the same way that money in politics is a very important thorny issue, money in religion to fund and support a specific government is also a big issue for which we don’t have a lot of good answers. But yes, your point is excellent. CASA: Going back to Carl Gilmour, who is a student at Stanford University. He has written his question: Many journalists appear to perish or become confined when confronted with the consequence of publishing truth to the people that expose the abuse of power. What is your recommendation to these beacons of truth when weighing the heavy cost of careers in journalism? Do you foresee that there will be any remedy to this assault on free speech or censorship through fear and violence? NAÍM: Yeah, what a problem, right? And we know that, you know, there are governments, there are countries that have the most journalists in jail. Turkey, Mexico are horrible situations in terms of persecution and the repression of journalists. And I don’t have any answer other than admiring, recognizing, and honoring the work of these journalists who every day go out in the street, not knowing if they’re going to go back at home later in the evening. It is a global situation. We are already seeing how some of these authoritarian regimes are using them—captured journalists—are using them as exchange in deals. There is a very well-known journalist from the Wall Street Journal that has been incarcerated unjustly in Russia, and he is just one of the most visible ones, but for each one of them, there are hundreds that are being repressed everywhere. And trying to generate—the most important prescription is to continue to generate visibility and don’t let them disappear from our information ecosystem. CASA: Our next question is from an executive-in-residence at the IESE Business School, Alex Wallace. Alex? Q: Hello. Thank you for this; so interesting. I wonder if there are any examples of authoritarian regimes where the populace is actually thriving and/or the standard of living is high. I looked at the World Happiness Index, and America is pretty far down there. There’s probably one or two above it that are not democracies. I just wonder if there is any place where authoritarianism has actually not been bad for the populace. NAÍM: Well, yeah, of course, Ms. Wallace. That’s very important. What we don’t know is for how long and how sustainable, you know. Look at the sustainability of these things, and it’s not clear that they are—in the long run, they will have the same format or the same face. But yes, there are places—Hungary is an example of places where the economy is doing relatively well, but that needs support and subsidies. And at the same time, there has been some progress. And let’s not forget the progress that had been taking place in China where literally millions—hundreds of millions of people were lifted out of poverty. And that is a performance that is unrivaled in terms of success. But at the same time, as I mentioned in my answer to another question prior, is that now the highly admired system in Russia is beginning to crack. CASA: We have many, many written questions, but we would love to hear your voices, so please don’t be shy and click the raise hand icon if you would like to ask your question orally. In the meantime, we’ll take a question—a written question from Chip Pitts, who is a lecturer at Stanford University. He writes: I worked with a number of NGOs concerned about the expansion of unchecked surveillance technologies by governments and companies, surveillance capitalism. What’s your view on the trends regarding surveillance and how excesses can be corrected? NAÍM:: They are horrible. The threats regarding surveillance are horrible. And becoming more common around the world. Again, China is probably the world champion in terms of surveillance. But it’s also in Switzerland you can find it, and other European countries. Even in very well-functioning democracies you see these technologies that are being used. And, you know, there’s a violation of privacy. There is use to repress movements and organizations. And, again, the only hope we have, I think, is two. One is having a knowledge and understanding, recognizing, keeping in mind that this is happening. Don’t forget that this is going on. And the second is that, again, I think the world of technology may give us some positive surprises in terms of how to protect ourselves from this excessive, abusive, authoritarian kind of behavior in terms of surveillance. CASA: Our next raised hand is from Katie Laatikainen, who is associate professor at Adelphi University. Katie. Q: Hi. Thanks very much. I also wrote my question in the Q&A. I’m interested in what you think an international order premised upon authoritarianism would look like. For most of the post-World War II era liberalism and liberal concepts, universal human rights, rule of law sort of defined the operating system of the—operating system of international relations. Given what you’ve said about authoritarianism and the internal and domestic focus of it, what would be the elements of the operating system if there’s a shift toward authoritarianism as the operating system in international relations? Thanks so much. NAÍM: Mutual protection. What these countries that are authoritarian and beginning—we have evidence they’re working together internationally to ensure that they are protected. That they will not have some color revolution, or some invasion, or some other social political dynamic that puts them at risk. So each one of them has a dense web of international connections with likeminded governments. And we should expect more than that. But always remembering the phrase that says that countries don’t have friends, they have interests. And so the interests of these authoritarian governments are converging for now. But we don’t know if there’s going to be—what’s going to happen in reality there. CASA: Our next question is a written one. It comes from Patrick Duddy, senior advisor for global affairs at Duke University, and former U.S. ambassador to Venezuela. He asks: Dr. Naím, could you cite a recent example of a situation in which the international community or local democracy advocates have been able to rollback authoritarianism and restore democracy? NAÍM: Yes, first, let me say hello to Patrick, who’s an old friend of mine. Nice to hear from you. Yes, fortunately, we have examples. I think the most recent example is Guatemala. Guatemala had a government that essentially was voted out of power. But NGOs, and civil society, and the media, and the private sector, and the church, they all got together in a fantastic way and were able, with the support of the United States, by the way—with an important role on the part of the United States. The leadership was, in Guatemala, and Guatemalan democratic politicians were so successful. And so, yes, there is hope. And there’s always opportunity that a good leader, together with a good organization and the support of the international community, can stop the decline towards the autocracy in some—and protect democracies. CASA: We’ll take our next question from Andrea Cuervo Prados, who is adjunct instructor at Dickinson State University. Andrea. Q: Hi, Mr. Naím. Thank you so much for your insights and knowledge. I also wrote my question on the chat, and it is related to Colombia. I would love to hear your thoughts about that country, about Colombia, which right now seems to be moving to an authoritarian regime, recalling some of the initial stages you know very well, Venezuela live under Chavez tenure. So what’s your view on the Colombian case? And do you believe an authoritarian regime is emerging in Colombia? Thank you. NAÍM: Yes, I am worried, and I think there is—there are good reasons to be worried about what happens in Colombia. Colombia used to be a solid democracy. Colombia showed the way on how to combat drug trafficking, how to reclaim neighborhoods that were untouchable by the police and others, because they were controlled by the drug traffickers. So there was a long list that make Colombia a country worth looking at. But then a combination of toxic polarization in which the country were—like many others, by the way—got entangled in all kinds of highly polarizing debates, behaviors, created—weakened the state in Colombia. And now they have a president that is surely frustrating the hopes of the people that voted for him. And he is displaying behaviors that are not democratic. And all, you know, in the mix of showing and trying to present himself and his policies as democracy. But they’re not. So, yes. But at the same time, perhaps the good news is that what’s remaining of democracy in Colombia, and especially in the legislative branch, can curtail and limit the advances—the antidemocratic advances that that are taking place there. But it’s worth watching and crossing fingers. CASA: Our next question is from Jose David Valbuena, an undergraduate student at Buffalo State University. He asks: How does the rise of authoritarianism in certain countries affect the global balance of power? And what implications does this have for international relations? NAÍM: Yeah. Well, the central answer there is the hegemony, and the nature of hegemony, and who has it, and how it sustains it, is a central theme. Hegemony and, you know, dominate—the idea that, for example, the superpowers, that the United States, will continue to be a hegemon, I think it’s true. It will continue to be the hegemon, probably more than anything in some areas of the military, of military affairs, of military organizations. But yet, the hegemony will be—is on—is on the plate to be debated, discussed, eventually adapted at what are the realities of geopolitics in these times. CASA: Let’s see. We’ll take our next question from Rita Kiki Edozie, who is a professor and associate dean at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. Q: Thank you. And thank you, Dr. Naím. Very interesting conversation. So about a year and a half ago, you participated in a debate around the same subject, you with Julian Waller. And your thesis was, of course, the rise of authoritarianism; and Julian’s thesis was that authoritarianism would not emerge in the U.S., despite, you know, your thesis about sort of Trump’s authoritarianism. And that’s because the U.S. had institutions at the national, local, and institutional level that sort of—would mute or, sort of, soften the blow of authoritarianism. Assuming both of you are right in that, you know, both there is an authoritarianism on the rise but so is there a pushback against authoritarianism, especially in the U.S., my question to you is: Don’t you think that democratic regimes are sort of embedded with the contradictions of authoritarian thrusts and pulses as well? And that, you know, they go one in hand, and we ought to acknowledge how they sort of coexist together? Thank you. NAÍM: Yes, Professor Edozie. I think the answer to that question will hinge quite a bit on the results of the U.S. elections this year. I do believe that Mr. Donald Trump is a threat to democracy in the United States, in a variety of ways. Because democracy is not just what happens when you go to vote, as you know, but is what happens in between periods in which—the days in which you go to vote, in which you really want the checks and balances to be autonomous, independent, objective, honest, and incorruptible, and all of that. And that is not what President Trump showed us in his time in government, nor what he’s saying these days. So I think whatever generalization one wants to make at this point, it has to be centered on the consequences at home and internationally of an electoral win by Donald Trump, if that happens. CASA: Our next question is a written one. It’s from Harry Mellor, political science student at Wheaton College, who writes: I was wondering what your thoughts were regarding whether the current Russian state reaction to recent terrorist attacks may be employed or used by the Putin regime to push an anti-Islamic authoritarian view, similar to the U.S. during 9/11. Or, in relation to earlier questions, used to bolster the hegemony of Russian Orthodoxy? NAÍM: Yes. I think Putin is already doing it. Of course, he has mentioned a little bit the Muslim theme, but mostly he’s blaming Ukraine. And he’s using the attack to show that—essentially arguing, which is not true, that the attack—the terrorist attack was, you know, the doing of the Ukrainians. And, again, we live in a world in which there are millions of people that don’t know who to believe, what to believe, and where to—you know, how to think about these issues. And I think this is an example. CASA: We’ll take our next question from Susan King, dean at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Susan. Q: Hi. Just to clarify, dean emeritus. So I’m no longer sitting dean. I want to ask a question with that plays off what you’ve just said about the U.S. And you’ve talked about the importance of government. There’s been a lot written just recently about the pandemic sort of overhang, that there’s PTSD, you know, in many communities; and that, reviewing it, that many felt the ambiguity of the guidance that they got has left people really desirous of more clear answers, and some worry that will lead to authoritarianism. Do you see the COVID experience, the pandemic, as sort of a backdrop for the United States elections? NAÍM: I don’t know. That is high expectations, right? Is assuming the government agencies in the United States are infallible and knew what they were doing. And the fact of the matter is, that they were doing it for the first time, without precedents. They surprised us—the scientists surprised us when they came up with a vaccine in record time, because everybody had been saying it takes a couple of years or more to get a vaccine through the system. Well, the scientists collaborating internationally were able to do it. But what I don’t think is that one should expect governments to have that capacity of dealing with a pandemic of the global scale and doing everything effectively, or doing things in service of certain ideology or political interests. I think there was room for mistakes and an ignorance about how to deal with the situation and doing as much as possible with the information they had. And the political context. Just remember the debates and how difficult they were. And the long-term consequences of COVID, of course, there is—long-term COVID is an issue and is becoming an important issue. But there is a new pandemic which is mental health, as you know. The global—the world has seen an increased level of mental health problems. And the United States is significantly there. CASA: Our next question is a written one from Alex Beltran, an undergraduate student at University of Houston-Downtown: I would like to ask you about your thoughts regarding Mexico and its current national issues, where there is a president who attempted to eliminate several national agencies including the ones in charge of elections. In addition, the current president is very clear on letting the corruption of cartels continue. Is Mexico on its way to becoming more authoritarian? Considering they have elections soon it might be early to talk about that. But I would like to hear what your—what you understand about the subject. NAÍM: Well, I understand that, yes, it’s too—in a normal democracy, it’s too early to be—to talk about what’s going to happen, because you don’t know who’s going to win. In the case of Mexico, everybody knows now who’s going to win, because there’s going to be an election that is heavily influenced by government intervention in favor of the candidate of the government. So that’s one thing. And the government of Mexico, and in particular President López Obrador, are important examples of what I call political necrophilia. You know, necrophilia is this perversion that some human beings have, you know, a strong attachment to cadavers—that they like cadavers. Well, there is a political manifestation of that, people that are deeply, deeply attached to bad ideas, ideas that have been tried and tested in the country once and again, in different countries, with different circumstances. Ideas that always end in more corruption, more inequality, more poverty, and so on. And President—if you look at the initiatives of President López Obrador, you will see that there are all kinds of examples of political necrophilia in which he is doing things that have been tested in the past. And there are clear mistakes to do it again that he’s undertaking. CASA: Our next question comes from Michael C. Davis, professor of law and international affairs at Jindal Global University. Michael. Q: OK, can you hear me? CASA: Yes. Q: OK. I’ve just written a book on Hong Kong called Freedom Undone. And one of the things I constantly run into in talking about the book is a criticism, well, it’s pointless to talk about Hong Kong. China’s not going to listen. And so you’re just—it’s a waste of our time even to host an event on it. And so the question I have is, does—in the cases like this, where a very successful authoritarian regimes is in charge, what’s the best response when you’re told that sort of naming and shaming really doesn’t matter, you’re just going to be called anti-China for this, and they’re going to ignore it? NAÍM: Well, but the rest of the world is not. The rest of the world will clearly benefit from a group of independent, objective, reliable, trusted analysts, professors, journalists, politicians, policymakers that said that—you know, that put the light on what’s going on. As you know better than I, this—recently there was already the decision to pass the law in Hong Kong that clearly curtailed any hopes of a more democratic—to retain some of the Hong Kong’s democratic values, and behaviors, and institutions. So it’s already happened. But I think there is the possibility that you find people that understand what’s going on, and how this backsliding towards authoritarianism in Hong Kong can be—still being formed, or used to be—to inform the rest of the world how to think about China, by the way to look at how they have dealt with Hong Kong. And then the next stage of the conversation, as you know, will have to do with Taiwan. President Xi Jinping constantly repeats that there is no debate there. Taiwan is part of China. And it will become integrated with China. And that creates, of course, all kinds of anxieties because of the role of the United States in the treaty. There is a mutual protection military treaty between China and the United States, as you know. So don’t stop it. Don’t leave it there. Insist. CASA: Our next question is written one from Hunter Shields, undergraduate student at Davis and Elkins College. He writes: If social media acts as a significant factor in the spread of authoritarian government models, does it become the responsibility of nonauthoritarian governments, who may see how such systems can cause chaos, to censor or limit the exposure of authoritarian ideals? Would censoring authoritarian governments make the nonauthoritarian governments act in the same way as they—as they try to maintain the political status quo? NAÍM: Well, I don’t know that censoring is for anything that I would ever recommend. But there is no doubt that we need a regulatory system that, for example, to contain the spread of disinformation that is now happening and that he’s being, as the question said, you know, there’s a lot going on there. And it’s important that the fight is—continues, the fight against misinformation, distortion, lies, hate continues. That we will need to find ways to contain that. CASA: Our next question is a written one from Wilson Wameyo, a graduate student at the Jagiellonian University in Poland. He asked: How is the new conflict between Russia and the West emboldening authoritarian leaders in Africa and South America? NAÍM: Yeah. That is the fear. And that is why so many leaders, so many democratic leaders, are saying that the outcome of the war between Russia and Ukraine, as a result of Russia’s invasion, will define the prospects for democracy around the world. If Ukraine falls, you know, loses the war, and it becomes a province of Russia, all bets are off in a variety of ways. I don’t think that will happen. But I also think that a victory of the Ukrainian forces is—at this point, is on the table. So negotiations will ensue. And let’s hope that through these negotiations one can preserve the independence of Ukraine, and also stimulates the creation of an international coalition, prodemocracy coalition, that has some tooth and can work on that in support of countries that are fighting the good fight in terms of protecting democracy. CASA: Our next question is a written one from Azzedine Layachi, professor of politics at St. John’s University: You said earlier that we need to adjust capitalism and democracy to the new reality. First, what are some of the specific dimensions of this new reality? Second, what kind of adjustments do you suggest? NAÍM: Well, it’s obvious that the economy as it now works is not aligned to the realities of climate change that we’re facing. The climate emergency requires action and requires sound economic thinking, and action, and policies. Inequality. Inequality around the world has increased in significant ways. And, again, the economy, as it now stands, is—has a peaceful coexistence with inequality that has to be shattered. And if—you know, the fight against monopolies, the concentration of power, and all that has to be very effective. The whole regulation of free speech and speech in general, and disinformation and all that, has to be aligned to democracy and to what we have as a democracy political system. So there is a list of things that can be done, but that require political will that he was going to be very hard to get. CASA: Our next question comes from Mietek Boduszynski, associate professor of politics at Pomona College. The question is: From a U.S. foreign policy perspective, can the logic of great power competition be reconciled with democracy promotion? NAÍM: It depends how the promotion is done. Remember that under the banner of democracy, you know, promotion a lot of bad governments have been maintained. I understand the question. It’s a good question in terms of how to make it possible for democracy in the United States—for the United States to be effective at democracy promotion. I think that is going to be reviewed and is going to change. And I think the way we have been thinking about foreign aid is going to be adjusted. CASA: Our next question is from Diego Abente Brun, professor of the practice and program director, Latin American and hemispheric studies at George Washington University. He asks: Why are some authoritarian Latin American leaders popular—AMLO, Bukele, Milei, and so on? How can we restore faith and trust in democracy? NAÍM: Fandom. In my book, The Revenge Of Power, I talk about the new quality that has politics. You know, you always wanted a politician have to have some sort of attractiveness, the magic, that magnetism that attracts followers. Now it’s more than that. Now it’s a fandom. And it has to do with identity politics. It has to do with how do you feel you belong to a group that is like you and you are like them. And all of that has is having immense political consequences that we have not seen before? CASA: Thank you. I don’t know if we have—maybe we have time for one more question. We’ll take it from Robin Bittick, professor of political science at Sam Houston State University in Texas. Democracy is about self-rule and majority voting. Yet, populism employs something that can be—implies something that can be democratic but can become authoritarian. What can be done to ensure democracy does not result in suicide? NAÍM: Wow. Well—(laughs)—but I understand the feeling, you know, that democracy will be underperforming in some areas that are critical for people. And, again, performance and transparency are two important conditions for all of this. Transparency, and paying attention, and participating. CASA: OK. We have many more questions. We’ve covered an enormous amount of ground. So I’d like to thank you so much, Dr. Naím, for your time with us today. And to all of you, for your questions and comments. The final Winter/Spring Academic Webinar will take place on Wednesday, April 10, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Yanzhong Huang, senior fellow for global health at CFR, and Rebecca Katz, professor and director of the Center for Global Health Science and Security at Georgetown University, will lead a conversation on global health security and diplomacy. In the meantime, I encourage you to learn about CFR paid internships for students and fellowships for professors at CFR.org/careers. Follow @CFR_Academic on X. And visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. Again, thank you all for joining us today and we look forward to you tuning in on April 10. (END)
-
Director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), Vice Admiral Frank “Trey” Whitworth, discusses the future of the NGA and how the agency is addressing new threats, strategic defense competition between the United States, China, and Russia, and how emerging technology is shifting the defense landscape. The Malcolm and Carolyn Wiener Annual Lecture on Science and Technology addresses issues at the intersection of science, technology, and foreign policy. It has been endowed in perpetuity through a gift from CFR members Malcolm and Carolyn Wiener.
-
Panelists reflect on how the digital transformation is reshaping the economy and how cities like New York can embrace new technologies, like artificial intelligence, to foster economic growth. Please note that speakers are appearing in their personal capacities.
-
This symposium explores the trajectory of three critical foreign policy domains that Henry Kissinger, a longtime member of the Council on Foreign Relations, engaged with throughout his career in and out of government, and the lessons learned for U.S. foreign policy today.
-
Four former National Security Advisors discuss the foreign policy challenges facing the United States and how these vital issues should be addressed in the upcoming presidential election.
-
The goal of the workshop is to find new ways for college and university educators to encourage their students to learn about international relations and the role of the United States in the world. It provides an opportunity for educators to explore the wide array of CFR and Foreign Affairs teaching and research resources available to the academic community, participate in substantive briefings with subject experts as well as in group discussions, and share best practices and educational tools for bringing global issues into the classroom. The workshop included an opening night dinner conversation on the role of the United States in the world; plenary sessions on the Middle East, societal implications of AI, and climate policy and implementation; a presentation on CFR Education and fellowship opportunities; and a breakout discussion with a choice among regional topics.
-
Aslı Aydıntaşbaş, visiting fellow in the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution and senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, and Philip Gamaghel…
-
In From Peril to Partnership, using case studies of Colombia and Mexico, Paul Angelo evaluates the efficacy of U.S. security assistance and the necessary conditions and stakeholders in partner nations that facilitate success. The book answers why Plan Colombia achieved its objectives and why the Mérida Initiative underdelivered in Mexico. It goes beyond drug war theatrics and the “one-size-fits-all” approach to U.S.-led stabilization. The CFR Fellows’ Book Launch series highlights new books by CFR fellows.
-
Amy Pope discusses her work as director general of the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and the UN role in addressing climate mobility, legal frameworks for migration, and the present humanitarian crisis.The Silberstein Family Annual Lecture on Refugee and Migration Policy was established in 2019 through a generous gift from Alan M. Silberstein and the Silberstein family. The lecture provides CFR with an annual forum to explore emerging challenges in refugee and migration policy in the United States and around the world.
-
As a record number of countries hold elections in 2024, panelists reflect on the substantive policy achievements of women political leaders, needed measures to achieve increased women’s leadership, and recommendations for bridging divides and governing effectively in a time of turmoil. This meeting is part of the Council on Foreign Relations Roundtable Series on Women's Global Leadership.
-
Panelists preview potential foreign policy themes in President Joe Biden's State of the Union address, including immigration, trade, and conflict in the Middle East. ROBBINS: So welcome to today’s…
-
David J. Scheffer, senior fellow at CFR, leads the conversation on complex humanitarian emergencies. CASA: Welcome to today’s session of the Winter/Spring 2024 CFR Academic Webinar Series. I’m Mar…
-
Brazil plays a pivotal role on the global stage as a top ten economy, a leading democracy, and the dominant steward of the Amazon. A founding member of the BRICS, the country holds the 2024 G20 presidency and will host the United Nations climate summit in 2025. Experts from CFR and elsewhere examined Brazil’s current political, economic, and social opportunities and challenges, its evolving role in the world, and the decisive role it could play in combatting climate change. This event was made possible by the generous support of the Hauser Foundation.
-
John Kerry discusses his work as U.S. special presidential envoy for climate, the challenges the United States faces, and the Biden administration’s priorities as it continues to address climate change.
-
Theresa Cardinal Brown, senior advisor of immigration and border policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, discusses prospects for reforms to U.S. immigration policy and how state and local officials c…
-
Former CENTCOM Commanders David Petraeus and Anthony Zinni discuss the military aspect of the Israel-Hamas war and lessons learned from U.S. involvement and operations in the Middle East.
-
Meghan L. O’Sullivan, director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and the Jeane Kirkpatrick professor of the practice of international affairs at Harvard University, leads the…
-
The World Economic Update highlights the quarter’s most important and emerging trends. Discussions cover changes in the global marketplace with special emphasis on current economic events and their implications for U.S. policy. This series is presented by the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies and is dedicated to the life and work of the distinguished economist Martin Feldstein.
-
Panelists discuss private capital’s role in leading the clean energy transition and what it takes to establish a redeployment of steady capital investing in decarbonization.
-
As the two-year mark of the Russian invasion of Ukraine approaches, U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo discusses the U.S. coalition’s sanctions strategy, its effectiveness, and the challenges that remain. The C. Peter McColough Series on International Economics brings the world’s foremost economic policymakers and scholars to address members on current topics in international economics and U.S. monetary policy. This meeting series is presented by the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies.
-
Putin vs The West, a three-part series produced by Brook Lapping, tells the inside story of how the West has struggled to deal with Vladimir Putin, told by the presidents and prime ministers who worked and fought against the Russian leader. As we enter year three of the Russia-Ukraine war, CFR will be screening the first episode of Putin vs The West: At War, followed by a discussion on what to expect next.
-
Joseph Nye discusses U.S. primacy on the global stage since World War II, crucial challenges the country has faced, the changing nature of American hard and soft power today, and whether China's rise spells American decline. The Distinguished Voices Series focuses particular attention on the contributions made by a prominent individual at a critical juncture in the history of the country or the world.
-
As the war in Ukraine approaches its second anniversary on February 24, experts from the Council on Foreign Relations discuss the current state of the war, its long-term impact on the international order, contingencies on how it may end, and the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny.
-
In a collaboration between CFR and Open to Debate, panelists debate the threat of Iran to global security. Did Biden’s diplomacy fail? Can Israel live with a nuclear Iran? Does Iran pose a challenge to the global order? Open to Debate is the nation’s only nonpartisan, debate-driven media organization dedicated to bringing multiple viewpoints together for a constructive, balanced, respectful exchange of ideas. Open to Debate is a platform for intellectually curious and open-minded people to engage with others holding opposing views on complex issues.
-
Esther Brimmer, James H. Binger senior fellow in global governance at CFR, leads the conversation on governing the global commons. FASKIANOS: Welcome to today’s session of the Winter/Spring 2024 C…
-
Austan Goolsbee of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago discusses the U.S. economy and monetary policy. The C. Peter McColough Series on International Economics brings the world’s foremost economic policymakers and scholars to address members on current topics in international economics and U.S. monetary policy. This meeting series is presented by the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies.
-
Censorship and Freedom of Expression
Ela Stapley, digital security advisor at the International Women's Media Foundation, discusses strategies for the safety of journalists as they report on the 2024 election cycle. Tat Bellamy-Walker, … -
In January, the U.S. Supreme Court debated whether to overturn Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council—one of the most cited U.S. cases of all time, which established the principle that the courts should defer to federal agencies when they interpret the law in the course of carrying out their duties. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the deference owed to federal agencies’ exercise of public health authorities was already heavily litigated. How much overruling Chevron would alter U.S. health policymaking is a matter of debate, with some claiming the change would be modest while others argue that FDA decision-making and Medicare administration would be rendered unworkable. Mr. Nicholas Bagley, the Thomas G. Long Professor of Law at Michigan Law and an expert on administrative law and health law, and Thomas J. Bollyky discuss what replacing the Chevron doctrine might mean for U.S. health.
-
Ambassador Katherine Tai discusses the role of trade policy in the global economy, current U.S. trade strategy, and priorities for the WTO Ministerial Conference. The C. Peter McColough Series on International Economics brings the world’s foremost economic policymakers and scholars to address members on current topics in international economics and U.S. monetary policy. This meeting series is presented by the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies.
-
Panelists discuss the regional escalation of the Israel-Hamas war, developments in flashpoints including in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, attacks on U.S. forces and the consequences for U.S. strategy in the Middle East.
-
Zongyuan Zoe Liu, the Maurice R. Greenberg fellow for China studies at CFR, discusses China’s sovereign wealth funds, investments in the United States, and considerations for policy responses to fore…
-
The closely watched 2024 Taiwan presidential election recently concluded with the winning of Lai Ching-te, current vice president of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party. In the legislature, however, no political party gained a majority. Syaru Shirley Lin, leading authority on East Asia–U.S. relations, faculty at the University of Virginia and the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and the author of Taiwan’s China Dilemma, discusses the implications of the presidential and legislative elections in terms of its changing social, political, and economic complexion and Taiwan’s future relations with the United States and China.
-
FRIEDEN: Thank you so much for joining us. I'm delighted today that we have Dr. Francesco Branca with us for a conversation about nutritional issues very broadly. Francesco is Director of the Departm…
-
Following the drone strike on a U.S. base in Jordan, panelists discuss the possibility of a U.S. military response as well as the implications of conflict spreading in the region. BRANNEN: Thanks…
-
Thomas Graham, distinguished fellow at CFR, and Zongyuan Zoe Liu, Maurice R. Greenberg fellow for China studies at CFR, lead the conversation on China-Russia relations. FASKIANOS: Welcome to today…
-
National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan discusses U.S.-China relations and the Biden administration’s policy priorities for the relationship going forward. This event is co-organized by the 21st Century China Center at UC San Diego’s School of Global Policy and Strategy, as part of its annual China Forum.
-
Gideon Rose celebrates the winners of this year’s Arthur Ross Book Award: Chris Miller, Susan L. Shirk, and Daniel Treisman. The program includes an award ceremony with each winner, and a discussion with Chris Miller on how critical technology is shaping the global balance of power.
-
Historian and now U.S. Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt discusses the increase in antisemitic incidents and rhetoric following the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, contemporary sources of antisemitism, and the U.S. government’s responses to global antisemitism.
-
Tarek El-Ariss, James Wright professor and chair of Middle Eastern studies at Dartmouth College, and Susannah Heschel, Eli M. Black distinguished professor of Jewish studies at Dartmouth College, lead the conversation on navigating academic discourse on Israel and Palestine. FASKIANOS: Welcome to CFR’s Higher Education Webinar. I’m Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today’s discussion is on the record and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/academic, if you’d like to share it with your colleagues. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We’re delighted to have Tarek El-Ariss and Susannah Heschel with us to talk about navigating academic discourse on Israel and Palestine. Tarek El-Ariss is the James Wright professor and chair of Middle Eastern studies at Dartmouth College. Susannah Heschel is the Eli M. Black distinguished professor of Jewish studies at Dartmouth College. And they teach together a class at Dartmouth called “The Arab, the Jew, and Constructions of Modernity.” So, with that, I’m going to turn the conversation over to them to talk about how they teach this class, and how they’ve worked together to address discourse on Israel and Palestine in Dartmouth, and best practices, as we all think about how to discuss these issues. So, over to both of you. Thank you for being with us. EL-ARISS: Thank you, Irina. Just to backtrack a little bit on the idea of the class, and our collaboration, I’m originally from Beirut. I’m trained in philosophy and literary studies. And I grew up during the civil war. And what we’re going through right now is extremely difficult to watch, to engage in, but this is something that we need to do. And this is something that I’ve been very interested in thinking about. And I just wrote a book on the subject, called Water on Fire: A Memoir of War, which really starts in Beirut, what was then called West Beirut, and ends in New York on 9/11, where I was actually teaching a course on the Middle East at NYU. And specifically on that day, I was teaching a course—a class on Islam. And needless to say, that these crises, these catastrophic events that happen from the region that I’m associated with, where I come, has been really fundamental to the way I think about scholarship, to the way I think about pedagogy, the way I think also about teaching and the community building that I think is really fundamental for the conversation today. So, I just wanted to kind of situate that within that context. And how do you think and deal with these questions? And how do you incorporate them? And where does the personal scholarship and the pedagogical engagement come, and so on? My work has been really dealing also with the question of the universal and the questions of the Enlightenment tradition. I mean, this is very important, and questions of modernity. Also wrote on the subject in the context of Arab modernity, in the context of what’s called the Nahda, or the nineteenth century Arab renaissance, and which is this kind of engagement with European modernity. So, this question of the universal, or the experience, of the European enlightenment tradition and how it kind of affects different parts of the world, how it allowed us to understand questions of human rights or questions of the universality is also at the core of this conversation here, and also of my intellectual training. So, this question has been really fundamental. I’ve also been interested in how a lot of these Arab intellectuals and scholars went to Europe in the beginning of the nineteenth century, and how they experienced this modernity. And that is not just simply an intellectual experience where they’re thinking about the ideas of the West and trying to translate them or reject them or accept them, but it is also an embodied experience. It’s also—I’ve been working on this question of the somatic, on the affect. And my work has also been, again, tracing this question of the universal of modernity to also think about it in the context of the digital age. And my last book is called Leaks, Hacks and Scandals. It’s on digital culture and the Arab Spring, and also digital culture that’s transforming some of our concepts of writing, political protest, community, the public sphere—all that is associated with that kind of eighteenth century that has been reverberated and had major influences across the region. So, I think I just want to kind of trace that genealogy. I think it’s important to also see where we come from and what are the things that have shaped a little bit our work, and where we have come, and then how we end up collaborating and also teaching this course that you mentioned. HESCHEL: Thank you, Irina. My name is Susannah Heschel. And, as you mentioned, I am chair of the Jewish Studies Program at Dartmouth College. And my work together with Tarek stems in part from my academic scholarship. Also, perhaps from the experiences that I had growing up. I grew up in New York City and my father was a Jewish theologian, Abraham Joshua Heschel. And he was involved in the civil rights movement, in the Second Vatican Council, and the movement against the war in Vietnam. And those were important experiences for me on many levels. For one thing, the civil rights movement and Dr. King made me fall in love with the Hebrew Bible. But, it was also an example for me of how to talk to people from another community, from a completely different environment. When I saw my father and Dr. King, and their relationship, or my father’s work with Cardinal Bayet at the Second Vatican Council and so on, I learned something about how to function in this world when you’re talking about very difficult, very painful issues. My own scholarship looks at Germany. And, in fact, I’m in Hamburg, Germany right now on a research fellowship at the Maimonides Institute. And I’m interested—my first book was a study of a Jewish historian in the nineteenth century in Germany who wrote an important book on the Koran showing parallels between Judaism and the Koran. And then later, he did work on Jewish rabbinic texts and the influence on the gospels, the New Testament, and Christian origins. So, I was interested, as you see, in how Jewish studies overlaps or interacts, and creates a synergy with other kinds of fields. And that continued with a book I wrote on Nazi theologians who supported Hitler. So, the question of how does the academy respond to political crisis, to fascism in this particular case? And now I’m working on another study, on the history of Jewish scholarship on Islam. But again, about interactions. I’m in the department of religion, as well as in Jewish studies. And the work that we do together, Tarek and I, on campus, has become very important for both of us, and also for our students. We teach the class together, the Arab, the Jew, and constructions of modernity. And we have a wonderful collection of students with different kinds of backgrounds—Palestinian, Jewish, from all parts of the world. And we try to create an atmosphere in the classroom of community and engagement with one another. We want the students to see themselves as working with us to do academic investigation, discussion, analysis. So, it was in that context then, that on October 7, when I was hearing the horrible news, I got a phone call from Tarek. And his voice sounded as horrified and devastated as I felt. And we planned two forums on campus that week of faculty—open to students, faculty, everyone. And the response was overwhelming. Far more than I expected. I think what was important—we can talk more about those forums—but I just want to say that we sought to model for the campus how we speak to each other, what kind of a tone we take, even in the midst of a crisis. Four of us from Jewish studies and Middle Eastern studies, we speak with respect, of course, with dignity. But, also, in doing that, we modeled for the students. So, they asked questions that were sometimes difficult to hear. But they asked respectfully, politely. And so going on from there, we’ve established a series of dialogues. And we find that in our work together, having two professors teaching courses on difficult topics creates a much better atmosphere in the classroom. It unites students. It shows students how to talk to each other, even when they disagree, to have the dialogue taking place right there. So go ahead, Tarek. EL-ARISS: And the idea, we also have—we’ve worked—this is my seventh year at Dartmouth. So, this is really—we’ve been working a lot together also on inviting people and trying to bring different programs and departments to sponsor events, to bring authors, to bring filmmakers, so also there is—even to bring a rock band. We brought Mashrou’ Leila at some point to Dartmouth right before COVID hit. (Laughs.) And so, I’m coming to New York to see Hamed Sinno’s concert at the Met this weekend. So, this is—you also have to create a community within the classroom and outside of the classroom. And maybe Dartmouth, also the—where it is located, the size, also the resources, I mean, there are differences. Not every place has the same culture, or the same abilities, and the same—but this is our experience. And this is what we worked very, very consciously on building, is that we need to create this community that operates—that connects to culture, intellectual processes, learning, music, that brings all these bodies and different departments and programs together in an interesting way. And this is also what we teach. And we have Ezzedine Fishere, my colleague, who co-teachers, a course, with Bernie Avishai in government on the politics of Israel-Palestine. Susannah was teaching in the fall a course on 1967 with a colleague, also who works on Arabic literature, Jonathan Smolin. And the administration has been very receptive and encouraging to these kinds of models that allowed us to come up with these courses and bring different disciplinary backgrounds. Like, I come from literature and philosophy. And Susannah comes from religion, and so on. And bring these different backgrounds also that are cross disciplinary and that open up the subject matter in an interesting way. And our course, I mean, this is also where our research overlaps, is this question of the nineteenth century, which is very interesting in this part of the world—eighteenth/nineteenth century—is how Jews and Arabs deal with this question of modernity, which I think is very important. And because this is the question, also, of language, how Hebrew becomes modernized/standardized, how Arabic becomes standardized, how you rethink questions of community, questions of political institution, writing genres, but also how certain issues that deal with questions, for instance, of racism and xenophobia and antisemitism—begin to influence or affect some of these relations. And I edited an anthology on this question, where you have a lot of—called The Arab Renaissance—that we teach texts from it. And you have all these Jewish intellectuals from Beirut, from Cairo, engaging with the Dreyfus affair in 1894 to 1895. I mean, the Dreyfus affair is a huge global scandal at the end of the nineteenth century. And you have Reuters cable for the beginning—the beginning of mass communication—media. Technology that are starting. So, people in Beirut are reading what’s happening in Paris to Dreyfus as the cables are arriving. So, then you see these questions. And then you have Zola, you have this Jewish woman from Beirut, Esther Moyal, who’s writing about Zola and how Zola is defending Dreyfus in his famous article, in J’Accuse…!. So, you also have solidarity among Muslim scholars saying: Where is the French universal now? I mean, where are these human rights and equality and fraternity of the French Revolution in the face of this xenophobia, antisemitism that’s coming out of France? So, it’s also interesting to create genealogies. Like, how do we connect the genealogy from Zola, through Beirut, through Esther Moyal, to the intellectuals speaking truth to power, to Foucault, and Sartre, and Edward Said? And how do you kind of bring different narratives to the students that expand, also, our understanding of what’s happening in the Middle East, and the kind of perspective of conflict? So, I think when October 7 happened, the students were part of the community thinking about these things in multiple ways, in diverse ways, and students coming from different backgrounds. HESCHEL: Yes. I would just to add to that, that it’s important for me, as the chair of the Jewish Studies Program, that we have alliances with the different departments and programs on campus, many different ones. So, I want courses that we teach in Jewish studies, but that are cross listed in African American studies, in sociology, history, religion, and government, and so forth, women’s studies. That’s very important to me. And not only because of the alliances that we can create, and in some sense reproduce what Tarek was just talking about in the Nahda, but also because this sheds light on aspects of Jewish history, of Jewish religious thought, that we wouldn’t otherwise recognize. We see, for example, the parallels between Jews coping with European modernity and Arabs coping, in very similar ways. And also, being horrified at some of the same things. So, the construction of our identities has some parallels. There’s a way in which teaching this class also demonstrates to students that there was a very different trajectory from what one might imagine, looking back from today and all of the conflicts and terrible events and catastrophes that are going on, even at this moment. But to see that there was something else that was blossoming. It didn’t last, but it may come back. And that also is an important element here, to give our students some hope. And to show them, also, that the situations, the conflicts that we look at, are terribly complex. So, we tell the students, don’t look for a simple narrative. Try to learn to hold onto complexity, something that can’t be unraveled easily. There is no bad witch and fairy godmother, bad guy and good guy. Don’t divide the world that way. That just exacerbates the polarization that’s affecting all of us. See the complexity. And look at the future. Imagine, optimistically, what you would like to see in twenty, thirty, fifty years. How can we get there? What are the roadblocks? What do we need to do? What can you, students, do? What problems can you tackle and overcome so that we can achieve something? Too often we are so mired in the present that we don’t think about the future. And we have to offer our students that possibility and encourage them to think about a better future for themselves. EL-ARISS: And this is—pedagogically, it’s really very important, especially now. When I look at the pictures coming out of the region, I mean, I’m devastated. But how do I deal with this devastation? And how do I transform it? Do I bring it to class as is? Because I feel like I always—I also write on monsters and really kind of dark things that are happening in the world. But also my cynicism and my sometime despair—I feel like when I’m in the classroom, I also have to give hope. I can’t also just bring it as it is to the classroom. I feel like in front of them, I want to be hopeful. I want to—and I do it organically. It is not almost by design, but it is almost something—because I feel like I owe it to that generation also. And this is also kind of a question about where our personal research and what we teach, how they come together, or they might differ. And how thinking pedagogically also is very important, especially in these moments of crisis. FASKIANOS: Thank you very much. I want to go to the group for questions and comments, and then we can continue the conversation. (Gives queuing instructions.) So, the first question we’re going to go to Mark Tessler. Q: This a great discussion. And I hope I can ask a question to each of the speakers to push a little bit. The end of the nineteenth century that Tarek has been talking about is really an important period. And he did a good job of describing it. But, it’s in the context of a region where there are centers and peripheries. And, I mean, I went to school in Tunisia, and I would say that’s part of the center, surprisingly. Egypt is the center, but Tunisia was not too far behind. But Palestine was the periphery. And it wasn’t totally untouched, but relatively speaking change was much less and much slower. And there’s an analysis by a number of Arab scholars, one of them was my professor a long time ago when I went to grad school, that this—I hesitate to use the word backwardness—but this relatively unchanged circumstance in Palestine, with a traditional inward-looking elite not really interested in the kinds of changes that are taking place in Egypt with the reopening of Ijtihad and so forth. And so, the argument is that that’s an important part of the story about why Palestinians fared so poorly in the context of their emerging confrontation with Zionism. And so, I cover this period a bit in my own course on Israel-Palestine. I forgot to say I’m at the University of Michigan, where I teach about the Middle East. And so, it’s interesting to think about this period and the larger implications that Dr. El-Ariss has been pointing out, very significant. But, if we kind of see what does that mean for Palestine, the story is going to be quite different. If I could ask a quick question, I’ll try to be brief, to Professor Heschel. And I read your father’s work, and glad to know a few. This is a really interesting story as well, in how the two people are struggling together to—I’ve done some writing on this myself earlier in my career—to find their way, to not lose their identity, to balance tradition, but to be of the modern world. This is not so much about Israel-Palestine, but this is an important story. But if we focus on, in particular, North Africa—and this would apply to Egypt to some extent, as well—this meant for the Jewish populations of those societies less of an alliance in the service of a joint struggle that they’re both engaging in, and more—it gets mixed up with colonialism. The Jewish elite, and to some extent, the Jewish masses becomes very European in their orientation. And so as we look to the evolution, the story isn’t quite as happy as—both of these peoples have common concerns. They’re facing them at the same time in history in response to the same stimuli from Europe. And, my goodness, the dialogue between them is enriching. And we have examples of that. But, I would say that it isn’t—and for at least the Maghreb, where there are half a million Jews—it’s not the most important part of the story. This quest for modernization in the end doesn’t build alliances with the Muslims in those countries. There are exceptions, but as a generalization. But rather, puts them if not politically—and sometimes it is political—but at least culturally on the side of the Europeans. And the divide between the indigenous Jewish population and the indigenous Muslim Arab population actually grows. So, just a few things to—food for thought. Thank you. FASKIANOS: Tarek, let’s go to you first, I think. EL-ARISS: Yeah. I mean, Mark, I think it’s a—I also need to push back against your comment. (Laughs.) But, I think it’s obviously a more complex story. I mean, a lot of the Palestinians are also studying at the Syrian Protestantn College in Beirut, a lot of Lebanese from out Lebanon are in Cairo founding Al-Ahram. So, the way you locate cultural development or Nahda, but the way you define center and periphery, I kind of—I contest this binary. And I think it’s a much more complex picture. And you have the movement across that region. I mean, you have also people who are writing in exile in France. You have people who are in Russia studying a lot of Lebanese Greek Orthodox, for instance, and Palestinians. So, we need to think territorially, but also in terms of that region itself as kind of engaging with these questions of modernity in interesting ways. And of course, it’s a complex relation to modernity. I mean, there is a pull. There is a rejection. There is a fascination. But if you look at it as a whole comprehensively, you see those kind of movements that we try to capture in our class. HESCHEL: So, Mark, of course I know who you are, and I know your work and admire it greatly. And far be it for me to—(laughs)—answer the questions that you yourself write about. I’d just say that of course I agree with you. And we—in our class—when we do talk about these issues, we range from everything from Jessica Marglin’s work to The Rabbi’s Cat. And I think one of the big problems we focus on is the Crémieux Decree, and that has larger resonances, in fact; the significance—the political significance of something like that, how that is to be evaluated and how something like that actually recurs throughout the course of Jewish history with often very dire consequences that you pointed out. So, thank you for the comment, and thank you for your work. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to take the next question, a written question from Alison Brysk at the University of California, Santa Barbara. She’s a professor of global governance. She appreciates your model but has had different disturbing experiences teaching contemporary poli-sci, and IR, and human rights classes on a very politicized campus. My whole agenda is universalism, context, international humanitarian law for all sides. But, about half of my students are simply locked into preexisting identities and convictions and will complain when I try to present a basic range of perspectives and evidence on roots of the conflict. Do you have any suggestions for the beleaguered public university when students experience humanistic history as hate speech? I don’t know who wants to start. HESCHEL: Go ahead, Tarek. EL-ARISS: This is something we also struggle with. I mean, this question of the universal; come back to it. That’s, of course, the critique of the universal as Eurocentric, as only covering or being framed along very specific political lines that exclude the other or that does not represent people who might come from, to come back to Mark’s term, the periphery in some way, whatever that periphery is. But again when you are thinking about conflict, how do you work outside of that framework? I mean, this is also the question. So how—we need it in order to think of a community of—we need to think of—do the critique of universality, but also take the good things, because we also have human rights. So, how are we going to talk about human rights? How are we going to talk about things that matter for everyone that we all need to care about and be mobilized if we only situate forms of identity or rights in the particular, and the particular that is defined in very specific ways? And I think there should be teachable moments like, OK, you don’t think—let’s ask the students or let’s organize teach-ins about, what do they mean by certain terms? I mean, I think we use terms and concepts really without knowing what they truly mean, or what their histories are. I mean, we are at the university. This is the place to actually engage and say what this kind of humanism or universality that is seen as Eurocentric and exclusive in many ways, then what is its history? How—did it not also influence the way people in that part—in Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, different parts of the world where they also think of themselves as modern subjects and as claimants to particular rights and traditions, and so forth? So, I know where we are. I mean, I understand the, kind of, current moment. But, how do we try to bring it to a level where, OK, what do you mean by this? Ask questions. Listen, but then ask questions, and open it up to a conversation. Maybe the class is about something else, but maybe because of the crisis, the class has to pivot or shift to a different moment that deals with a particular event that is unfolding in the world. HESCHEL: But let me just add that I understand a hundred percent and have experienced it, too. My sense is, first of all, students are very lonely. Identity—that kind of insistence on one’s own identity—is a very lonely position to take. Students will end up saying: You will never understand what it feels like to be me. And that needs to be challenged. It may be, I will never understand you and your identity, but I can help you understand yourself better. I can help you accept relationships with other people, and even be loved by other people. So, there have to be ways to open up and not end with the declaration of identity, and that is a problem. I also would say that a lot of students have a very strong sense of injustice, and I admire that and appreciate it. But, sometimes they get into a state of despair over it, and we need to make sure that we can lift them up and not let them sink into a hole of despair, but to talk in more concrete terms about what they can do and make it a viable engagement with injustice—overcoming injustice. So, those are just a few things. There’s so much more to say about it. But we both have experienced this, and we’re with you. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Next question from Margaret Lewis, who’s at Seton Hall University. Q: Thanks so much. I’m both a professor and an associate dean, so I think about this from several angles. So, I wanted just to think more broadly about navigating the academic discourse. It’s one thing to do that in an intimate course setting where you know the students, they know you. But, I wonder if you have thoughts, both about how to create community conversations or spaces outside of a class when we do have a situation that emerges—for example, not just one we’re having now, but go back to Freddie Gray or anything that’s really rocked our students. And then maybe separately, but if you have thoughts about university messaging, the emails that our students expect us to put out after events and the extent to which those are helpful. And, if so, how to craft them in ways that: Is it expressing care just for the students? How do we try to bring in different stakeholders to give us language that will work across different stakeholders? Any of that would be hugely helpful as we all navigate this. Thank you. FASKIANOS: Tarek, or— HESCHEL: Yeah. I’m not sure it’s a single answer that will address every institution because there are important differences. You say you’re at Seton Hall, which is Catholic, and it’s a different culture on campus. I’m familiar with that; I actually lectured there a few months ago. In terms of the statements, I found that the outrage over many university president statements puzzling initially. And then I realized, I suppose, people were psychologically/emotionally so devastated that it was a displacement, and then a lot of argumentation arose over the precise language of statements. I’m not sure if statements are the way to address emotional devastation or catastrophe. And the statements that were quite formal in the language, or politically oriented, perhaps that wasn’t the way to do it. I’m not sure—I haven’t been an administrator—exactly how to formulate it, but I think that’s—in those kinds of moments, that’s what people are looking for, some sense of support. I also think it’s important at the convocation in the fall—Tarek and I were discussing this earlier—for the university to make its message clear, the mission: What are you supposed to be doing here, undergraduates, at this university for the next four years? This is what we want to offer you. And then, at some point later on, have the students write something. What they’re looking for because the only essay you have from them really is for the admissions. And once they arrive, it would be good to hear from them: What do you want to get out of these four years? What do you want from your classes, from your professors, and so on? And then finally, I’d just say that the atmosphere in the classroom is very important—friendly, happy, a joyous atmosphere throughout the semester—to keep the students together as a group having a good time, feeling that they’re there for each other, forming a community. We find that very important when we’re teaching a class that can, in fact, give rise to terrible conflict. We want to avoid that. So, we bring cookies. We have an open door in our office. We have conversation. So, again, the atmosphere. Tarek, go ahead. EL-ARISS: Yeah. No, and I think also we need to rethink, I mean, outreach. We also go to the students. We go to different religious groups, different houses. I went. Susannah went. We go also into their own spaces. We don’t just organize the event and say come; we go to them. And when we bring people—we’ve organized a couple of forums and we brought some people from outside, and we said—we organized breakfast with the students. We have organized places where the students also feel comfortable. And it’s very important, this question of space and you going to them. And they, then, are hosting you on their own—their own dorms or their own whatever—houses and so on. I think that’s very important. And also, the administration is not—the more I think about it, it’s not one thing. It’s not like the administration is this abstract thing, like a tower in the middle of campus that’s—I mean, I’m also the administration. Susannah is also the administration. I mean, my office is open to these students. They come. I listen to them. Some of them are not happy with the way things are going. I comfort them. I sometimes transmit their messages to higher-ups and say this—and who ask me, actually, how are the students doing? And I say, I met with so-and-so, and he said this, or she said that. And also, I have say, okay, I have this kid that said, you’re going to run the Arabic Club this term, or you’re going to help me on this research dealing with these questions, because I also have the ability to recognize some of the things they’re struggling with. So, the administration, we have to—or how the university responds—has to be rethought, and also support organic processes that are already happening. Who among the faculty are in conversation? What can the administration do to give them more support, to highlight more what they’re doing? So, I mean, we’re seeing some efforts that are coming from high up, from the top down; like, OK, we’re going to have a task force and start dialogue. But, I think it’s important that the administration responds to what faculty are doing and supports it. So, support these organic processes, these community-building processes that, I think, are much more effective and are more likely to produce results than some sort of, kind of a, let’s bring a consultant and tell us what we have to do, and then form this committee, and then make everyone go through more drills about how to be a good citizen in this university. I don’t think that is effective. I don’t think it’s effective in—also in other contexts that we’ve been experiencing on campuses. FASKIANOS: I’m going to take a written question from Mark Diamond which is—I think follows onto this, from Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles: Could both of you share your thoughts about academic freedom on college campuses, especially as it relates to discourse on Israel and Palestine? When, if at all, is student or faculty discourse on campus out of bounds and poses a threat to others in the university? HESCHEL: Well, I can’t address the legal issues. I know that each university has a set of standards and so forth, and they may well vary. I know one college president of a Catholic university told the students: You may hold a prayer vigil, but you may not hold a demonstration. And that was that. So, that I don’t think happens everywhere, but that was one example. What is out of bounds? What’s out of bounds is, I would say first of all, people who don’t know very much about the topic that they’re addressing or screaming about. So, I begin with that. I was talking to some colleagues about this. Don’t teach a course if you don’t really know the subject or limit the course to what you know. I would encourage students who are deeply concerned about a political conflict to take courses on that conflict to get some background. We also encourage our students to think about what they can do in the future. Making a demonstration on a college campus is exciting, but actually, it can be more important to work for a political candidate, for example. To do canvassing and do work for an NGO, or come to Washington and be an aide at a congressional office. So, pointing that out to an 18-year-old is sometimes very helpful. Telling them that they can actually do something very concrete and powerful—not just on the college campus, but on the national level of politics. And then, I would say, yes, in terms of the kind of language and out of bounds, that’s really our point of our work. We wanted to demonstrate to the campus how to have a dialogue that’s respectful, that’s polite—even if we disagree—and that we talk to one another at a university in a way that’s different from the kind of conversation one has at a restaurant with your friends. We also emphasize that there’s a distinction between private and public. I may have some pretty strong views that I tell my family or my close friends—I’m not going to tell the whole world. That would be highly inappropriate. I think faculty need to be professional, and so do students. Once you’re in a university, you have to be a student. That’s a particular role, an academic role, and that, also, should be outlined to students when they’re admitted to the university, or at the fall convocation. Professional behavior is something we expect from everyone—from a doctor, a lawyer, a plumber, an electrician. I don’t want vulgar, sexist jokes when I’m consulting a physician, for example. And I don’t want a certain kind of language from faculty colleagues. So, these are basic standards of behavior that I think have been eroding in recent years, and we need to come back to them. EL-ARISS: Yeah, but we also understand that the university itself, the education and mission and the university as an institution, is no longer correspond to the model that we also study, or the Humboldt model, or the creation and the formation of the national subject. So, there is also something about the university itself that is shifting in terms of use, I mean, people say, if you also look at statistics about what people think of higher education in the U.S. and so on. So, there is a lot of questions about the university. What is the university? I mean, a lot of kids come to the university, they already know more than we do about a lot of things. They have technology on their side. Some of them are making money from apps that they created, and they talk to their parents, and they say is it really a good investment or not? So, also, we have to acknowledge that there is something about the university that—the humanistic tradition and the liberal tradition—that perhaps is no longer functioning in the same way that we imagine it to be. And we need to take this challenge seriously. And is the green a place where you take your students when it is nice out if you are in Ithaca or Ann Arbor—(laughs)—in April or end of April to do the class outside because you are missing the sun, or is the green a place of protest now, or identity affirmation. So, there are real fundamental questions about the university, and about our mission, and about our classrooms, and it’s not an either/or, it is not either this or that. How do we kind of bring the community into a space of negotiation where I understand that this is what the students are feeling right now, and they are angry, and they want to express themselves in an embodied fashion, and really do something about the world because we also expect them, when we ask them to apply how they are going to change the world. So, we also set them up for it. And so, we need to have a conversation about that. This is a moment of crisis, but it’s a moment of self-reflection that I think is really important to have—every university needs to have it, and it could have been some other crisis unfolding. But, I think this is an opportunity to ask these questions and have these conversations among—and Susannah was just we were talking today that we should have these conversations about—with faculty, with colleagues, cross-generationally, what do people think, how are they teaching, how do they come to the subject that they come to, what are their assumptions, what is the point of the classroom? Is it the political platform? Is it the place of intellectual inquiry? How do they come together? So, these are important questions I feel like, and this is the moment to ask them and engage them. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to take the next question from Heidi Lane. Q: Thank you very much. The question I have relates to things that I don’t actually experience in professional military education, but I have in teaching in universities like Dartmouth. And the question is, what do you think Dartmouth, or universities in general, should be doing to help faculty like yourselves engage in this kind of open, trust-building course? That’s the first question—because that really is a pressure that I think a lot of universities and administrators are feeling and navigating that for their faculty is maybe even as difficult as the relationship between the faculty and the students. That’s the first thing. And then the second question is, how do you change your model when you are teaching in, let’s say, an open session that’s like a lecture that is not part of the course? Because it’s one thing to build that trust within your class, within maybe twenty or so students over a semester, but it’s another thing to apply that same model when you are going into an open session and maybe even people from outside the campus are coming. So, thank you. HESCHEL: Those are big questions—thank you. There’s much to say. I’ll just say briefly, so on October 9, Monday morning at 9:00 a.m. my phone rang. It was the dean of faculty at Dartmouth calling to tell me that the president of Dartmouth—who was new, Sian Beilock—had asked her to get in touch with me because the president wanted to have dialog on campus. So, too often, I am afraid administrations aren’t really aligned with their own faculty. They don’t know who is teaching what, or who has what expertise, and they don’t turn to faculty in moments like this. And I actually—I’ve seen that happen after October 7 at times when I thought why didn’t the president call the faculty? Get the faculty, who are the ones working with students, to set up the kinds of forums that we held. I think it would have been very helpful. There is sometimes not a close enough relationship at some colleges and universities between administration and faculty, and faculty can actually help a great deal since we’re spending every day with the students in the classroom. So, that’s one thing. I think another issue is, when we hire faculty, we have to make sure we are hiring people who are willing to engage in dialogue. Who are willing to sit down and talk to people, or teach with people, from other programs, people who have different backgrounds with whom they may disagree. If they are willing, and enthusiastically, willing to do that kind of teaching, then I say bravo, hire them. But, those who are unwilling—that’s a problem at a university. If we aren’t talking to each other as faculty, then the institution is going to fall apart. We need to have that engagement; that includes in the sciences, the biologists and the geologists talk to each other. So, we have to foster that and make that an imperative, actually, a criterion for faculty. Are they engaged with one another? Are they open, willing to talk? There is more to say, but Tarek, you go ahead. EL-ARISS: No, I mean, basically recognize where there are efforts and where there are conversations—productive conversations—and see how you can support them; support them financially, support them logistically, get assigned space, fund—I mean, we’re lucky, really. We’re really lucky, I mean, in many ways, to have each other, but also to have an administration that was very receptive and very supportive, and said, what do you need? How can we help you to continue to do this? And that was very important. And they understood that, and they recognized—they knew us but we were kind of, I would say, a bit under the radar, and there is a new administration and new kind of leadership. So, again, it’s like, immediately they recognized that, OK, they are doing something, and what can we do to support it? How can we make it grow? How can we—and they continue to do that. And we took the initiative. We also went on a retreat to think about courses, to think about people we want to invite. So, I mean, I think it’s important that you have an administration, who are on the ground—(laughs)—are talking to faculty, who have their hand on the pulse and see where these collaborations are, and then try to figure out ways where—again, the changes are not coming from some cookie-cutter model that’s coming from the outside and being imposed on the campus, on the faculty, but actually—I mean, I’m a literary critic, and I always tell the students read the text; like do a close reading. So, do your close reading and see what is happening, and then from there, you move to the theoretical. No, don’t impose the theory on the situation, but rather let it come out of what is happening on the ground. And I think—so, this requires this different administrative direction from what we’ve been witnessing, which is bringing people from outside and training us in all kinds of ways to be better teachers, and more humane, and so on. And that’s taking the place of a lot of the things we do like the humanity especially—(laughs)—which is supposed to be doing that. So, recognize and build these infrastructures of support by recognizing what is happening on your campus, and the particularity of your campus, and your student body, and your geographic location. HESCHEL: What Tarek is trying to emphasize is that what’s important for the college is teaching that engages students in a dialogue, that brings students from different positions together, that that’s what should be recognized as the most important innovation in teaching and the most important thing for the future of the college and for the students, and not the size of the classroom, let’s just say, yeah? FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to take the next question from Karen Jackson-Weaver who is associate vice president of global inclusive faculty engagement and innovation advancement at NYU, and she also comes as a former dean at both Princeton and Harvard Kennedy School. So, she thanks you both for the important framing of your collaboration in the work you’ve done at Dartmouth. My sense is that the kind of sophistication and complexity that Professor Heschel mentioned that is very much needed is missing in academic discourse and in many conversations taking place on college campuses. Do you have any suggested guides or resources that you can share, which have been useful in the Dartmouth community and elevate the discourse in a meaningful way? HESCHEL: Look, that’s a great question, and it’s going to be waking me up in the middle of the night because I’m going to think of some things to tell you. But I would just say that I come to this because I wrote book about a Jewish scholar writing about the Jewishness of the New Testament, Jesus in the context of Judaism, and so on. Abraham Geiger was his name—and how the Christians responded to his arguments—very negatively, very critical—and he responded to them, and so on. So, there was a kind of engagement that I analyzed very carefully, something primarily from the late 1850s, 1860s, and 1870s, and that gave me a way of sort of understanding the subtlety of arguments, how they were perceived in the moment. So, that trained me to look for things like this, and I think that’s what I bring to this kind of situation: this way of trying to engage in—yeah? EL-ARISS: Yeah. I mean, my simple answer would be us. (Laughs.) But, we’ve actually been working on coming up with some dialogue, reflections on dialogue, or some resources that might—about this because this is also something that we’re thinking about—not about what we’re doing, but also as some sort of values that I think are important, not just for us, for our campus, and for the different constituencies on our campus who want to engage in this, who want to organize events dealing with these questions. So, I think eventually we will develop something, but this is not—I mean, really, we were just doing our normal work and—(laughs)—working on the—( HESCHEL: Yeah, but I would say that we understand that fields develop by engaging with different disciplines, with different theoretical models. That’s how we move ahead in a field. So, I would say, first of all, to any faculty member, think about how your field has developed and what has generated new ideas. What’s made it exciting is to engage with others; not to simply hide in its own corner. OK. FASKIANOS: OK, I’m going to go next to Stephen Zunes, with the raised hand. (Pause.) Yeah, we can hear you. Can you hear us? Q: OK. How about now? EL-ARISS: Yes. HESCHEL: Yes. FASKIANOS: Yes, we can. Q: OK, hi. I’m Stephen Zunes, University of San Francisco. I’ve been teaching Israel and Palestine for over thirty-five years now, and there’s been a big shift in, sort of, the assumptions that students come in with. I mean, when I first started teaching, pretty much every student was familiar with the Israeli narrative, but not really aware of the Palestinian narrative, so I had to bend over backwards to make sure they knew that, as well. Today, if anything, it’s the other way around. It’s been quite striking, the shift—generational shift. I mean, maybe because the larger percentage are people of color. These people—this is a generation where black lives matter, indigenous rights—whereas our generation where the nationalism was a progressive force, and many of us saw Zionism as a national liberation movement for Jews. Nationalism seems more of a reactionary force to today’s youth of the Eastern Europe, and everything else, and Israel is seen more as a colonial settler-state. And, I was wondering, since it appears you all have been teaching this for a while, too, I was wondering if you’ve noticed similar shifts, and how you might have adjusted your teaching in light of this. EL-ARISS: I think—I don’t know, I think a lot of our students come—they don’t know a lot about this, and maybe this is where we are, or different campuses. I mean, there are some students who know and who are engaged. But I think what we try to do is that we try to kind of give them the longer history of this, so take them back to the eighteenth century, nineteenth century, and to see where they ended up—so not to kind of focus—like, we have colleagues who teach, like, Israel—the politics of Israel-Palestine and focus on the contemporary conflict, so they are more—(laughs)—they can tell you more about what the students say about those particular narratives. But, the students who come to us really don’t know anything beyond like the contemporary conflict if they know anything. So, we try to take them to places that really are uncharted—Damascus affair, the Dreyfus affair—I mean, Max Nordau on early Zionism. I mean, so texts that are foundational—and then they take politics of Israel-Palestine, and then they engage it, and they have a different understanding. So, we try to do the kind of earlier work to open up those narratives, so we’re not just simply pro-Palestinian, or pro-Israeli, or outside of these just simple binaries. We kind of take them even to open a wider horizon. HESCHEL: I would just add that I think—I’ve also noticed what you’ve noticed. There seems to be, also, just a wide rift generationally on these political issues and on many others as well, of course. And what I found in the course that I taught together with Jonathan Smolin in the fall on the 1967 war, sometimes called the Six-Day War, students came in and they thought they knew something—on both sides, by the way—but it turns out they didn’t. So, that’s one thing—to show students what they don’t know; that what they know is only a drop in the bucket, and there is so much more. Also, to show them that whatever you think there is something new that comes in that actually contradicts that assumption because there is so much evidence coming from so many different parts of the world—because it’s not ever really about just Israel and Palestine; it’s about nearly every other country one can think of, from the United States to China. So, the complexity is something. And then another—finally I want to say, sometimes students come in and they are looking for somebody to blame. That’s something important for us to address. This is not about blaming one side or the other, and sometimes, for example, yeah, one side is bad and one side is good. Sometimes both are bad. And when both are bad, I tell them. Even someone who has committed a terrible crime, don’t you still care about that person that is still a human being, who should be treated with dignity? So, let’s keep that in mind as well. Let’s remember that even those who do terrible things, nonetheless, these are human beings. There are reasons for it. Let’s figure that out, let’s see what we can do about it. But, don’t just dismiss it and say, oh, well, they’re terrible; let’s walk away—so to keep the students engaged all the time, to show the complexity, to show that it’s more and more and more complex, involving so many different groups, and not try to reduce it to bad guys, good guys, this one is to blame, this one is the innocent. Nobody ultimately, in politics, is innocent, and nobody is a hundred percent guilty. They become interlocking as we know, and they are doing that dance. What was the line about Fred Astaire danced with—who was it? Not Jane Crawford—Ginger Rogers, but she did everything he did but backwards and wearing high heels. So, there are ways in which each side influences the other, and we have to think about it in those terms as well. They are not separate from each other. So, those are some of the ways we try to overcome the biases that they walk into the classroom with, and we ask them sometimes, how has your mind changed in the last few weeks of the course? Every few weeks ask them that. What changes here when we bring you this document, or this fact that you didn’t know about? And hopefully they will experience the class as something uplifting and exciting, and that they will know that they are coming away as a different person with so much more knowledge. So, thanks for the question. FASKIANOS: And with that, we are at the end of our hour. I’m sorry that we couldn’t get to all the questions, raised hands, but I can say that I wish I were at Dartmouth and could take your class. (Laughs.) So, maybe perhaps you should do it and have it be available online to a broader group. I don’t know. (Laughs.) It’s a thought. Thank you very much, Tarek El-Ariss and Susannah Heschel, for this wonderful hour. We do appreciate it. And to all of you for your questions and comments. And we encourage you to follow us at @CFR_academic on X and visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analyses on global issues. And we look forward to your continued participation in CFR programs. So, thank you again. (END)