Judy Woodruff discusses Colin Powell's legacy with two men who knew him well: Richard Haass was the director of policy planning at the State Department when Powell was secretary of state during the George W. Bush administration. He's now president of the Council on Foreign Relations. Michael Gordon reports on the Defense Department, and has authored several books about the U.S. military. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
This week, Alice Hill, climate risk and resilient expert with the Council on Foreign Relations, joins CSIS Energy Security and Climate Change Program Director Joseph Majkut and discusses her recent book, The Fight for Climate After COVID-19. The two explore lessons from the response to covid-19 to inform building resilience in the face of climate risks, how states can better prepare for climate impacts, and if adaptation might have a role at COP26.
President Biden recently made a nuclear submarine deal with the UK and Australia to counter China's military influence in the Pacific. But what does that mean for future trade deals that could counter the communist country's economic influence? Ian Johnson with the Council on Foreign Relations chatted with Boyd about what the US has to balance to be in the best position possible. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In May, Hamas leaders in Gaza — a territory from which Israelis withdrew in 2005 — launched more than 4,000 missiles at Israel, sparking an eleven-day conflict that would have been bloodier — on both sides — had the Israelis not been in possession of the Iron Dome, a marvel of engineering that intercepts and destroys short-range missiles before they can reach their intended victims. In other words, it is not a sword but a shield. Last month, far-left House Democrats blocked a bill to keep the federal government operating until it was stripped of funds to help Israelis replenish interceptors for the Iron Dome. A few days later, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer brought Iron Dome up as a stand-alone bill. There were 420 votes in favor and nine opposed. To discuss these and related issues, Foreign Podicy host Cliff May is joined by Jacob Nagel, who has served in the Israeli Defense Forces, the Israeli Defense Ministry, and the Prime Minister's Office including as the head of Israel's National Security Council and acting National Security Advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He headed the “Nagel Committee,” which was responsible for Israel's decision to develop Iron Dome. He also led the negotiations and signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for U.S. military aid to Israel from 2018 to 2027. He's currently a visiting professor at the Technion Aerospace Engineering Faculty and a senior fellow at FDD. Also joining the conversation: Enia Krivine, Senior Director of FDD's Israel Program as well as FDD's National Security Network; and Bradley Bowman, senior director of FDD's Center on Military and Political Power. Before joining FDD, Enia's work focused on strengthening U.S.-Israel relations including at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC); the Israel Allies Foundation; and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, where she served as a Middle East fellow. Brad has served as a national security advisor to members of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees. Prior to that, he was an active-duty U.S. Army officer, Black Hawk pilot, and assistant professor at West Point.
Chris, Melanie, and Zack return to discuss Richard Haass's critique of “Washington's new flawed foreign policy consensus.” The Council on Foreign Relations president laments the bipartisan turn away from the mostly internationalist spirit that has informed U.S. foreign policy since the end of the World War II. Is he right? Does such a consensus exist? And does that explain why successive U.S. presidents seem so skeptical of internationalism? The three also try to discern what Haass favors as an alternative, but conclude that dissatisfaction with the current direction of U.S. foreign policy doesn't easily translate into specific and implantable policies. Grievances for Katherine Tai for an underwhelming speech on U.S. trade policy, for Sens. Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley for holding up ambassadorial appointments, and to those who harassed Sen. Kyrsten Sinema — in the restroom! — for being … jerks. Attagirl to Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Ressa who braved abuse and intimidation for uncovering corruption and misrule in the Philippines and elsewhere. Chris gives a shout out to Reps. Jim McGovern and Peter Meijer for introducing legislation to rein in executive power, and Melanie praises the developers at GlaxoSmithKline for their life-saving new malaria vaccine. She also gives a special shout out to her nephew Zack and his Utah state champion golf team at Long Peak High School. Links: Richard Haass, “The Age of America First: Washington's Flawed New Foreign Policy Consensus,” Foreign Affairs, November/December 2021, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2021-09-29/biden-trump-age-america-first. Richard Haass, “What Mike Pompeo doesn't understand about China, Richard Nixon and U.S. foreign policy,” Washington Post, July 25, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/25/what-mike-pompeo-doesnt-understand-about-china-richard-nixon-us-foreign-policy/. New American Engagement Initiative Annual Student Competition, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/programs/scowcroft-center-for-strategy-and-security/new-american-engagement-initiative/naei-annual-student-competition/. New American Engagement Initiative Future Foreign Policy series with Rep. Joaquin Castro, Monday, Oct. 18 at 3:30 pm, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/event/future-foreign-policy-series-featuring-rep-joaquin-castro/. “America is shorthanded in foreign affairs. Thanks, Ted Cruz,” Washington Post, Oct. 10, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/10/america-is-shorthanded-foreign-affairs-thanks-ted-cruz/. Ankit Panda Twitter, https://twitter.com/nktpnd/status/1447366126447570946?s=12. Apoorva Mandavilli, "A 'Historic Event': First Malaria Vaccine Approved by WHO," New York Times, Oct. 6, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/06/health/malaria-vaccine-who.html. Connor O'Brien, “Lawmakers aim for blockbuster overhaul of war powers, arms sales,” POLITICO, Sept. 30, 2021, https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/30/war-powers-act-bipartisan-overhaul-514794. Dina Smeltz, Ivo Daalder, Karl Friedhoff, Craig Kafura, and Emily Sullivan, "A Foreign Policy for the Middle Class--What Americans Think," Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Oct. 2021, https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/ccs2021_fpmc_0.pdf. Peggy Noonan, "Progressives Hold the Capital Captive," Wall Street Journal, Oct. 7, 2021, https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-progressives-aoc-squad-sinema-reconciliation-infrastructure-lbj-approval-polling-11633643510. Tyler Haslam, "High School Golf: Kihei Akina Leads Lone Peak Knights to 8th State Title in 9 Years," Deseret News, Oct. 5, 2021, https://www.deseret.com/2021/10/5/22708095/high-school-golf-kihei-akina-leads-lone-peak-knighs-to-8th-state-title-in-9-years-6a-uhsaa.
Co-Founder & Managing Partner David Perez sits down with Jordan Selleck on this episode of Investors & Operators to discuss… David's journey from Cuba, to East Germany, to America Learning to be uncomfortable How to bring meaning into your life and so much more….. David Perez is a Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Avance Investment Management, LLC. Prior to founding Avance, David was the President and COO of Palladium Equity Partners. Prior to Palladium, he had several senior private equity roles, including Principal of General Atlantic Partners and Atlas Venture and Senior Associate of Chase Capital Partners. David started his career with James D. Wolfensohn and Co, focused on mergers and acquisitions. David earned his B.S. in Systems Engineering from Dresden University of Technology, a M. Eng. in Engineering Management from Cornell University, and an MBA from Harvard Business School. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a Co-Chair of the Harvard University Cuba Studies Advisory Group, a member of the Cornell Engineering School Advisory Group, President of the Board of Trustees of the Trinity School in New York City, and a longstanding board member and former President of the Board of Ballet Hispánico. He also served as Chairman of the Board of the NAIC. David lives in New York with his wife and three children.
For those hoping the coronavirus pandemic was under control in Asia, the summer has been a nasty shock. A resurgence of Covid-19 across Malaysia, Thailand, Myanmar, Indonesia and elsewhere, mainly associated with the spread of the Delta variant, has put paid to the idea the region was nearing the end of the health crisis. Even in countries like China, where the virus seems to have been restrained, the way forward is not clear. Almost two years into the pandemic, as economies reel and populations chafe under continuing restrictions, questions are mounting over how sustainable a hardline approach may be.Joining us to discuss the current state of play in the region are Yanzhong Huang, senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations; and Peter Mumford, a political risk analyst who is now the practice head for South East and South Asia at Eurasia Group in Singapore.As usual you can find more information at our website, asiamatterspod.com
VCFamilia member Marco Casas is a Venezuelan-born professional who has been named to Business Insider's "100 rising stars who represent the future of venture capital." His career extends across early-stage ventures and global public companies. Marco is passionate about fintech and other disruptive technologies closing gaps of access to capital, opportunity, and outcomes. Marco pursues these interests via a partnerships and business development full-time role at American Express, and via Angel investing and active participation in organizations like VCFamilia, a Latinx in tech community, Toy Ventures, an operator-led venture fund, Rally Cap Ventures, an emerging markets fintech fund, On Deck Fintech and the Council of Foreign Relations, where Marco is a Term Member. Marco received his BA in political science from Middlebury College and MBA degrees from Columbia and London Business School. He's a proud Latinx immigrant, now settled in New York by way of Swaziland and Russia. Outside of work, Marco is active in the community, serving on the associate board of the Madison Square Boys & Girls Club. He is a happy husband and father of two girls. https://www.linkedin.com/in/marcocasas/
Over a year ago, on 4 August 2020, one of the world's most powerful non-nuclear explosions devastated Beirut, killing 218 people. While Lebanon dominated global news headlines then, attention has since fizzled. Amidst political stagnation, disastrous inflation and shortages in basic commodities from fuel to medicine, Lebanon seems in free fall. In this webinar, nearly two years on from the 17 October Revolution, we hear from speakers active in the fields of politics, labour union organising, urban space and law, who will address the aftermath of the Beirut explosion, the future of political activism, the upcoming elections and what may be emerging in Lebanon. Ghida Frangieh is a lawyer and researcher based in Beirut. She has been a member of the Legal Agenda since 2011 and is currently the head of its Strategic Litigation Unit. The Legal Agenda is a law and society research and advocacy organization with offices in Beirut and Tunis. Ghida recently worked on producing a legal guide for the victims of the Beirut blast of 4 August 2020 to support their path to justice. She holds a Master's degree in Applied Human Rights from France and has produced various publications related to social justice and human rights issues. She is also a founding member of Ruwad Al-Houkouk Association and the Lawyers Committee for the Defense of Protesters. Ibrahim Halawi is a Teaching Fellow in International Relations at Royal Holloway, University of London. His research interests focus on theories and histories of counterrevolution and revolution, with an emphasis on counterrevolution and revolution in the Middle East. He has published in peer-reviewed journals and established outlets on Lebanon, as well as revolution and sectarianism more broadly. Ibrahim is also the Secretary of Foreign Relations for Citizens in a State party, a progressive secular Lebanese party. Abir Saksouk graduated as an architect in 2005, and later did her masters in Urban Development Planning. She is co-founder and co-director of Public Works Studio, a research-based organization that addresses spatial inequality in Lebanon. Her primary focus includes urbanism and law, property and shared space, and right to the city of marginalized communities. Abir is also a member of the Legal Agenda and co-founder of Dictaphone Group. Omar Al-Ghazzi is Assistant Professor in the Department of Media and Communications at LSE. His work focuses on questions around the global power asymmetries in the reporting and representation of conflict. He researches digital journalism, the politics of time and memory, and the geopolitics of popular culture, with a focus on the Middle East and North Africa.
What do the recent elections in Germany mean for the country's foreign and security policy going forward? Sophia Besch and Jana Puglierin join Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Jim Townsend to discuss the different potential coalition options, the likelihood of continuity with the policies of Angel Merkel, and the future of German relations with Europe, the U.S., and China. Sophia Besch is a senior research fellow at the Centre for European Reform. She works on European defense issues, with a focus on EU Common Defense and Security Policy, European defense industry co-operation, NATO and German foreign and defense policy. Sophia also hosts the CER podcast. Jana Puglierin is the head of the Berlin office and a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. She directs ECFR's Re:shape Global Europe project, which seeks to develop new strategies for Europeans to understand and engage with the changing international order. Jana has also advised the German Bundestag as an expert on arms control and non-proliferation.
Tensions have been growing between China and Taiwan, with swirling speculation of a conflict that could ultimately involve the U.S. We hear about the mood in Taipei with Wen-Ti Sung, a Taiwan expert and lecturer at the Australian National University; and discuss what might be needed to keep the peace with David Sacks, a research fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations; and Wenran Jiang, a former professor of political science at the University of Alberta and now an advisor with the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy.
A more interconnected world was supposed to bring us closer together, but Mark Leonard, director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, says the opposite has occurred. He joins Carl Miller to discuss his new book The Age of Unpeace: How Connectivity Causes Conflict, which argues that technology and a lack of joined up thinking is affecting communication on every level. From standoffs between nation states to individuals hurling insults on social media, Mark identifies how connectivity is being mismanaged and exploited during an era in which defining narratives are ever more elusive to pin down.To find out more about the book click here: https://www.waterstones.com/book/the-age-of-unpeace/mark-leonard/9780552178273 Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/intelligencesquared. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Newt has a fascinating conversation with the billionaire philanthropist, David Rubenstein, author of The American Experiment: Dialogues on a Dream. He is cofounder and co-executive chairman of The Carlyle Group, a global private equity firm. He is also the Chairman of the Boards of Trustees of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and the Council on Foreign Relations. He is an original signer of The Giving Pledge and the host of The David Rubenstein Show on Bloomberg TV and PBS. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
In this episode of “Keen On”, Andrew is joined by Janine di Giovanni, the author of “The Vanishing: Faith, Loss, and the Twilight of Christianity in the Land of the Prophets”, to discuss the plight and possible extinction of Christian communities across Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and Palestine after 2,000 years in their historical homeland. Janine di Giovanni is an author, journalist and war correspondent. She is a senior fellow at Yale University's Jackson Institute for Global Affairs, a non-resident Fellow at The New America Foundation and the Geneva Center for Security Policy in International Security, a member of the British government's Stabilization Unit for Fragile States and a life member of the Council on Foreign Relations. She was named a 2019 Guggenheim Fellow, and in 2020, the American Academy of Arts and Letters awarded her the Blake-Dodd nonfiction prize for her lifetime body of work. She has contributed to The Times, Vanity Fair, Granta, The New York Times, and The Guardian. Visit our website: https://lithub.com/story-type/keen-on/ Email Andrew: email@example.com Watch the show live on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ajkeen Watch the show live on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ankeen/ Watch the show live on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lithub Watch the show on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/LiteraryHub/videos Subscribe to Andrew's newsletter: https://andrew2ec.substack.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this special edition of "Technically Human," we feature a live public conversation about the future of democracy, technology, and public policy. In 2017, Yaël Eisenstat came onboard Facebook to change it, joining the company as its Global Head of Elections Integrity Operations. What she discovered while working there alarmed her. She started speaking out, becoming a leading critic of tech's threat to democracy.In this conversation, I sit down with Yaël in front of a live audience to ask: How can American Democracy persevere in the age of social media? Why does tech need regulation? Who can reign in Big Tech? What can we do to help? Yaël Eisenstat works at the intersection of tech, democracy, and policy, with a focus on what the public square and open, democratic debate look like in the digital world. She works as a Future of Democracy Fellow at Berggruen Institute and a policy advisor to start-ups, governments, and investors looking to align technology to better serve the public. She has spent 20 years working around the globe on democracy and security issues as a CIA officer, a White House advisor, the Global Head of Elections Integrity Operations for political advertising at Facebook, a diplomat, and the head of a global risk firm. She was a Researcher-in-Residence at Betalab in 2020-21 and a Visiting Fellow at Cornell Tech's Digital Life Initiative in 2019-2020, where she focused on technology's effects on discourse and democracy and taught a multi-university course on Tech, Media and Democracy. Yaël Eisenstat has become a key voice and public advocate for transparency and accountability in tech, particularly where real-world-consequences affect democracy and societies around the world. Her recent TED talk addresses these issues and proposes ideas for how government and society should hold the companies accountable. In 2017, she was named in Forbes' list of “40 Women to Watch Over 40”. She is also an Adjunct Professor at NYU's Center for Global Affairs, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and she provides context and analysis on social media, elections integrity, political and foreign affairs in the media. She has been published in the New York Times, the Washington Post, Brookings Techstream, TIME, WIRED, Quartz and The Huffington Post, has appeared on CNN, BBC World News, CBS Sunday Morning, Bloomberg News, CBS News, PBS and C-SPAN, in policy forums, and on a number of podcasts. She earned an M.A. in International Affairs from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). This episode was produced by Matt Perry. Art by Desi Aleman.
On September 15, 2021, The Federalist Society's Practice Groups hosted a conference titled The Antitrust Paradox: Where We've Been and Where We're Going. This panel covered antitrust law reform proposals and discussed their marketplace implications. These experts and practioners offered their divergent views on where antitrust law is headed and where it should go.Featuring:Daren Bakst, Senior Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy Studies, The Heritage FoundationHon. Maureen Ohlhausen, Partner, Baker Botts LLP; former Acting Chair, Federal Trade CommissionMark Whitener, Senior Policy Fellow, Georgetown Center for Business & Public Policy; former Global Executive Counsel, General Electric CompanyModerator: Hon. Brent McIntosh, Adjunct Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations; former Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, U.S. Department of the Treasury* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On today's episode of The Literary Life, Mitchell Kaplan talks to The Betsy hotel owner Jonathan Plutzik about its history in Miami Beach and why a hotel should be a space for comfort and healing through the arts. Jonathan Plutzik retired as a Vice-Chairman of Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB), in 2003, after a 25-year career. His responsibilities included oversight for the firm's work with U. S. state and local governments, international privatization initiatives, investment banking activities in Washington, D.C. and global financial services. He also led the CSFB team that provided advisory services to the City of New York during the city's financial crisis. From 2003 to 2005 Jonathan served as Chairman of Firaxis Games, a leading computer game company and home of Civilization, the widely acclaimed strategy game. Jonathan's philanthropic work is considerable. He has a long legacy of charitable leadership as Chairman of the Board of the CORO New York Leadership Center, with additional Executive Leadership service to UJA-Federation of NY (including having served as a member of the Board and Executive Committee and Director of the Caring Commission, and he was Chair of the UJA-Federations Connect to Caring initiative.) He also serves as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is on the Board of Directors of Fannie Mae and recently accepted a position on the founding board of Planet Word, a new Washington, D.C.-based museum that is dedicated to and focused on Language Arts. Jonathan received his B.A. from Brandeis University and his M.B.A. from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Jonathan is Co-President of the PG Family Foundation in NYC, and principal owner of The Betsy-South Beach, (www.thebetsyhotel.com), a hotel known for its community-based philanthropic work and its commitment to arts and culture. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
“We live in buildings and cities because that's what generates a living for a lot of people, but where we're most comfortable as humans is when we're in nature. Your generation owns this. Don't let anybody take it from you or damage it because you own it. The next generation is the one that owns it and view it with a sense of ownership and a sense of pride and a sense of protection because there are a lot of benefits you get from nature.”Ron Gonen is the Founder and CEO of Closed Loop Partners, a New York Based investment firm that focuses on building the circular economy. In his fulfilling career, Ron has been recognized as the “Champion of Earth” by the United Nations Environment Program. Serving as the Deputy Commissioner of Sanitation, Recycling and Sustainability in New York City under the Bloomberg Administration, Ron Gonen is a visionary and his idea of the circular economy is certainly the way of the future.In 2021, he released his first book with Penguin Random House, The Waste Free World: How the Circular Economy Will Take Less, Make More, and Save the Planet, highlighting how companies that utilize circular economy business models will generate the most value and lead their industries. Earlier in his career, Ron was the Co-Founder and CEO of RecycleBank from 2003-2010. He started his career at Deloitte Consulting. Ron was a Henry Catto Fellow at the Aspen Institute and past term member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He holds a number of technology and business method patents in the recycling industry.· www.closedlooppartners.com · www.oneplanetpodcast.org · www.creativeprocess.info
Ron Gonen is the Founder and CEO of Closed Loop Partners, a New York Based investment firm that focuses on building the circular economy. In his fulfilling career, Ron has been recognized as the “Champion of Earth” by the United Nations Environment Program. Serving as the Deputy Commissioner of Sanitation, Recycling and Sustainability in New York City under the Bloomberg Administration, Ron Gonen is a visionary and his idea of the circular economy is certainly the way of the future.In 2021, he released his first book with Penguin Random House, The Waste Free World: How the Circular Economy Will Take Less, Make More, and Save the Planet, highlighting how companies that utilize circular economy business models will generate the most value and lead their industries. Earlier in his career, Ron was the Co-Founder and CEO of RecycleBank from 2003-2010. He started his career at Deloitte Consulting. Ron was a Henry Catto Fellow at the Aspen Institute and past term member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He holds a number of technology and business method patents in the recycling industry.· www.closedlooppartners.com · www.oneplanetpodcast.org · www.creativeprocess.info
Gideon talks to Ulrike Franke of the European Council on Foreign Relations about Olaf Scholz's election win, his Social Democratic party's likely alliance with the Greens and Free Democrats, and whether this will lead to a change of direction for Germany. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Thomas Graham, distinguished fellow at CFR, leads a conversation on constraining Putin's Russia. FASKIANOS: Welcome to today's session of the CFR Fall 2021 Academic Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today's meeting is on the record, and the video and transcript will be available on our website CFR.org/academic if you would like to share it with your colleagues or classmates. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have Thomas Graham with us to talk about Putin's Russia. Mr. Graham is a distinguished fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a senior advisor at Kissinger Associates, where he focuses on Russian and Eurasian affairs. He is cofounder of the Russian, East European, and Eurasian studies program at Yale University, and is also a research fellow at the MacMillan Center at Yale. He previously served as special assistant to President George W. Bush and senior director for Russia on the National Security Council staff from 2004 to 2007, and director for Russian affairs from 2002 to 2004. His résumé is very distinguished. I will just also say that he is a U.S. diplomat who served two tours of duty in Moscow, where he worked on political affairs. So, Mr. Graham, thanks very much for being with us today. I thought you could get us started by talking about the primary interests at stake in U.S.-Russia relations. GRAHAM: Great. Thank you very much, Irina, for that introduction, and it's a real pleasure to be with all of you here today. I want to start with three broad points that will frame the rest of our discussion. The first is that the problem that the United States faces is not simply with Putin; it is with Russia more generally speaking. The last seven years of very difficult, challenging adversarial relationship is really not an aberration in the history of the relationship between our two countries. In fact, from the moment the United States emerged as a major power on the global stage at the very end of the nineteenth century, we have had a rivalry with Russia. And the issues that divide us today are the ones that divided us 125, 150 years ago: We have opposing worldviews. We have different geopolitical interests. And clearly, we have different systems of values that inform our domestic political systems. This rivalry has intensified, ebbed and flowed during the twentieth century. But the effort we made at partnership after the breakup of the Soviet Union up until 2014, marked by the eruption of the crisis in Ukraine, is really the aberration in the history of relations between our two countries and one that was founded very much on the fact that Russia endured a period of strategic weakness. So the issue we have to deal with Russia and how we're going to deal with Russia well into the future, even after Putin departs—which he will, obviously, at some point, if only for biological reasons. The second point that I would make is that Russia is not going to go away. We hear a lot in the public debate in the United States about Russian decline, about the population/demographic problems it has, about its stagnating economy, and so forth. None of this is necessarily untrue, but I think it tends to exaggerate the problems that Russia faces. It ignores the problems that all other major countries face—including China, the United States, and many major European countries—but it also overlooks the very great strengths that Russia has had for decades that are going to make it a player and an important player on the global stage, nuclear weapons to begin with. We should never forget that Russia remains the only country that can destroy the United States as a functioning society in thirty minutes. Russia has the largest natural endowment of any country in the world, a country that can pretend to self-sufficiency and, in fact, is better placed than most other countries to deal with a breakdown in globalization in the decades to come if that, indeed, happens. It has a veto on the U.N. Security Council, which makes it an important player on issues of importance to the United States, and it has a talented population that has fostered a scientific community that, for example, is capable of taking advances in technology and developing the military applications from them. Just look at the strength that Russia exhibits in cyberspace, for example—again, a major challenge for the United States. So Russia is going to continue to be a challenge. One other thing that I should have mentioned here is that the Russian state throughout history and Putin's Russia today has demonstrated a keen ability to mobilize the resources of their own society for state purposes. So even if in relative terms they may be weaker and weakening vis-à-vis China and the United States, in some ways that political will, that ability to mobilize, allows Russia to play a much larger role than mere indicators of its economic size and population size would suggest. Now, Russia clashes with the United States across a whole range of issues, and as I said that is going to continue for some time. And this brings me to my third point: How we should think about American foreign policy, what our guidelines should be in dealing with Russia. And here there are three, I think, key elements to this. First, the United States needs to preserve strategic stability. We need to have that nuclear balance between us (sic) and the United States. This is an existential question. And as I already mentioned, Russia does have a tremendous nuclear capability. Second, the United States should seek to manage its competition with Russia responsibly. We want to avoid or reduce the risk of a direct military conflict that could escalate to the nuclear level. This is—also, I think, recognizes that the United States is not going to be able to compel Russia to capitulate on issues that are of interest to us, nor are we going to be able to radically change the way they think about their own national interests. So it's a competitive relationship and we need to manage that responsibly. And finally, given the complex world that we live in today—the very real transnational challenges we face: climate change, pandemic diseases, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—the United States should seek, to the extent possible, ways to cooperate with Russia in dealing with these issues. We should recognize that Russia is not necessarily the only player nor necessarily the most important player in dealing with these challenges, but it does have a role to play along with other major powers in handling these transnational issues. So those, I think, are three sort of broad points that help set the stage for our discussion. Now let me turn sort of very briefly to the questions about U.S. policy. How do we deal with this Russia? What are sort of—the way we should think about American foreign policy? And here the point I would make is that we should think of the policy in terms of what I would call the three Ds: defense, deterrence, and dialogue. Now, defense and deterrence in many ways go together. If you have a very good defense, if you demonstrate an ability and willingness to defend your interests effectively and deliberately, then you tend to deter another power. They have less reason to want to attack you. But if deterrence fails, you very much need to be able to defend yourself—to disrupt Russian operations in cyberspace, for example, or disrupt military operations by the Russians that you find problematic in some way. So defense and deterrence go together, and we need to think about that. Now, you build these elements on a number of other things that we're all familiar with. A strong military—strong, capable military—is, obviously, an element of both defense and deterrence, and something that we have managed quite well in the past and I imagine will manage quite well going into the future. Cyber defenses are also an important element of constraining Russia on the global stage. Now, here the United States really has much room for improvement. We built our internet, our cyberspace largely for the accessibility, the ability to pass information from one entity to another, and we spent much less attention to the security of that system. As cyberspace has become more important to our socioeconomic and political lives, we really need to devote much more attention to cybersecurity, hardening our commuter—computer networks, for example, making sure we have strong passwords and so forth, something that I think we now recognize but we need to put a much greater effort into doing that. Third area of defense and deterrence is strong alliances. When we're thinking about Russia, this is clearly the transatlantic community, NATO, our relations with our other European partners. And here, we need to develop the types of military/defense cooperation that we need to demonstrate quite clearly that the United States, along with the rest of the NATO allies, is ready and prepared to meet its Article 5 guarantees to collective security should the Russians do something that is untoward in our neighborhood. And then, finally, and I think of increasing importance, is the question of national unity. National unity, national resilience, has really become a key element in defense and deterrence at this point. We need to demonstrate to the Russians that we have sufficient national unity to clearly identify what our interests are and pursue them on the international stage. One of Putin's close colleagues several years ago said that what Putin is doing is messing with the Americans' minds, and certainly we've seen that over the past several years. Putin hasn't sowed the discord in the United States, but he certainly has tried to exploit it for Russian purposes. And this is something that he's going to concentrate on in the future, in part because he recognizes the dangers of military confrontation with the United States. So great-power competition, from the Kremlin's standpoint, is going to move very, very quickly from the kinetic realm to the cyber realm, and we need to be able to deal with that. So building national unity at home, overcoming our polarization, is really perhaps one of the key steps in constraining Russia on the global stage. And then, finally, some very brief words about dialogue. We tend to downplay this in our national discussion. Many believe that diplomatic relations are—should not be branded as a reward for bad behavior. But I think if you look at this objectively, you'll see that diplomatic relations are very important as a way of defending and advancing our national concerns. It's a way that we can convey clearly to the Russians what our expectations are, what our goals are, what our redlines are, and the responses that we're capable of taking if Russia crosses them. At the same time, we can learn from the Russians what their goals are, what their motivations are, what their redlines are, and we can factor that into our own policy. This is a major element of managing the competition between our two countries responsibly. You'll see that we have begun to engage in negotiations and diplomacy with the Russians much more under President Biden than we did under President Trump. We've already launched strategic stability talks with the aim of coming up with a new concept of strategic stability that's adequate to the strategic environment of the present day and the near future. We've engaged in cybersecurity talks, which my understanding is have, in fact, had some success over the past several weeks. Where we, I think, have lagged is in the discussion of regional issues—Europe, Ukraine, the Middle East, for example. These are areas where there is still potential for conflict, and the United States and Russia ought to be sitting down and talking about these issues on a regular basis. So three Ds—defense, deterrence, and diplomacy or dialogue—are the ways that we should be thinking about our relationship with Russia. And obviously, we'll need to adjust each of these three elements to the specific issue at hand, whether it be in Europe, whether it be in the nuclear realm, cyberspace, and so forth. Now, with that as a way—by way of introduction, I am very pleased to entertain your questions. FASKIANOS: Tom, thanks very much for that terrific overview and analysis. We're going to go to all of you now for your questions. You can either raise your hand by clicking on the icon, and I will call on you, and you can tell us what institution you are with; or you can type your question in the Q&A box, although if you want to ask it you can raise your hand. We encourage that. And if you're typing your question, please let us know what college or university you're with. So I'm going to take the first raised-hand question from Babak Salimitari. And unmute yourself. Q: Can you guys hear me? GRAHAM: Yes. FASKIANOS: Yes. Q: Hello. I'm a third-year UCI student, economics. I have a question. I'm going to sound a bit like Sean Hannity here, so please forgive me, but I have a question about that Nord Stream 2 pipeline that you constantly hear on the news, and it just doesn't make that much sense for me of why this pipeline was allowed to be completed into the heart of Europe considering Russia's strength with natural gases and the leverage that they have over Europe with that pipeline. Why was that allowed to be completed? GRAHAM: Well, I think from the standpoint of the Biden administration this was a matter of what we call alliance management. Germany is clearly a key ally for the United States in Europe, and the Germans were very committed to the completion of that pipeline, starting with Chancellor Angela Merkel down through I think both the leading political parties and the German business community. So I think they made the decision for that. But let me step back because I'd like to challenge a lot of the assumptions about the Nord Stream 2 project here in the United States, which I think misconceive it, misframe the question, and tend to exaggerate the dangers that is poses. The first point that I would make is that Europe now and in the future will have and need Russian gas. It's taken a substantial amount in the past—in the past decades, and even as it moves forward towards a green revolution it will continue to take considerable amounts of Russian gas. It can't do without that gas. So the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, contrary to what you hear in the United States or at the U.S. Congress, I don't think poses an additional threat to Europe's energy security, no larger than the threat that was posed before that pipeline was completed. The Europeans, I think are aware of the problems that that poses, and they've taken steps over the past several years to integrate the gas—the gas distribution network in Europe, to build facilities to import liquified natural gas, all as a way of eroding the leverage that Gazprom might have had over energy markets in Europe. And that has been quite successful over the past—over the past several years. Now, I think, you know, the other issue that comes up in the discussion in the United States is Ukraine, because Nord Stream 2 clearly provides Russia with a way to import the gas into Europe and bypass Ukraine at the—at the same time. And Ukraine is going to suffer a significant loss in budgetary revenue because of the decline in transit fees that it gets from the transportation of Russian gas across its territory. You know, that is a problem, but there are ways of dealing with that: by helping Ukraine fill the budgetary gap, by helping Ukraine transition away from a reliance on gas to other forms of energy, of helping Ukraine develop the green-energy resources that will make it a much more important partner in the European energy equation than it is now. And then finally, you know, it strikes me as somewhat wrongheaded for Ukraine to put itself in a position where it is reliant on a country that is clearly a belligerent for a significant part of its federal revenue. So we need to think hard with the Ukrainians about how they deal with this issue, how they wean themselves off Russian transit fees, and then I think we have a situation where we can help Ukraine, we can manage the energy-security situation in Europe, we can reduce any leverage that Russia might have, and that Nord Stream 2 really doesn't pose a significant risk to the United States or our European allies over the long run. FASKIANOS: Thank you. We're going to take the next question from the written queue from Kenneth Mayers, who's at St Francis—sorry, that just popped away; oh, sorry—St. Francis College. Thinking beyond this triangular framework, what pathways and possibilities can be envisioned for a more positive dimension of working together in mutually, even globally, beneficial ways? GRAHAM: What triangular relationship are we talking about? FASKIANOS: His—thinking beyond this triangular framework and— GRAHAM: Oh, OK. So I think it's defense, deterrence, and diplomacy is the— FASKIANOS: Correct. GRAHAM: OK. Can you repeat the final part of the question, then? FASKIANOS: What pathways and possibilities can be envisioned for a more positive dimension of working together in mutually beneficial ways? GRAHAM: Well, there are a number of areas in which we can work together beneficially. If you think about proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, for example, the United States and Russia over the past two decades have played a major role in both securing weapons that were located in Russia, but also in securing highly-enriched uranium that was in Soviet-designed reactors throughout the former Soviet space. We have taken a lead together in setting down rules and procedures that reduce the risk of nuclear material—fissile material getting into the hands of terrorist organizations. And we have played a role together in trying to constrain the Iranian nuclear program. Russia played an instrumental role in the conclusion of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that we signed in 2015 that the Trump administration walked away with, but they will continue to play a role in constraining Iranians' nuclear ambitions going forward. And we've also worked in a cooperative fashion in dealing with the North Korean nuclear program. So there are areas in nonproliferation where the two countries can work together. On climate change, I mean, I think the big challenge for the United States is actually persuading Russia that climate change is a significant threat to their own security. They're slowly beginning to change that view, but as they come around to recognizing that they have to deal with climate change there are a number of areas where the two countries can cooperate. One of the things that climate is doing is melting the permafrost. That is destabilizing the foundation of much of Russia's energy infrastructure in areas where gas and oil are extracted for export abroad. The United States has dome technologies that the Russians might find of interest in stabilizing that infrastructure. They suffer from problems of Siberian fires—peat-bog fires, forest fires—an area that, obviously, is of concern to the United States as well. And there may be room for cooperation there, two. And then, finally, you know, the United States and Russia have two of the leading scientific communities in the entire world. We ought to be working together on ways that we can help mitigate the consequences of climate change going forward. So I see an array of areas where the two countries could cooperate, but that will depend on good diplomacy in Washington and a receptivity on the part of the Russians which we haven't seen quite yet. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Let's go next to Jeffrey Ko. You can unmute yourself. Thank you. Q: Hi. So I'm Jeffrey Ko. I'm an international relations master's student at Carnegie Mellon. And my question has to deal with these private military forces, and especially the Wagner Group. And so I would like to know, you know, how does this play into our security strategy regarding Russia in countries that have seen proxy warfare? And how does this—how difficult will it be to engage with Russia either diplomatically or militarily on the use of these gray-zone tactics, and specifically utilizing the Wagner Group as an informal branch of Russia's military? GRAHAM: Well, look, I mean, I do think that we need, one, to sit down and have a discussion with Russia about the use of these private military forces, particularly the Wagner firm, which has played a significant role in a number of conflicts across the globe in the Middle East, Africa, and in Latin America. But we also ought to help the countries that are of interest to us deal with the problems that the Wagner Group causes. You know, the United States had to deal with the Wagner Group in Syria during the Syrian civil war. You know, despite the fact that we had a deconfliction exercise with the Russians at that point, tried to prevent military conflicts between our two militaries operating in close proximity, when the Wagner forces violated those strictures and actually began to attack a U.S. facility, we had no hesitation about using the force that we had to basically obliterate that enemy. And the Wagner Group suffered casualties numbering in the hundreds, one to two hundred. I think the Russians got the message about that, that you don't—you don't mess with the United States military, certainly not while using a private military company like Wagner. You know, in places like Libya, where Wagner is quite active, I think the United States needs a major diplomatic effort to try to defuse the Libyan crisis. And part of the solution to that would be negotiating an agreement that calls for the withdrawal of all foreign military forces and certainly private military groups from Libyan territory, and lean on the Russians to carry that through. In any event, you know, this is not going to be an easy issue to resolve. I think we deal with this by—country by country, and we focus our attention on those countries where our national interests are greatest. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Jill Dougherty, who's at Georgetown University. The Putin administration appears to be hardening its control of Russia's society with the purpose of keeping Putin in power at least until 2036. Most recent example is the Duma elections that just took place. Will this crackdown domestically affect or damage U.S.-Russia relations? GRAHAM: Thank you, Jill. Always a good question and always a difficult question to answer. You know, I think the issue here is the extent to which the Biden administration wants to make the domestic political situation in Russia a key item on its agenda with Russia over the next—over the next few years. You know, my impression from the conversations I've had with people in the administration—in and around the administration is that President Biden is not going to focus on this. You know, his focus really is going to be China, and what he wants to do is maintain something of a status quo in the relationship with Russia. You will notice that the second round of sanctions that the United States levied with regard to the poisoning of Alexei Navalny, something that was mandated by U.S. law, were actually quite mild—much less extreme, much less punitive than the legislation allowed—I think a signal that the Biden administration was not going to let domestic political issues in Russia overwhelm the agenda that the United States has, which is going to be focused on strategic stability, cyber issues, and so forth. So my immediate reaction is that the Duma election is really not going to have a dramatic impact on the state of the relationship between our two countries. We accept the fact that Russia is an authoritarian system. It is becoming more authoritarian. We will continue to try to find ways to support those elements of civil society we can, but always being careful not to do it in ways that causes the Russian government to crack down even harder on those individuals. This is a very sort of difficult needle to thread for the United States, but I think that's the way we'll go and you won't see this as a major impediment to the improvement of relations—which, as we all know, are at a very low level at this point in any event. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. Let's go next to Sujay Utkarsh. Q: Hi, yeah. Can you hear me? GRAHAM: Yes. FASKIANOS: Yes. Q: Awesome. So, regarding the issue about cyber warfare, I was wondering if you can go into more detail about what advantages the Russians have in cyberspace and what the United States can do to compete with those advantages. GRAHAM: A good question and a difficult question for people outside the government to answer, since we're not privy to all the information about Russian cyber capabilities nor are we privy to the information about American cyber capabilities. Both countries cloak those programs in a great deal of secrecy. You know, it seemed to me that one of the advantages that perhaps Russia has is that it's a much more closed society than the United States. Now, I'm thinking simply in terms of the way societies can be disrupted through cyberspace. We're a much more open society. It's easier to access our internet. We are—just as I mentioned before, we are a polarized society right now. That allows Russia many avenues into our domestic political system in order to exacerbate the tensions between various elements in our society. The United States can't reply in the same way in dealing with Russia. You know, second, Russia, in building its own internet, its own cyberspace, has paid much more attention to security than the United States has. So, you know, I would presume that its computer systems are somewhat harder to penetrate than American systems are at this point, although another factor to take into account here is that much of the initial effort in building up cyberspace—the Web, the computer networks—in Russia was built with American technology. You know, the Googles, the Intels, and others played an instrumental role in providing those types of—that type of equipment to the Russians. So I wouldn't exaggerate how much stronger they are there. And then, finally, I think what is probably one of the strengths, if you want to call it that, is that Russia is probably a little more risk-prone in using its cyber tools than the United States is at this point, in part because we think as a society we're more vulnerable. And that does give Russia a slight advantage. That said, this shouldn't be a problem that's beyond the capability of the United States to manage if we put our minds to it. We have done a lot more over the past several years. We are getting better at this. And I think we'll continue to improve in time and with the appropriate programs, the appropriate education of American society. FASKIANOS: Thank you. The next question is a written one from Kim-Leigh Tursi, a third-year undergraduate at Temple University. Where do you see Russia in relation to the rise of China, and how does that affect how the U.S. might approach foreign policy toward Russia? GRAHAM: Well, you know, that's an important question, obviously one that a lot of people have focused on recently. You know, Russia and China have developed a very close working strategic relationship over the—over the past several years, but I think we should note that the Russian effort to rebuild its relations with China go back to the late Soviet period to overcome the disadvantages that then the Soviet Union felt they had because of the poor relationship with China and the ability of the United States to exploit that relationship to Moscow's detriment. So relations have been improving for the past twenty-five, thirty years; obviously, a dramatic acceleration in that improvement after 2014 and the breakdown in relations between Russia and the West. Now, there are a number of reasons for this alignment at this point. One, the two countries do share at a very general level a basic view of for—a basic dislike of what they see as American ambitions to dominate the global—the global security and economic environment. They don't like what they consider to be American hegemonic goals. Second, the economies seem to be complementary at this point. Russia does have a wealth of natural resources that the Chinese need to fuel their robust economic growth. You have similar domestic political systems. And all of this, I think, is reinforced by what appears to be a very good personal relationship between President Putin and President Xi Jinping. These two leaders have met dozens of times over the past five to seven years and have maintained, I think, very robust contact even during the—during the pandemic. So there are very good strategic reasons why these two countries enjoy good relations. They are going to step those up in the near term. The Russians are continuing to provide the Chinese with significant sophisticated military equipment. They've also undertaken to help the Chinese build an early warning system for ballistic missiles, and when that's completed it will make China only the third country in the world to have such a system along with Russia and the United States. Now, I would argue that this strategic alignment does pose something of a challenge to the United States. If you look at American foreign policy or American foreign policy tradition, one of the principles that has guided the United States since the end of the nineteenth century, certainly throughout the twentieth century, was that we needed to prevent the—any hostile country or coalition of hostile countries from dominating areas of great strategic importance, principally Europe, East Asia, and more recently the Middle East. A Russian-Chinese strategic alignment certainly increases the chances of China dominating East Asia. Depending on how close that relationship grows, it also could have significant impact on Europe and the way Europe relates to this Russian-Chinese bloc, and therefore to the United States as a whole. So we should have an interest in trying to sort of attenuate the relationship between the two countries. At a minimum, we shouldn't be pursuing a set of policies that would push Russia closer to China. Second, I think we ought to try to normalize our diplomatic relationship with the Russians. Not that we're necessarily going to agree on a—on a range of issues at this point, but we need to give the Russians a sense that they have other strategic options than China going forward—something that would, I think, enhance their bargaining position with the Chinese going forward and would complicate China's own strategic calculus, which would be to our advantage. I think we also should play on Russia's concerns about strategic autonomy, this idea that Russia needs to be an independent great power on the global stage, that it doesn't want to be the junior partner or overly dependent on any one country as a way, again, of attenuating the tie with China. The one thing that I don't think we can do is drive a wedge between those two countries, in part because of the strategic reasons that I've mentioned already that bring these two countries together. And any very crude, I think, effort to do that will actually be counterproductive. Both Beijing and Moscow will see through that, quite clearly, and that will only lead to a closing of the ranks between those two countries, which as I said is a strategic challenge for the United States going forward. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Holli Semetko, who's at Emory University. Polarization is something we must overcome, as you said, but those of us working on social media have some evidence to suggest that social media has fostered political polarization in the U.S. Yuri Milner, a Russian Israeli entrepreneur, invested in an early round of Facebook funding with help from VTB, a Russian state-controlled bank, as well as his investment in Jared Kushner's real estate firm. What is the level of FDI from Russia in the U.S. and do you see it as a threat to national security? GRAHAM: Well, look, I mean, the actual level of Russian FDI in the United States is quite small. You know, you have some few, I think, good examples of it—the one that you've mentioned with Yuri Milner, for example. There was some investment in a steel factory some years ago. But by and large, there hasn't been a significant amount of Russian foreign direct investment in the United States. I think our growing concerns about Russia have made us even more leery of allowing Russian investment, particularly in sectors that we consider critical to American national security. So I'm not deeply concerned about that going forward. I think we probably face a much greater challenge from the Chinese in that regard. Of course, you've seen efforts by the United States to deal more harshly or look more closely at Chinese investment in the United States over the past several years. Let me just make one sort of final point on social media since it's come up. You know, Russia is a problem. We need to pay attention to Russia in that space. But again, I don't think that we should exaggerate Russia's influence, nor should we focus simply on Russia as the problem in this area. There is a major problem with disinformation in social media in the United States, much of that propagated by sources within the United States, but there are a host of other countries that also will try to affect U.S. public opinion through their intrusions into American social media. You know, given our concerns about First Amendment rights, freedom of speech and so forth, you know, I think we have problems in sort of really clamping down on this. But what we need to do, certainly, is better educate the American public about how to deal with the information that crosses their electronic devices day in and day out. Americans need to be aware of how they can be manipulated, and they need to understand and know where they can go to find reliable information. Again, given the political polarization in our country today, this is a very real challenge and difficult one. But I think if we think long term about this problem, the key really is educating the American public. An educated American public is going to be the best defense against foreign countries, other hostile forces trying to use social media to undermine our national unity and exacerbate the politics of our country. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Eoin Wilson-Manion, who's raised his hand. Q: Hello. Can you hear me now? GRAHAM: Yes. FASKIANOS: Yes. Q: Awesome. Well, thank you. I just wanted to ask if you could touch a little bit more on Russia's presence in Syria and what that means for U.S. interests in Syria and I guess the larger Middle East. I'm Eoin from Carnegie Mellon University. Thanks very much. GRAHAM: Well, you know, the Russians entered Syria in 2015 militarily largely to save Assad from what they thought was imminent overthrow by what they considered a radical Islamic force, a group of terrorists that they thought would challenge Russian interests not only in Syria but would fuel extremist forces inside Russia itself, particularly in the North Caucasus but farther afield than that—even into Moscow, into areas that were Muslim-dominated inside Russia itself. So they had very good national security reasons for going in. Those ran—I mean, the Russian presence in Syria clearly has run counter to what the United States was trying to do at that point since we clearly aligned against Assad in favor of what we considered moderate reformist forces that were seeking a more sort of democratic future for Syria as part of this broader Arab Spring at that time. So there was a clear conflict at that point. You know, subsequently and in parallel with its continued presence in Syria, the Russians have extended their diplomatic—their diplomatic effort to other countries in the region. Russia enjoys a fairly robust diplomatic relationship with Israel, for example, that has been grounded in counterterrorism cooperation, for example. They have a sort of strange relationship, largely positive, with Turkey that they have pursued over the past several years. We know of the ties that they've had in Tehran, in Iran for some time. They have reached out to the Saudis and the Saudis have bought some military equipment from them. We see them in Egypt and Libya, for example. So they're a growing presence, a growing diplomatic presence in the Middle East, and this does pose some problems for the United States. From the middle of the 1970s onward, one of the basic thrusts of American foreign policy was to limit the role the Russians played in the Middle East. We sidelined them in the negotiations between the Arabs and the Israelis in the 1970s and in the 1980s. We limited their diplomatic contacts to countries that we considered critical partners and allies in that part of the world. Now I think the geopolitical situation has changed. Our own interest in the Middle East has diminished over time, in part because of the fracking revolution here in the United States. Gas and oil, we've got close to being independent in that area. We're not as dependent on the Middle East as we once were for energy sources. And also, as, you know, the Biden administration has been clear, we do want to pivot away from the Middle East and Europe to focus more of our energies on what we see as the rising and continuing strategic challenge posed by China. So I think that means that going forward the United States is going to have to deal with Russia in a different fashion in the Middle East than in the past. We're going to have to recognize them as a continuing presence. We're not going to be able to push them out, in part because we're not prepared to devote the resources to it. We have countries that are still important to us—Saudi Arabia, Israel for example—that do want a Russian presence in the Middle East. And so what we ought to do, it seems to me, is to begin that discussion about how we're going to manage the rivalry in the Middle East. Now, it's not all simply competition. There are areas for cooperation. We can cooperate in dealing with Iran, for example, the Iran nuclear dossier, as we have had in the past. Neither country has an interest in Iran developing nuclear weapons. Second, I think the two countries also would like to see a Middle East that's not dominated by a single regional power. So despite the fact that the Russians have worked together quite closely with the Iranians in Syria, they don't share Iranian ambitions elsewhere in the Middle East. And if you look at the diplomatic ties that the Russians have nurtured over the past with Turkey, with Israel, Saudi Arabia for example, none of these are friends of Iran, to put it mildly. So we can talk, I think, to the Russians of how our—you know, we can conduct ourselves so as to foster the development of a regional equilibrium in the Middle East that tends to stabilize that region, makes it less of a threat to either country, less of a threat to America's European allies, and use this as a basis for, again, sort of not escalating the tension in the region but moderating it in some ways that works to the long-term advantage of the United States. FASKIANOS: Next question from Michael Strmiska, who's a professor at Orange County Community College in New York state. Do you see any hope of persuading Russia to abandon its occupation of Crimea in the near term? Or do you think this is like the occupation of the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia after World War II, where a very long timespan was needed before any liberation was realistically possible? GRAHAM: Well, I guess my answer to those two questions would be yes and no, or no and yes. On Crimea, you know, I see no sort of near-term scenario that would lead to the Russians agreeing to the return of Crimea to Ukraine. Quite the contrary, Russia has taken steps since 2014 they continue at this point to further integrate Crimea into the Russian Federation politically, economically, socially, and so forth. The Russians have also built up their military presence in Crimea as a way of enhancing their domination or their influence in the greater Black Sea region. So I see no set of circumstances that would change that, certainly not in the—in the near term. And I think, you know, the Ukrainian effort to focus attention on Crimea is not going to, in fact, gain a great deal of traction with Europe nor with the United States going forward, though we will maintain the principled position of not recognizing Russia's incorporation or annexation of Crimea. You know, I don't think that the Crimean and Baltic situations are necessarily analogous. You know, in the Baltic states there was a significant indigenous element, governments in exile, that supported the independence of those countries. There was a fulcrum that the United States or a lever that the United States could use over time to continue pressure on the Soviets that eventually led to the independence of those countries as the Soviet Union broke down and ultimately collapsed at the end of the 1980s into 1991. I don't see any significant indigenous element in Crimea nor a movement of inhabitants of Crimea outside Crimea that wants Crimea to be returned to Ukraine. I think we need to remember that a significant part of the population in Ukraine is Russian military, retired Russian military, that feels quite comfortable in—within the Russian Federation at this point. So if I were being quite frank about this, although I think the United States should maintain its principled position and not recognize annexation of Crimea, I don't see anything over the long term, barring the collapse of Russia itself, that will change that situation and see Ukraine (sic; Crimea) reincorporated into the Ukrainian state. FASKIANOS: So there are a couple questions in the chat about Russia's economy: What is their economy like today? And what are the effects of the sanctions? And from Steve Shinkel at the Naval War College: How do you assess the tie between Russia's economy and being able to continue to modernize its military and ensure a stable economy? And will economic factors and Russia's demographic challenges be a future constraining factor? So if you could— GRAHAM: Yeah. No, no, just take the economy. Obviously, a big issue, and it will be a constraining factor. I mean, the Russian economy is stagnating and it has for some—for some time. They enjoyed—the Russian economy enjoyed a very rapid period of growth during President Putin's first presidential—two presidential terms in the 2000s, but since the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009 Russia has run into very difficult economic times. In fact, it's never really recovered from that crisis. If you look at the past ten years, barely any growth in the Russian economy at all. If you look at the impact that that has had on Russians themselves, there's basically been no growth in real disposable income; rather, a decline over the past six or seven years. I think the Russians recognize that. The question is whether they can come up with a set of policies that actually will reverse that and that lead to a more robustly growing economy. Now, what the Kremlin has tried to do is not so much reform the economy—which I think is necessary if they're going to enjoy robust economic growth—as much as professionalize the economy; that is—that is, bring in a younger sort of cadre who are well educated, many of them educated in the West, who understand how modern economies function and can keep the economy stable at least at the macro level. And this is one of the reasons that Western sanctions have not had nearly the impact on Russian behavior that many had hoped for or anticipated back in 2014 when we began to turn repeatedly to this tool in response to Russian activities and operations against Ukraine. You know, it has had some impact. I think the IMF would say that it's probably taken a percentage point off—or, not a percentage point, but a tenth of a percentage point off of Russia's GDP growth over the past several years. That certainly hasn't been enough to change Russian behavior. But it hasn't been more, in fact, because the governors of the—of the central bank have dealt quite adeptly with that, and maintain said Russian macroeconomic stability and some sort of foundation for the economy to grow going forward. I imagine that's going to continue into the—into the future as well. So it is a constraining factor. Then I would end with what I—with a point that I made in my introduction. Russia does have a tremendous ability to mobilize its resources for state purposes, to extract what it needs from society at large to modernize the military, to maintain certainly Russia's defenses and also some capability to project power abroad. So I wouldn't write them off because of that. I think it's going—still going to be a serious power, but not nearly as great a challenge to the United States as if it, in fact, solved its demographic problems, its economic problems, and had a robustly growing economy, greater resources that it could devote to a whole range of things that would improve its standing on the global stage vis-à-vis the United States and vis-à-vis China. FASKIANOS: Well, with that we are at the end of our time. And I apologize to everybody. We had over twenty written questions still pending and raised hands. I'm sorry we couldn't get to all of you, but we do try to end on time. So, Thomas Graham, thank you very much for sharing your insights and analysis with us today. We appreciate it. And to all of you for your terrific questions and comments, we appreciate it. Our next Academic Webinar will be on Wednesday, October 6, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. And we will focus on the Indo-Pacific with Dhruva Jaishankar, who is the executive director of the Observer Research Foundation America and nonresident fellow at the Lowy Institute. And in the meantime, I encourage you to follow CFR at @CFR_Academic and visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for new research and analysis on global issues. So, Tom, thank you very much. GRAHAM: Thank you. Good luck to all of you. (END)
Why Tracking Your Blood Sugar Can Transform Your Health | This episode is brought to you by Kettle & Fire, Beekeeper's Naturals, and Athletic GreensWhat if you could get health advice that was completely tailored to your unique body? Forget the generalized blanket statements, like “Eat less, exercise more.” I'm talking about actual guidance based on massive amounts of data that can help you optimize your diet and lifestyle for real, maintainable results. This is the future of medicine, and it will be more precise than ever before. It might sound too futuristic or out of reach, but artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning are getting us there, and we're already seeing amazing health implications for those that are utilizing these technologies. In this episode, I talk about the exciting breakthroughs in health-focused AI and what the future holds with Noosheen Hashemi. Noosheen Hashemi is a Silicon Valley tech veteran, entrepreneur, investor, and philanthropist. She is the founder and CEO of January AI, a precision health tech company that harnesses the power of artificial intelligence to prevent, predict, and manage chronic disease. January AI is Noosheen's answer to a healthcare industry that seemed to only address decline and disease, rather than prevention and progress; January AI partners with people to understand their body and optimize it for health and longevity. In 2021, January AI was honored by the World Economic Forum as a Technology Pioneer. Noosheen also guides a family office that includes diverse investments in over 100 companies and venture capital funds. She is the founder of the HAND Foundation, focused on supporting scholars and organizations that promote discourse and socioeconomic growth among the disenfranchised. She is a Harold Pratt Associate at the Council on Foreign Relations and serves on the advisory boards of Stanford Graduate School of Business, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy.This episode is brought to you by Kettle & Fire, Beekeeper's Naturals, and Athletic Greens.Right now, you can get 25% off Kettle & Fire bone broth plus free shipping with code HYMAN. Just head over to kettleandfire.com/hyman. That's kettle and fire dot com slash Hyman. Right now, Beekeeper's Naturals is giving my community an exclusive offer. Just go to beekeepersnaturals.com/HYMAN and enter code “HYMAN” to get 20% off your first order.Athletic Greens is offering Doctor's Farmacy listeners a full year supply of their Vitamin D3/K2 Liquid Formula free with your first purchase, plus 5 free travel packs. Just go to athleticgreens.com/hyman to take advantage of this great offer.Here are more of the details from our interview: Noosheen's journey into using data and AI to drive change in the healthcare space (6:33)Using multiomics, or multivariate decision making, to understand health and disease (12:47)Food: the missing piece of data in precision health (15:44)Artificial intelligence vs. machine learning (17:37)Using machine learning to better understand glycemic load and assist people in keeping their blood sugar stable (19:48)Moving away from one-size-fits-all medicine (25:46)The future of healthcare, continuous health monitoring, personalized health, and precision nutrition (30:03)What can AI do for our health? (40:30)The future of wearable technology, including the need for insulin monitors (46:12)What we can learn from China about using AI to solve for population health issues (52:45)Learn more about January AI at https://january.ai/ and on Instagram @hellojanuaryai, on Facebook @januaryai, and on Twitter @hellojanuaryai. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
From January 23, 2016: The fourth Hoover Book Soiree, held this week in Hoover's beautiful Washington, D.C. offices, featured Gayle Tzemach Lemmon on her newest book, Ashley's War: The Untold Story of a Team of Women Soldiers on the Special Ops Battlefield. At the event, Lemmon, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Lawfare's editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes discussed the growing role of women soldiers in special operations and beyond, examining the story of a cultural support team of women hand-picked from the Army in 2011 to serve in Afghanistan alongside Army Rangers and Navy SEALs. Their conversation dives into how the program developed, the lessons learned in the process, and why its success may provide critical insights for future force integration. Former Marine and current Lawfare contributor Zoe Bedell, who served in a similar capacity in Afghanistan, joined them on the panel to discuss her own experiences.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
On this edition of ST, we welcome back to the show Prof. David Shambaugh of George Washington University. He recently gave an address at the Tulsa Committee on Foreign Relations (or TCFR) titled "Where Great Powers Meet: America and China in Southeast Asia." An internationally recognized authority and award-winning author on contemporary China and the global relations of Asia, Shambaugh has visited or lived in China every year since 1979 and has traveled extensively throughout Asia, Europe, and Latin America. The title of his talk at the TCFR is also the name of his recent book from Oxford University Press. (He's written more than 30 books overall, and another volume that he'll publish this year is titled "China's Leaders from Mao to Xi.")
The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, more commonly known as the Quad, brings together the United States, Australia, Japan and India in strategic dialogue on everything from disaster relief, to military readiness, to technology and supply chains. Today, the leaders of those four countries will meet for the first-ever summit, a gathering which would have been difficult to imagine just a few years ago. To understand what led up to this point and what could develop from it, David Priess sat down with three experts who look at the Quad from different perspectives. Lavina Lee is a senior lecturer at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia. Last year, she was appointed by the Australian minister of defense as director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute Council. Tanvi Madan is a senior fellow at and director of The India Project at the Brookings Institution, and she focuses in particular on India's foreign and security policies. And Sheila Smith is a senior fellow for Asia Pacific studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and a renowned expert on Japanese politics and foreign policy. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
In this episode of .think Atlantic, IRI's Thibault Muzergues is joined by special guest Jana Puglierin to discuss the German elections, which will take place Sunday, September 26. Jana is Senior Policy Fellow and the head of the Berlin office of European Council on Foreign Relations. She directs the Re:shape Global Europe project, developing strategies for Europeans to engage with changes in the international order. Previously, she headed the Alfred von Oppenheim Center for European Policy Studies at the German Council on Foreign Relations. Her expertise on German and European policy directs the episode's discussion. Is there a more substantial crisis around the corner for Germany's Christian Democrats? Is it the end of the Volkspartei culture, and what does that mean for the German political system's stability? What kind of power vacuum will Angela Merkel's absence leave, and what will her lasting legacy be? Thibault and his guest discuss all these questions and contemplate what they mean for the larger transatlantic space – and much more. Find Jana on Twitter: @jana_puglierin Find ECFR Berlin on Twitter: @ECFRBerlin Find Thibault on Twitter: @tmuzergues Visit IRI's website at www.iri.org
Mike Hayes is the former Commanding Officer of SEAL Team TWO, leading a two thousand-person Special Operations Task Force in Southeastern Afghanistan. In addition to a twenty-year career as a SEAL, Mike was a White House Fellow, served two years as Director of Defense Policy and Strategy at the National Security Council, and has worked directly with both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. More About Mike Hayes: Beyond his military and governmental service, Mike is currently the Chief Digital Transformation Officer at VMware. He joined VMware in October 2020, and leads the company's worldwide business operations and the acceleration of the company's SaaS transition. Previously, he was SVP and Head of Strategic Operations at Cognizant Technology. Mike also served in Chief of Staff and COO roles at Bridgewater Associates, the world's largest and most successful hedge fund. Mike holds an M.A. in Public Policy from Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and received his B.A. from Holy Cross College. His military decorations include the Bronze Star for valor in combat in Iraq, a Bronze Star for Afghanistan, and the Defense Superior Service Medal from the White House. Hayes is a lifetime member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a member of the board of directors of Immuta, a data governance company, and of the National Medal of Honor Museum, and a senior advisor to Inherent Group, an impact investment firm. He lives in Westport, Connecticut with his wife and daughter. Topics Discussed: * What made Mike decide to become a Navy SEAL * What lesson did he carry from being a Navy SEAL into civilian life * Why he didn't want to write Never Enough, but had to * Why you need to be a good follower and a good leader * What does he mean by: achieving excellence in knowledge and capacity * Why making yourself uncomfortable is the key to success * How to find your meaning as an individual * What is the 1162 Foundation and what does it do Episode Resources: * Buy Mike's Book Never Enough Here: https://amzn.to/3zVeeIq * The Simple Life Website: https://www.thesimplelifenow.com *Make sure to signup and be a member of The Simple Life Insider's Circle at: https://www.thesimplelifenow.com/the-simple-life/
Taylor takes over this hour to talk about our commander in chief's foreign policy decisions, most recently a drone strike that killed an aide worker and children in Afghanistan and a submarine deal with Australia that caused France to withdraw their ambassadors. "Lunch Bucket" Joe batting a thousand.
In the news recently, reports that General Mark Milley sought to counsel Chinese leaders in way that might avoid accidental conflict have caused controversy. Was Milley doing his duty? Or was he undermining his commander-in-chief? Similarly, it is reported that Vice President Mike Pence sought counsel from former Vice President Dan Quayle about whether he could or should follow through on President Trump's request that he Pence invalidate 2020 election results. Quayle stood up for principle and the law as Pence wavered. What does this tell us about the last administration? About the responsibility of public officials when confronted with an unfit president. We discuss with former Trump White House official Olivia Troye, Kori Schake of the American Enterprise Institute and Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations. It's an important, timely and difficult conversation. Don't miss it.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/deepstateradio. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
In the news recently, reports that General Mark Milley sought to counsel Chinese leaders in way that might avoid accidental conflict have caused controversy. Was Milley doing his duty? Or was he undermining his commander-in-chief? Similarly, it is reported that Vice President Mike Pence sought counsel from former Vice President Dan Quayle about whether he could or should follow through on President Trump's request that he Pence invalidate 2020 election results. Quayle stood up for principle and the law as Pence wavered. What does this tell us about the last administration? About the responsibility of public officials when confronted with an unfit president. We discuss with former Trump White House official Olivia Troye, Kori Schake of the American Enterprise Institute and Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations. It's an important, timely and difficult conversation. Don't miss it.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/deepstateradio. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Why It Matters is pleased to present an episode from its sister podcast, The President's Inbox. Today, U.S. national security is dependent on international nuclear agreements. How does the world regulate nuclear weapons as countries continue to advance their arsenals? Featured Guests: James M. Lindsey (Senior Vice President, Director of Studies, and Maurice R. Greenberg Chair, Council on Foreign Relations) Rose Gottemoeller (Frank E. and Arthur W. Payne Distinguished Lecturer, Stanford University Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and Center for International Security and Cooperation) For an episode transcript and show notes, visit us at https://www.cfr.org/podcasts/podcast-takeover-nuclear-security-presidents-inbox
Hyepin Im, CPA, MBA, and Master of Divinity, has a B.S. from U.C. Berkeley, M.B.A. from USC, and M.Div., summa cum laude, from Wesley Theological Seminary. She is a frequent speaker on CNN and NPR and her opinions have appeared in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. She is the President and Founder of Faith and Community Empowerment (FACE), a national nonprofit serving as a bridge between the Asian American community and the greater community at large. Since its inception in 2001, FACE has had over 800 partners ranging from the White House to Fortune 500 companies to various community organizations. She was a U.S. Presidential Appointee on the Board of the Americorps. Her successful initiatives include educating 10,000+ homebuyers and helping them receive over $1.6 million in down payment assistance and saving over $91 million in mortgages from foreclosure, partnering with both FDIC and Freddie Mac in developing a Korean curriculum in financial literacy and homeownership, implementing a historic $5 million U.S. Department of Labor workforce development program for Asian youth, and hosting joint conferences with the White House and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to mobilize 5000 Korean American churches for economic development. She is on the Mayor's Interfaith Collective, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary Metro-Urban Institute Advisory Council, U.S. Army Advisory Board. Prior services include Board Member of Greenlining Institute, Community Advisory Board of MUFG Union Bank and Torrey Pines Bank, the Pacific Council on International Policy, the Western Partner for the Council on Foreign Relations, and L.A. County Supervisor's Empowerment Congress and Board of FTE (Forum for Theological Exploration) and Advisory Board for Pittsburgh Theological Seminary Urban Institute.
Lisa is solo today. She is joined by David Rubenstein the New York Times bestselling author of How to Lead and The American Story. He is cofounder and co-executive chairman of The Carlyle Group, one of the world's largest and most successful private equity firms. Rubenstein is Chairman of the Boards of Trustees of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and the Council on Foreign Relations. He is an original signer of The Giving Pledge and a recipient of the Carnegie Medal of Philanthropy and the MoMA's David Rockefeller Award. The host of The David Rubenstein Show on Bloomberg TV and PBS, he lives in the Washington, DC area.Lisa asks about his interviews with Henry Louis Gated on Reconstruction, David. W. Blight on Frederick Douglas, Jia Lynn Yang - on the history of immigration, Billie Jean King on activism, and more. Book description: The American Experiment: Dialogues on a DreamThe capstone book in a trilogy from the New York Times bestselling author of How to Lead and The American Story and host of Bloomberg TV's The David Rubenstein Show—American icons and historians on the ever-evolving American experiment, featuring Ken Burns, Madeleine Albright, Wynton Marsalis, Billie Jean King, Henry Louis Gates Jr., and many more.In this lively collection of conversations—the third in a series from David Rubenstein—some of our nations' greatest minds explore the inspiring story of America as a grand experiment in democracy, culture, innovation, and ideas.-Jill Lepore on the promise of America-Madeleine Albright on the American immigrant-Ken Burns on war-Henry Louis Gates Jr. on reconstruction-Elaine Weiss on suffrage-John Meacham on civil rights-Walter Isaacson on innovation-David McCullough on the Wright Brothers-John Barry on pandemics and public health-Wynton Marsalis on music-Billie Jean King on sports-Rita Moreno on filmExploring the diverse make-up of our country's DNA through interviews with Pulitzer Prize–winning historians, diplomats, music legends, and sports giants, The American Experiment captures the dynamic arc of a young country reinventing itself in real-time. Through these enlightening conversations, the American spirit comes alive, revealing the setbacks, suffering, invention, ingenuity, and social movements that continue to shape our vision of what America is—and what it can be.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken was on Capitol Hill Tuesday, appearing again before a congressional oversight panel about the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Blinken was peppered by both Democrats and Republicans about the Biden White House strategy and planning. Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, is a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations and joins Judy Woodruff to discuss. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
Secretary of State Antony Blinken was on Capitol Hill Tuesday, appearing again before a congressional oversight panel about the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Blinken was peppered by both Democrats and Republicans about the Biden White House strategy and planning. Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, is a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations and joins Judy Woodruff to discuss. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
Tom Bollyky joined us on the occasion of our 100th episode to reflect on President Biden's six-point re-set of US pandemic policy, unveiled September 9, and to discuss what can be done to break the deadlock over determining the origin of SARS-CoV-2. President Biden's patience has clearly run out, and the new approach, heavily reliant on mandates, will stir political blowback, litigation, and defiant disobedience which may slow progress versus accelerate momentum. It's “not a happy day” when people will be “pushed into a corner.” It's disappointing that the private sector did not earlier do far more. Our national narrative may however improve, as higher rates of hospitalization of children deflate the individual freedom argument. On the origins controversy, it is “utterly unsurprising” that the US intelligence review was inconclusive. The origin issue is indeed terribly important, at this historic “policy moment,” since without resolution, we are blocked in our prevention approaches. We are in a “dark environment” and there is no prospect for progress in global health unless we find a basis for cooperation between the US and China. In the meantime, we should prioritize moving ahead with more rigorous lab safety standards and end wildlife trade and wet markets. Thomas J. Bollyky is the Director of the Global Health Program and Senior Fellow for Global Health, Economics, and Development at the Council on Foreign Relations.
It's 20 years after 9/11—what have we learned? In May, when U.S. and international troops began to withdraw from Afghanistan, feminists and Afghanistan experts warned of the brutal impact that would likely be felt by women and minorities with the return of the Taliban and in the vacuum of leadership. They were right. The Taliban have announced their provisional government, which does not include a single woman. What does this mean for national security? The safety of women and girls? What are the geo-political dynamics yet to be sorted? Helping us sort out these questions and set the record straight are special guests: Karen Joy Greenberg, expert on national security, terrorism and civil liberties and the director of the Center on National Security. Her latest book is Subtle Tools: The Dismantling of American Democracy from the War on Terror to Donald Trump. Greenberg's work has been featured in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Nation, The National Interest and Mother Jones, among others. Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, award-winning author and adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. She is the author of The Daughters of Kobani and Ashley's War, and writes regularly on Afghanistan's politics and economy, entrepreneurship in fragile states, the fight to end child marriage, and issues affecting women and girls for publications including the New York Times, Financial Times, Fast Company, Christian Science Monitor and CNN.com. Renee Montagne, NPR correspondent and host. From 2004 to 2016, Montagne co-hosted NPR's "Morning Edition," the most widely heard radio news program in the United States. Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Montagne has made 10 extended reporting trips to Afghanistan, where she has traveled to every major city, from Kabul to Kandahar. She has profiled Afghanistan's presidents and power brokers, while also focusing on the stories of Afghans at the heart of their complex country: schoolgirls, farmers, mullahs, poll workers, midwives and warlords.Gaisu Yari, a human rights defender from Afghanistan and survivor of child marriage who holds a master's degree in human rights from Columbia University and a bachelor's in Middle Eastern and gender studies from the University of Virginia. Yari is a writer and active speaker on women's issues in Afghanistan and worked with the government of Afghanistan as a commissioner to the Civil Service Commission of Afghanistan, as well as with national and international organizations. The focus of her expertise is in human rights and gender justice. She has extensive knowledge and professional experience working in both the U.S. and Afghanistan. Rate and review “On the Issues with Michele Goodwin" to let us know what you think of the show! Let's show the power of independent feminist media. Check out this episode's landing page at MsMagazine.com for a full transcript, links to articles referenced in this episode, further reading and ways to take action.Tips, suggestions, pitches? Get in touch with us at firstname.lastname@example.org. Support the show (http://msmagazine.com)Support the show (http://msmagazine.com)
Since the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949, five men have principally shaped the ruling Chinese Communist Party and the nation: Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, and Xi Jinping. David Shambaugh analyzes the personal and professional experiences that shaped each leader and argues that their distinct leadership styles had profound influences on Chinese politics. David Shambaugh is Gaston Sigur Professor of Asian Studies, Political Science, & International Affairs and the founding director of the China Policy Program in the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University. Before joining the GW faculty, Professor Shambaugh taught Chinese politics at the University of London's School of Oriental & African Studies (SOAS) and was editor of The China Quarterly. He also worked at the U.S. Department of State and National Security Council. He served on the board of directors of the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, U.S. Asia-Pacific Council, and other public policy and scholarly organizations. A frequent commentator in the international media, he sits on numerous editorial boards, and has been a consultant to governments, research institutions, foundations, universities, corporations, banks, and investment funds. Professor Shambaugh has published more than 30 books and 300 articles. His latest book, China's Leaders: From Mao to Now(Polity Press, 2021), is now available in hardback. The Harvard on China Podcast is hosted and produced by James Gethyn Evans at the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies. Research for this episode was provided by Connor Giersch, and the episode was edited by Mike Pascarella.
US President, Joe Biden, has announced that all federal workers have to be vaccinated against Covid-19. He's also instructing the Department of Labor to draft a rule mandating that all businesses with 100 or more employees require their workers to get vaccinated or face weekly testing. And as the BRICS leaders meet, is the loose alliance of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa working? We hear from Professor Miles Kahler, a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington DC. Facebook has been accused of breaking UK equality law in the way it handles job adverts. The campaign group Global Witness said the social network failed to prevent discriminatory targeting of ads, and its algorithm was biased in choosing who would see them, as Naomi Hirst from the organisation explains. Also in the programme, we find out why the issue of climate change has become such a dominant theme in the upcoming German federal elections. And the American car giant, Ford will stop production in India; we get analysis from Nikhil Chawla, a business journalist and proud Ford owner based in Delhi. We're joined throughout the programme by Jyoti Malhotra, National & Strategic Affairs Editor at The Print; she's with us from New Delhi. And Tony Nash, co-founder and Chief Economist at Complete Intelligence, is with us from Houston, Texas. (Photo of President Joe Biden by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images).
As the BRICS leaders meet, is the loose alliance of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa working? We hear from Professor Miles Kahler, a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington DC. Facebook has been accused of breaking UK equality law in the way it handles job adverts. The campaign group Global Witness said the social network failed to prevent discriminatory targeting of ads, and its algorithm was biased in choosing who would see them, as Naomi Hirst from the organisation explains. And the American car giant, Ford will stop production in India; we get analysis from Nikhil Chawla, a business journalist and proud Ford owner based in Delhi.
Sara Goldrick-Rab, professor of higher education policy and sociology at Temple University and founding director of the Hope Center for College, Community, and Justice, and Clyde Wilson Pickett, vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at the University of Pittsburgh, discuss pandemic-related inequities in higher education. FASKIANOS: Welcome to CFR's Higher Education Webinar. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at the Council on Foreign Relations. And we welcome you and are happy to have you with us today. Our meeting is on the record and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/Academic. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. So we're delighted to have Sara Goldrick-Rab and Clyde Wilson Pickett with us today to talk about pandemic-related inequities in higher education. We've shared their bios with you, so I'll just give a few highlights. Dr. Goldrick-Rab is professor of higher education policy and sociology at Temple University and founding director of the Hope Center for College, Community, and Justice in Philadelphia. She's also the chief strategy office for emergency aid at Edquity, a student financial success and emergency aid company, and founder of Believe in Students, a nonprofit focused on distributing emergency aid. She's known for her innovative research on food and housing insecurity in higher education and for her work on making public higher education free. Dr. Pickett is vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at the University of Pittsburgh. In his role, he provides leadership for university-wide comprehensive diversity, equity, and inclusion strategy. Previously Dr. Pickett served as chief diversity officer for the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System. And prior to that, he held positions with several other colleges and universities, including the Community College of Allegheny County, Ohio Northern University, Morehead State University, and the University of Kentucky. So thank you both for joining us today. You know, we really want to have a—dig into this conversation, the primary ways the pandemic has contributed to inequities in higher education that were already there, but we've seen the gap widen. So, Dr. Goldrick-Rab, it would be great if you could begin by talking about the financial challenges, including non-tuition related challenges, related expenses that you've seen pre-pandemic and now with the pandemic. And then we'll go to Dr. Pickett. GOLDRICK-RAB: Great. Yes. Well, thank you so much for having me. And it's great to be here virtually with you all today. It's a real honor. And I'm delighted to be here with Clyde and looking forward to this conversation. This topic of what students go through in order to pay for college is something that I spent about twenty years studying. And a lot of what we have learned over that time is that the challenges are a lot more complicated and a lot more substantial than simple numbers, like the net price of college or the amount of financial aid, would have you believe. So even prior to the pandemic, we saw that students were, for example, having trouble because what the college said it would cost to go there is inclusive of living expenses. And what a college estimates for living expenses is often off. So for example, right, if a student is living at home with their family, the assumption might be that the family is not charging rent. But a lot of students were, in fact, paying rent while living with their families. So one key thing that was challenging was information and, you know, just a good sense of what one had to budget for. A second really big challenge is that the financial aid system was really set up to support a fraction of college students, not to support the majority. And as result, there's a lot of paperwork required. There's a lot of hoops to jump through in order to be able to get and keep financial aid. And, frankly, there's only a limited amount of money. And so the financial aid, even before the pandemic, was leaving students way short, especially when it came to grants. And that's one of the main reasons that we saw the big increase in loans. The other thing is that the financial aid system is heavily bureaucratic. It moves very slowly. And so when a student has an unexpected expense or a shortfall—you know, a car breaks down—it is very hard to get that money quickly using standard financial aid. Another big challenge, it has to do with what happened to people's families, right? So the status of American families over the last twenty years, and the extent to which they can't actually make ends meet, the extent to which they can't survive an unexpected expense themselves, means that a lot of college students come from settings where there isn't anybody there to actually be able to help them in that way. They can provide love, and they can provide support, and they can talk to them and be supportive of, you know, what they're doing. But the idea that every student coming to college has two parents with good incomes who are able to step up and help, that's been an outdated assumption for a very long time. And of course, that also maps onto significant changes in the racial composition of higher education, into the gender composition, right, the class composition of higher education, and so on. Another big issue has to do with working. And working during college is actually the backbone of financial aid packages. Students are mostly assumed that they're going to need to work, and they do need to work. And 70 percent of students were working before the pandemic, and the vast majority of students were trying to find work but couldn't find it. So that was really hard in a labor market where the minimum wage didn't, you know, pay particularly well and where, let's be honest, employers really want flexibility and they're not particularly impressed with students' needs to attend class, for example, at given times of the day. So that, on top of state disinvestment for higher education, which has led a lot of institutions to shift the burden for paying for college onto students, was what thinks looked like before the pandemic. And then the pandemic struck. And we already had gaps in the system. We already had big financial holes for many, many students. And it did a lot of things. It made it harder for institutions that needed to offer students a lot more financial aid or a lot more emergency aid but didn't have the support available, that don't have big endowments. When the federal government stepped up, that was good. But somebody actually has to give out the money. And there wasn't a lot of money to provide for that additional staffing and infrastructure to actually get money to students quickly. That's a lot of work. So one of the results is that we find that an average time it takes to get a student emergency aid is about fourteen days. Which is way out of line when you consider that what happens to people in an emergency is they need money fast. Another thing that happened, of course, is that jobs for students have become a lot harder to find, although it's also been complicated by the fact that employers report they can't find people to work there. But the kinds of jobs that students are comfortable being in—meaning they feel safe, that work with their work schedules, and that pay a decent wage—are still really hard for many of them to find. Another challenge, of course, is that many of these students have family responsibilities. So more than one in four students in the United States has a child of their own. So the things that have happened to our workforce as schools closed and parents had to take care of kids happened to our students too. And to the extent that families became sick or, you know, there was a need for caretaking, students had to do that as well. So in all of the ways that affect regular people in American life—in terms of their financial instability, the volatility, the unexpected expenses—things were hard before and things are even harder now. FASKIANOS: Thank you very much. Dr. Pickett, I'd like to go over to you now to talk about the challenges that you've seen, obviously with the diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts and strategies that you could offer as we look ahead. PICKETT: Absolutely. Well, certainly I want to take the opportunity to extend my thanks for allowing me to be with you, and to be with our colleagues, and of course to share time with Sara. It's an honor and a privilege. Certainly, one of the things that we need to prioritize is that the current crisis has magnified inequities that have been with us for a long time. And as Sara notes, a number of these things have been present. And so as we think about the impact of this pandemic, they've exposed future, or I should say, current and more pronounced vulnerabilities that already existed. And they impact our populations beyond what we realize. So we put specific attention, as we should, on our students. But to be mindful that these vulnerabilities and specifically the impact of inequity impacts our colleagues. Certainly, that's true for our staff of different designations, particularly those who are economically fragile and who are on the frontlines, as well as our colleagues who are faculty. And to think about how we can't allow this crisis to be an excuse for how we prioritize equity and how we move a strategic agenda forward. So I wanted to be intentional about leading with that. It's an opportunity for us to affirm our commitment and our responsibility to addressing inequities broadly speaking across the institutions that make up higher education. In terms of prioritizing specific areas, I think that inequity has been most pronounced in terms of the areas of student support, more specifically thinking about holistic student support and how we're advancing and thinking collectively about the academic support as well as the broader considerations for how we support our students, the academic priorities of institutions and how we position them front and center. As we think about the responsibility to provide support for faculty who have to pivot to online exchange and instruction, how do we provide intentional support to meet the needs of different learners and to prioritize that beyond just a compliance lens, and to think about how accessibility and digital accessibility had to be front in consideration—a front and center consideration, I should say—for the work that we do. A part of this work, as we think about broad inequities, also is about the work in terms of thinking about the human capital of our institutions. I mentioned just briefly the disproportionate impact that we've—for frontline staff and individuals of different designation who are advancing work, but also to think about what it means in terms of being the caretaker of a loved one or significant other or child who has a health challenge or has been impacted by the pandemic. And more specifically to think about the childcare considerations that are placed on our colleagues and, as Sara pointed out, certainly our students as well. This broad conversation that I think is important for us to think about in terms of the broad DEI agenda and the long-term ramifications are for us to think about funding considerations as well as the academic priorities for the future. We've seen a number of conversations manifest around the country about learning loss and the impact long term in terms of access of higher education, and to mindful of what that means for vulnerable and populations that have been traditionally underrepresented, underserved, and locked out of higher education. So we need to be mindful of that specific impact. It is a necessity that we prioritize inclusion in terms of how we move this work forward. We know loud and clear that the pandemic has further illuminated issues of discrimination, bias, and xenophobia. We've seen that with the uptick in anti-Asian violence around the country, more pronounced incidents of growth in White supremacist groups around the country. And to think about how institutions can take a more proactive approach in creating inclusive spaces on campuses and online, as instruction has pivoted in different ways, and for us to prioritize that. Campuses must be intentional about thinking about the holistic needs our students, the basic needs our students, and to prioritize mental health support and technology, as all of those areas have been escalated for consideration. Certainly, to be mindful of balancing safety as a front and center consideration for how we prioritize inclusion is part of our work. And to think about how we prioritize funding allocation for different opportunities to impact populations has to be a consideration as we think about the strategic equity agenda. So I offer those considerations as we begin our discussion and, of course, look forward to delving into more of them, as well as the questions that might come from our colleagues. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. Thank you very much. Let's go to all of you now for your questions. You can either raise your hand or you can type your question in the Q&A box and I'll read it. If you do so there, though, please state your institutional affiliation so that we know where you are, gives us the context for the conversation. So I'm going to first go to a good colleague, Mojúbàolú Olúfúnké Okome. Over to you. Q: OK. Yeah. Good afternoon. I'm Mojúbàolú Olúfúnké Okome. And I'm a professor of political science at Brooklyn College. One of the concerns that I have is the mental health effects on students, and actually all of us—(laughs)—but really on the students, especially students who do not—who are not traditional students. You know, and so they don't have as many resources available to them. So I was wondering what your insights are on this issue and what could be done institutionally and collectively to address this issue. PICKETT: I'll weigh in just quickly here, and Sara, of course, look forward to your comments as well. As a queued up at the beginning, I think this is a front and center consideration as we think about the strategic equity agenda. Loud and clear we've heard directly from students that mental health is an area of priority. Before we were in the pandemic the request for additional support and for campuses all around the country was a front and center consideration, how we put particular attention and, more importantly, how we resourced mental health support was an area of rising consideration. And for colleagues who work directly in student affairs and student support, we know that this has always been there. But as we continue to navigate this pandemic, it continues to be an even greater area of consideration as we think about the impact, particularly on communities that have been most impacted, and particularly thinking about Black and brown communities, and other economically fragile communities, in terms of the need for additional mental health support, and in areas and certain situations where those communities don't necessarily always connect with mental health support. So that's another consideration. I think campuses that are most proactive, and higher education institutions that are most proactive are putting in specific resources to continue to build out support for mental health support. And for institutions that are less well-prepared for that, I think having alliances with broader institutions and to think about how we can leverage collective support is the answer for how we get at this. I want to be clear. I think we have a responsibility certainly to meet the needs of our students. But I don't want us to miss the opportunity in terms of what we're hearing loud and clear from our colleagues who are faculty and staff at institutions. Burnout is something in terms of climate surveys and assessments that our colleagues are communicating with us loud and clear. And so we have to be mindful that we have to take care of the individuals that take care of our students. So that's another part or a level of this that I think we have to keep at a front consideration. So absolutely I appreciate the question and note that we have to put additional resources and think about strategic collaboration across institution types to move this work forward, but to also think about what that means for our staff and faulty in support as well. GOLDRICK-RAB: I agree. I would say that we have to keep in mind that many institutions don't have any dollars to spare, and that clearly this is going to require federal support. And I think that even as we're sitting here right now there is discussion of a package. You know, the reconciliation is going on. And one piece of that package is $9 billion for student supports. And I think the question about the prioritization of those funds and where institutions plan to spend those funds, if they are to come—if they were to become reality, is a critical part of the conversation. You know, the mental health needs of students across the United States were greatest at the nation's community colleges before the pandemic. And those are the places that had the least level of supports in place. And it wasn't from lack of recognition of the problem; it was from lack of money. And so we have to acknowledge that we already had profound inequities, we already had mental health crises. The Healthy Minds Study has been documenting these things for years. And, yes, the current situation's making it worse. I do want to point out, though, that there are two dimensions to this current situation. One is the pandemic and the effects of the social isolation. The second is the effect of this virus. The Hope Center recently released, to my knowledge, the only study out there on the effect of the virus on college students. And our analyses across about a hundred thousand students across the nation show that it seems that having been infected with this virus is associated with increased anxiety, depression, and food insecurity. And I'm concerned, frankly, that a number of our institutions are not doing anything to allow students to disclose if they have been affected, so that we could direct more support to them. Now, I understand we can't require it—and, you know, there's a big distinction. But these students are at real risk of potentially long COVID effects, and so are staff and faculty. And I think that it is not only urgent that we adjust these challenges, but that we also do the triage that, unfortunately, we have to do because we have limited resources, and perhaps focus them on the populations that have been infected at the highest rates. Which, of course, include Black and brown and indigenous students, and also include student parents, and also include student athletes at very, very high rates. And I think that we'd better attend to it, or we're going to see a lot of ongoing problems. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Sara, I would like to get the link for that survey, and we can circulate it to the group. And any other resources that both of you would like us to share we will follow up with an email. So I'm going to go next to Lucy Dunderdale Cate. And please unmute yourself. Q: Hi. My name is Lucy Dunderdale Cate. I'm with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I wanted to get your thoughts on just how for leadership, you know, for chancellors, for presidents, how should they be communicating to students that are dealing with these issues? And particularly thinking about it—you know, students, but faculty and staff as well, and particularly being sensitive to that kind of toxic positivity that so often is easy for leaders to do. At the same time, wanting to still be encouraging and to be, you know, we can do this together feeling, but not being toxically positive. Would just love to get your thoughts on that. GOLDRICK-RAB: So my team is very taken with the research on empathy and care. And I think that a lot of folks often think that that is, you know, kind of glossing over, or maybe just too touchy-feely. But it's a very effective approach. And what it really means is starting by understanding your students as humans before you think about them as students. Just like we want our doctors to think about as humans before they think about us as patients. It changes the conversation. And what that means is that if you have important information to share with the students that you start with an open acknowledgement that this is a really tough time, right? That we don't gloss over that or skip past that. That we do give them many, many, many openings to be able to speak to somebody—whether that's a peer-to-peer, right, whether that's speak to a professional, whatever that is. And that we continue to not just—it's important, frankly, that we don't just cheerlead and push people, I think as you might be alluding to, towards, you know, just keep going, just stay in, everything is fine, but openly acknowledge that everybody right now is really slogging through it and that coping is incredibly difficult. And I think that the one other piece is that, in my view, this starts with leadership. This really is not effective and cannot happen if the president doesn't embrace it, because it really trickles down from there, frankly. And it has to be in multiple places. So this should be reflected in a statement that's on every syllabus, right? It should show up on the management system, it should show up in correspondence. You know, anything that the institution can do to remind students that they get it. Cutting red tape right now, right? Removing more bureaucracy, relieving and getting out of any kinds of requirements that are not necessary—all of those things are human-centered things. PICKETT: I appreciate everything that Sara offered. And I double down on that in terms of thinking about the senior administrative approach to this. Certainly, there exists consultative means to engage students, and I think we utilize those. Having had the opportunity to work on different kinds of campuses, I do think it's mindful for us to be attentive of the populations that don't easily have ready access to senior administration. Having had the opportunity to serve at a community college, quite often we know that there is a more guided path to get directly to student input and feedback. But I think it's critical to use the necessary means to get directly to students. I think the intentionality that Sara points out in terms of having empathetic messages communicated in different mediums is critical. Whether we're using social media, whether we're doing that on our syllabi, whether we're doing that specifically as it relates to the messages that we put out to the campus community, I think there has to be consistency in the chorus that speaks to the empathy of the now and how we're working to navigate this together. The toxic positivity that you referenced I think is prevalent at a number of institutions. And for us to be mindful of what that means—one of the ways that we were able to execute that here at the University of Pittsburgh was a townhall series that we put in place for all stakeholders called This is Not Normal, to just identify collectively as a community that what we're experiencing is absolutely abnormal, and to talk about what that experience was, and to think about collectively how we could move as a community to respond to the needs and to have ongoing triage and collective concern and outreach by all constituents. And I think to do that, and to be attentive to those populations that are most removed from senior administration, is something that we have to do. So utilizing our colleagues at all levels, specifically looking at peer mentoring models that offer opportunity to have communication with students, and to think about starting those messages during the orientation process is a front and center consideration to move that agenda forward. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Pearl Robinson. Q: So, Pearl Robinson. I do African politics, international relations, African studies at Tufts University. This being the Council on Foreign Relations, I want to bring up the issue of study abroad. And certainly, last year Tufts both undergraduate and graduate study abroad international relations is very important. The university decided it had to bring home students from all of our study abroad programs except Oxford, which was deemed safe. And we were told how everybody was living with families. And of course, at the end of—they had to eventually bring those people home again. So now we're talking about our study abroad programs. Will we have one in Ghana? I had counseled two students who are going to be studying Africa at either at SOAS or LSE. Maybe we have to shut down Africa because it's too dangerous. I actually want to know, are there are universities that are thinking about the implications of creating—or, not having study abroad opportunities for students in non-European places, and ways in which you might be able to do things? Like, I participated in a couple of very exciting webinars with African universities where there's some kind of interaction. So I just want to know, has anybody been thinking about that? And does the Council maybe have that on its agenda? Have you been doing it secretly and I didn't know about it? FASKIANOS: We can look at it for a future topic, Pearl. Do either of you want to? GOLDRICK-RAB: I don't have any expertise in this space, except to say that I spoke to folks at AIEA yesterday and, you know, they're very concerned about students' health and wellbeing. PICKETT: And the same on my end. I wouldn't have anything in terms of expertise to offer but would say from an administrative standpoint it's intentional for us to be mindful of the different opportunities that we engage with, and to use an equity lens with regard to how we're monitoring those experiences. I know loud and clear as we think about race and ethnicity being a front and consideration as part of this pandemic and our response to be mindful of the ramifications and the impact on different communities. So leadership should put that front and center in consideration, but in terms of specific things that I've seen directly, nothing that I could offer. But I do—should I find information I'll definitely pass it along to Irina. FASKIANOS: And just to follow on a bit, granted from a different angle, what about the pandemic-related inequities facing international studies? What is the—you know, on your campus, the international studies, and have they been able to come this year? And maybe that would be an opportunity to create some international experiences on campus. PICKETT: Absolutely. I think different institutions obviously are in different places with regard to that. We've had a number of students who have been able to return to campus. But to mindful that there has been a significant impact, particularly as they think about housing and what the experience is like in the community. And as we think about, particularly depending on where individuals come from, how they self-identify, and the rising tide of what I would classify as racism and xenophobia potentially impacting those students is a consideration that we have to put front and center. GOLDRICK-RAB: Yeah. I would say that, you know, again, we had big problems before the pandemic with folks not being able to really afford to be here the way they had hoped to be able to really afford to be here. We had students—international students at food pantries well before the pandemic. You know, certainly the number who can't be here at all right now is one issue, but I also want to note that one good thing is that the federal government's Higher Education Relief Funds, the HEERF III dollars in particular, which came out this year, which provided emergency aid to students, does not require students to be United States citizens in order to get those funds. It doesn't even require them to fill out a FAFSA either. So institutions, all of them that receive Title IV, have a substantial amount of emergency aid dollars right now which they could choose to leverage to support international students. Furthermore, their institutional allocations of those same dollars can also be used for those purposes. And so in this case, again, everyone is a human. And we do not have to choose to treat people differently based on that status as an international student. I don't know how widespread that understanding is. It's very clear, frankly, in the federal FAQs. But that's stuff the lawyers read. And I'm concerned that people who advocate for these students might not be aware of this. Or maybe they're not being heard in terms of where the dollars are going to be put. PICKETT: I'd double down on what Sara offers in terms of us thinking about the institutional ethos for support for those students and that student population. How we prioritize that agenda and how we amplify the voices of advocates, particularly for our international students, is a front and center consideration that was present, again, before—you're noticing a trend here—was present before the pandemic. But nonetheless, one that we have to continue to prioritize as a consideration. And as those dollars are available, institutions being willing to make the appropriate allocations and supplement them where necessary to continue to support different students populations, including our international students. FASKIANOS: Thank you. While we wait for a few more questions to queue up, how about the digital inequity? I know, Sara, you said before we got started that you were teaching all online. So the digital inequity has been a big concern, and we've really seen that, as well as, you know, people not wanting to turn on their cameras because, you know, they are sharing spaces, and might not want to show their homes, and all of that. So can you talk a little bit about how—what you're thinking on that. GOLDRICK-RAB: Yeah. I mean, it's a huge issue. So, I mean, the first thing is, again, I keep saying before the pandemic. But, you know, I spent twelve years living in Wisconsin. We had tons of college students all over the state who did not have broadband access, OK? So, you know, and it was a time when, frankly, the state was cutting—well, it's continued to cut state support—but it was cutting back the ability of in-person campuses to even be there and telling people to go online. And there really wasn't real ability to do that. So this, again, is a longstanding problem. We have the same challenge here in Pennsylvania, especially in rural communities. I am teaching online right now. And I want to say that, you know, part of the reason is because there's a whole population of students that want online instruction. These are people who would have to commute quite a long ways to get to school. These are people who have children and are juggling that. These are people who have health challenges and/or other disabilities, right? So there is an appetite for online instruction. One of the biggest challenges, of course, is not only do they have the technology for online instruction, but also who has access to teachers who are comfortable, and well-trained, and good at online instruction? And unfortunately, because we have not made those investments—and, frankly, I think we should view those as infrastructure investments—we did not resource the people who need to do the teaching so they can be prepared. Then we have some of the most vulnerable students getting taught by teachers with the least time and ability to able to kind of pivot like this. We do also have a workforce, frankly, of a lot of folks in wealthier parts of higher education where professors don't think of themselves as teachers. They think of themselves as researchers, and so on. And so getting them to invest the time to learn to teach online is also a challenge. That said, it can be done well. And, frankly, a student doesn't need to turn on their camera to be engaged in a course. And to me, the fact that we keep having that conversation—which is, you know, far from just your question, everybody's asking that question—tells me that we have people who are not taught about how to do engagement with students who can't turn on their cameras. I open up multiple channels for students to be able to interact with me while I'm teaching. They message, OK? They can hit on Slack. I run multiple things. But it requires that I know how to do that and that I am suited to that task. So the last part is this: I mean, here in Philadelphia it's hard to believe, you know, that people would really have trouble getting on the internet. But they really do because they can't afford their internet bills. And so I have multiple students right now who are telling me that they're accessing everything using their phone, not on their laptops. Their phone is their laptop essentially. And they don't have wireless, so they have very spotty service. So they didn't even know that our university offers hotspots now. And so one big part is informational, connecting them to that. PICKETT: I think it's critical, appended to the comments that Sara makes, to be attentive of different populations. Certainly, it's pronounced—it was pronounced at the beginning of the pandemic that there were a number of issues with access to broadband internet in different communities. Obviously having spent time in the state of Minnesota and thinking about the native and indigenous population and the opportunities where there was limited broadband access there, as well as hardware limitations, those are considerations that I think a number of communities have pronounced as areas of consideration. And that's true, I think, for different areas. Certainly, that's true in western Pennsylvania. And as Sara points out, we have a number of students of different backgrounds and of varying means economically that choose to access their courses via cellphone. So to think about the different kinds of instruction and how we're supporting our colleagues to observe equitable practices in a virtual environment, and to think about how we have to systematize that and appropriately educate our colleagues deliver that kind of instruction is a consideration. I think the other areas of consideration, particularly as we're thinking about digital accessibility or the conversations about general academic support in different models of delivery—so whether we're thinking about asynchronous delivery of instruction or the different modalities of learning, to be mindful that different student populations respond to different ways and different things. And to put that as part of our consideration for the academic agenda is a consideration that I think we need to be mindful of. FASKIANOS: And just, if we could hearken back to your experience at the Community College of Allegheny, Clyde, just to talk about the disparities at community college. I know, Sara, you touched upon it, about the mental health crisis that existed before the pandemic and is, you know, they couldn't address it because of lack of resources. But it would be interesting to hear your perspective, Clyde, from what you've experienced. PICKETT: Absolutely. Having had the opportunity to work directly at the Community College of Allegheny County, as well as the State System of Higher Education in Minnesota, and to serve thirty-seven community and technical colleges, it's critical for us to put an equity lens in terms of thinking about the access to hardware and to digital resources for all of our student populations. We know that those inequities existed before that. But in a more pronounced way when we pivoted and made the jump to remote instruction, for a number of institutions and individuals there was the need to provide access to hardware as well as to digital networks for students. And those gaps existed before and exist now. I think as we think about availability of resources, that is an area of consideration. The other thing as we think about this is modality of learning, and how different populations respond to different kinds of learning. And so that's another consideration as we think about the strategic equity agenda and how we work proactively to meet the needs of different learners to make available appropriate support, whether it's online models for tutoring or expanded academic support for advisors—a consideration particularly at our community and technical colleges that I think is a necessity. The other consideration, and Sara talked about this in terms of the equity lens and experience, to equip our educators with utilizing appropriate training and education to not bias how they engage with learners depending on how they interface with the use of technology. To shut one's camera off should not at all impact how an individual engages with what's expected of them in the classroom and certain situations. So to be mindful and to communicate equitable approaches to that exchange I think is a consideration. FASKIANOS: Are there any places that you would suggest for people who would want to sort of dig in on how to better do that? I think, Sara, you mentioned Digital Pedagogy Lab as a resource. GOLDRICK-RAB: Yeah. I would really highly recommend Digital Pedagogy Lab. That's my absolute favorite resource out there. And they do institutes, and they do trainings, and so on. And I really do recommend taking a look. FASKIANOS: Great. In the work that you've been doing, Sara, you know, we've seen a lot of reports about the impact of the pandemic on women, and how many women have left the workforce because the childcare issues, and whatnot. So have you done any studies on women leaving college? And you said—I believe you said one in four have a child. So how does that fall out? GOLDRICK-RAB: Well, so I will tell you, the interesting thing about higher ed is that even though women have a substantial number of challenges, they are less likely than men to drop out. And that's been true for a long time. There are many books written about why men are less likely to attend college, why they're more likely to drop out of college, and so on and so forth. Even though, frankly, you know, a woman—like, the disproportionate number, for example, of people with children in higher education are single moms. There are single dads, for the record. There are married dads. All of the different things are there as well. I would not say that we have done studies, therefore, of them dropping out during this time. But we have done studies of their basic needs and their basic need security during this time. And what I can tell you is that students with children are more likely to not have their basic needs met, to have struggles with food, and housing, and so on and so forth. We don't see really pronounced gender differences, except that I would say that gender nonconforming students, actually, are much more likely to face these challenges and to find that they're really struggling financially. Some of the reason for that, we suspect, has to do with the way that financial aid is allocated. Those students are less likely to be able to access parental resources that make it look like the family has money, even though the student is not getting any of that support. But parenting while in college is already really difficult. And it's especially hard in the pandemic. Students report not being able to concentrate, right? They report juggling all kinds of additional challenges. And I will say, the schools reopening right now is far from an easy thing. So you know, in many districts across the country, including here in Philadelphia, the schools are intermittently open. We have had, you know, a given class where there's a COVID infection, and then suddenly the class is shut down. The school's open, but the student can't go because their class is closed for the week—they're quarantining. This is wreaking havoc for students. I have more students than ever who are saying they don't know what one week is going to be like to the next. And, frankly, the same thing is true for us parents who are staff and faculty. I am ready at the drop of a hat right now to run down and pick my kids up, because we—you know, we had—we've had COVID infections, we had a flood thanks to a hurricane and a tornado. I mean, there's—you know, so—(laughs)—it is—it is a remarkable time to try to keep anything education going right now. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I want to just ask people, we're coming to the end of our time. So if you have other questions—I have a whole list of questions. So I can—I can keep going on. (Laughs.) But I don't want to filibuster here, so please raise your hands. Clyde, can you talk a little bit more about as you think about DEI leadership, how DEI leaders can encourage their institutions to think more strategically about how they take care of Black and brown population, and deal with these pandemic-related inequities? PICKETT: Absolutely. I think part of this is for us to think intentionally about how we monitor, check in, and think about the engagement of those populations on our campuses. Loud and clear as we manage and examine enrollment trends at the institutions, I think we need to be mindful of what the presence of our population is for Black and brown communities as part of our institutions, and to be attentive of that. We're reminded that in the midst of this pandemic was the continued push for racial equity and racial equity in this country. And so a number of institutions, at the same time dealing with the challenge associated with the pandemic, also made renewed commitments to attract and retain more diverse populations across the academy. We saw a number of institutions that made commitments to attract more faculty of color, to be attentive of what it means to support scholars of color, particularly those who are Black and brown. And so thinking about what that means in terms of DEI strategy work is to be mindful of the different populations, and to assess those experiences as they have come to our institution. So we're having a lot of conversations across the academy to think about not only the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, but the pandemic of racism and how it continues to impact our colleagues across the institution, more specifically our students. And so as we think about this DEI strategy, to be mindful of how we examine the experiences of our students and to think about the examination of sense of belonging as they come to our institutions, as well as how they're assessing the experiences for holistic support. So giving the opportunity for our colleagues who are DEI strategists to have access to the data in terms of thinking about those student experiences, and how we can influence and shape policy as a consideration for the work that we do. One of the things that I will point to as a consideration, that we've had some success in a previous role from a systems standpoint, was to use an equity-based lens approach to reviewing all of our policies, when I was at the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System. And that resource and tool is available online. And we did that to provide real time opportunity for us to think about the policy implications for different populations. And there were a number of things that we unearthed as part of that experience, whether it was a disproportionate impact on Black and brown communities with our financial (holes ?), or to think about other considerations, those are kinds of—the kinds of tools that we can utilize to further move an agenda forward. So I would say that those are things that we have to use as a resource to move our agenda forward. FASKIANOS: Have you seen there to be a decline in enrollment as well? PICKETT: Obviously it depends on the institution type. So we know that community and technical colleges have suffered enrollment challenges as part of the pandemic. The University of Pittsburgh, we're at record enrollment for Black and brown communities here at the university. So I think the institution type, the resources associated with the institution, also obviously impact how and the ways institutions are able to move agenda. So to be mindful of that is a consideration that I think we have to examine. As we think about federal support for higher education—and I know Sara referenced this earlier—that's a consideration. As we think about the institutions who are the haves versus those been most fragile. It requires us to think about how we make specific allocation federally to influence and support those institutions. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. So if you were advising the Biden administration, the secretary of education, what would be the top two things that you would suggest the Biden administration to do in hiring? GOLDRICK-RAB: I am advising the Biden administration secretary of education. (Laughs.) FASKIANOS: There you go. GOLDRICK-RAB: So do you want to know what we're advising them? (Laughs.) FASKIANOS: I do, actually. (Laughs.) GOLDRICK-RAB: I will say, for anybody who's interested, actually I testified before Congress yesterday in front of the U.S. House of Representatives around some of the work that they need to be doing. And I really urge folks in higher ed to take a look because the conversation was about hunger and food insecurity, and the committee was the Committee on Rules. And I worry a lot that our higher ed folks are not watching that committee or the committees outside of the education committees. But I believe that Jim McGovern is actually going to play a leading role in what's going to happen for our students and their basic needs in that space. So it's at rules.house.gov. And you can see the hearing from yesterday. I think one of the most exciting things that is about to happen is that a man named James Kvaal is finally going to take his seat and get to do his job as undersecretary of education. You know, our secretary of education is a K-12 expert. And I've been really glad to see him bring on some great folks like Eloy Oakley Ortiz from the California Community Colleges as an advisor. But James Kvaal is a higher ed expert. And the undersecretary of education's role is absolutely critical. And one of the things that he is intending to do, and that we need him to do, is to put somebody in charge of making sure that we change rules and regulations and administrative minutia to help secure students' basic needs now. So this is the time to make sure that our students get access to SNAP, right? To make sure that we connect them to the child tax credit. There are so many things that are available to students beyond standard financial aid. And right now, the Department of Ed doesn't tell them about any of those things. So that is absolutely imperative. And I also will say that with regard to the reconciliation bill and what the House is doing right now in terms of markup, free community college is in there and it needs to be. And it needs to happen. And it needs to pass. And the time is now. And I think that we will never regret that move. I believe that just as we expanded access to K-12 education starting with elementary school and then moving through high school, we should absolutely go for free community college. It will not be the last thing that we do, but I think it's essential. You know, I don't know how much folks remember the last recession, but I was doing a lot of research during that time. And I'll tell you that all the growth in the enrollment, all the returning growth to higher ed came, right, from students going to community colleges, and came from largely part-time folks. And so we're going to see people returning because they need higher education. And we need to make sure that those institutions are able to help them succeed. A lot of people think going to community college is not the best move. You know, they don't have the best outcomes. And I have one really clear answer for you: You get what you pay for. If you give them the resources and you give the students the resources so that they go to institutions and they actually can focus on learning and not worrying about if they have to eat, they will graduate and they will do well. PICKETT: I, of course, double down on that support for thinking about how we make community college accessible to all. Obviously, a long-standing advocate for community and technical colleges. It's something that is a priority for me. And we know statistically the largest populations of Black and brown students who ultimately complete a four-year degree start at community and technical colleges. So that has to be a priority. And I think in terms of funding and making that a priority, it is a consideration absolutely that we have to keep front and center. The other thing that I would offer is for us to think continually about how we support intentional holistic support. Whether it's mental health support, how we address housing insecurity and food insecurity for consideration for our college students has to be a consideration as well, and to be mindful of what that means long-term. It's an investment in our future of the country. And so I think we have to be mindful that while there is an investment now, long-term it will yield considerable benefits for us as a nation, and for us to not only provide access, but holistic support during that process ultimately will put us in a much better place and lead us down a greater path holistically in terms of where we want to be in the future for this country. FASKIANOS: Thank you. And I'm going to go now to Elsa Dias, who has her hand raised. Q: Yes. I am. Thank you. I am a—I am faculty at a community college in Colorado—at Pikes Peak Community College. And I'm—so to support some of what is being said currently here. But I don't think that students are getting what they're paying for at community colleges. I think that they're getting much more than what they are getting at community colleges. So that statement is sort of—I don't know that I appreciate the statement, because I think that students at community colleges we are working with consistently cut budgets, more so than four schools. And we have much more difficulty in raising tuition. It's not the same thing as in—as in four-year schools. We deal with populations that are in higher need than four-year schools. And we have to meet very different criteria than four-year schools. Our standards in terms of meeting what the students need and what—we are heavily legislated upon, right? So there is these state legislations that sort of affect us very differently than they do four-year schools. So I do believe that students are getting much more than what they are given, and what they get at community colleges. And some of the things that we see today, during this pandemic at community colleges, are I think the stigma to go to community colleges is certainly—continues to be around. And we continue to not participate in many of the voices that we should be included in at the table. But I also think that it's important to realize that our administrators are faced with much higher challenges than administrators at four-year schools, and so in the faculty. And the lack of investment in faculty at four-year schools does not even come close to the lack of investments that we suffer at community colleges. We have to do a lot more with a lot less. Thank you. GOLDRICK-RAB: So if I may respond, I think maybe, Elsa, I wasn't entirely heard for what I was saying. What I was saying was that you are doing a tremendous amount with very little. And the point is when you say what you get what you pay for, right, is if we want to have 100 percent graduation rates at community colleges, the way we do at Harvard, then we should be resourcing the schools, including the faculty, the student support services, et cetera. What we do in higher education is that we give the schools that educate the most vulnerable the least amount of money on a per-student basis. So for example, if you take a look—I served on the national taskforce around the adequate funding for the nation's community colleges. That was all about showing that if you were going to fund community college adequately to actually address the needs of students, and to do so where they would much—have much higher rates of graduation and success in the completion of their programs, you would be spending approximately four to five to six times what you're currently spending. I outline all of this in a very extensive—I have about a fifty-page report called “The Challenges and Opportunities Facing Community Colleges,” which came out in 2010, which actually delineates the underspending on community college faculty, on community college staff, and so on and so forth. I think, given the severe economic disparities between these institutions, their students, and the four-year colleges, it's a miracle that in many ways we get anything, right? That students are able to graduate, because we spend so very, very little. So as a quick last example, in the state of New Jersey taxpayer support goes to Princeton University at fifty times the rate of taxpayer support going to New Jersey Community Colleges. Fifty times. So we should expect, right, that if we increased the support to students at those community colleges there is a strong relationship between the inputs of the finances and the outputs that they produce. I think it's worthy of a greater investment. So I think we're actually agreeing. FASKIANOS: Clyde, anything you would like to add? PICKETT: Well, just that loud and clear I hear the comments and what Elsa brings in. I appreciate the clarity from Sara there. Having had the opportunity to be an administrator at a community college and a developmental studies adjunct faculty member at a community college, I know loud and clear that we're working proactively to meet the needs of our learners in a way that supports them where they are. And we do transformational work. To be clear, that that transformational work should be embraced, welcomed, and supported by four-year institutions. So those of us who are working and serving on the four-year institution side of the house to actually normalize and champion access to community and technical colleges, and to do so in such a way that embraces and makes smooth pipelines and opportunities for our learners who transfer—who complete their education, and to make sure there are appropriate matriculation agreements for programs of study for our students who ultimately complete their four-year education at institutions like the University of Pittsburgh, but start at community and technical colleges. FASKIANOS: Thank you. We are almost out of time, so I wanted to give you each a few minutes to just touch upon anything we didn't touch upon or cover or leave us with some final thoughts. So, Sara, why don't we start with you and then we'll go to Clyde. GOLDRICK-RAB: Clyde was about to go. Please go, Clyde. FASKIANOS: Clyde was about to go. All right, Clyde. PICKETT: No, I appreciate the opportunity. Once again, thank you for allowing me to spend time with you, allowing me to be with you in community. And this is just an opportunity for us to reaffirm where we are in terms of our commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. And more specifically, to acknowledge that the areas of vulnerability that we've identified, the inequity, have been longstanding with regard to the academy. It's an opportunity for us to flip the mirror and have a very long pause, intentional look at how we can make remedy, how we can make change, and how we can affirm and, for some of us, reaffirm our commitment and responsibility to address the inequity that has been present, but has been further exacerbated as part of this pandemic. So now is the time for us to close equity gaps. Now is the time for us to take action. And I look forward to standing with colleagues all around the country to do so. GOLDRICK-RAB: Yeah. I would just say that, you know, the challenges are really big right now, but there's also a lot of room for structural change. And I think we need to speak up for it and advocate for it, and not just lament it, right? You know, each of us in this country has a representative, or a couple of them, or a bunch of them, right? And they need to hear about what's happening to higher education. It's really, really important. One aspect of the hearing yesterday that was absolutely fascinating occurred when there was an exchange between Representative Cole, who came from Oklahoma, and the panel. And what he said was—he sat back in his chair. And he said: I've got to tell you, I've learned something today. I did not know that college students could go hungry. I did not know that this was happening. He said, we have to do something about this. Folks, tell them about what's going on, because they do not know—many of them do not know. I'm not saying that they'll all act, but many, many of our public leaders are very, very distanced from the realities that we're facing, whether we're staff, whether we're administrators, whether we're faculty. They are not getting it. And I think that it is so important that we communicate as much as we can because they have some big work to do right now, and some big opportunities to create change. FASKIANOS: Thank you, both. This was a really great conversation. We appreciate your insights in sharing your experience with us. And we will put together all the resources that were mentioned here and send them out to all of you to read and digest. You can follow both of our speakers on Twitter, @saragoldrickrab and @cwpick. So please go there. Again, I want to thank Dr. Goldrick-Rab and Dr. Pickett for being with us today. Next week we have a dedicated webinar series for students. And so our first one will be next week of the semester on September 15, from 1:00 to 2:00 p.m. Eastern time, and it's a great opportunity for students to actually ask their questions. This series is devoted to administrators and professors, but that one is for the students. And we hope you will share with your students and with your colleagues too on campus. So our next Education Webinar for the higher ed community will be on Thursday, October 21, at 12:00 p.m. Eastern time with Brian Mateo to talk about civic engagement in higher education. So I hope you'll join us next week and in October of the next one. So with that I encourage you to follow @CFR_Academic on Twitter. Visit CFR.org and ForeignAffairs.com for more information and resources on international affairs. And again, thank you both. We really appreciate it. (END)
The withdrawal of the US military forces from Afghanistan marks the end of the 9/11 era of US foreign policy. Yet in many ways, the world still lives under the long shadow of the September 11 attacks and the consequences of the War on Terror. In conversation with Dr Meghan O'Sullivan, the former special assistant to President George W Bush and later Deputy National Security Adviser on Iraq and Afghanistan. She spoke with Lowy Institute Research Fellow Lydia Khalil about how September 11 has shaped America's foreign policy stance in the two decades since the attacks - and how it will define global affairs into the future. Recorded Wednesday 8th September 2021 Dr Meghan O'Sullivan is the Kirkpatrick Professor of the Practice of International Affairs and the Director of the Geopolitics of Energy Project at Harvard University's Kennedy School. Dr O'Sullivan was special assistant to President George W. Bush and served as Deputy National Security Adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan. Lydia Khalil is Research Fellow in the West Asia Program at the Lowy Institute and manages its partnership with the Global Network on Extremism & Technology. She was international affairs fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and served as a political advisor for the US Department of Defense in Iraq. She is the editor of the Lowy Institute feature digital debate Did 9/11 change our world?
"The problem today that we didn't have during the Cold War or twenty years ago is that there's profound disagreement over what are the biggest threats to our national security." On the day the United States is scheduled to end its military presence in Afghanistan, two experts on counterterrorism — Bruce Hoffman and Jacob Ware— join Daniel for a special discussion. On the docket is a deep dive into many issues surrounding the exit. What could the US have done better, or differently? What could happen if ISIS-K and Al Qaeda vie for power in a Taliban-led society? Hoffman makes clear that in his opinion, the US should not be leaving. But what is the alternative? Support Talking Beats with Daniel Lelchuk. Professor Bruce Hoffman has been studying terrorism and insurgency for over four decades. He is a tenured professor in Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service where from 2010 to 2017 he was the Director of both the Center for Security Studies and of the Security Studies Program. In addition, Professor Hoffman is visiting Professor of Terrorism Studies at St Andrews University, Scotland. He previously held the Corporate Chair in Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency at the RAND Corporation and was also Director of RAND's Washington, D.C. Office. Professor Hoffman also served as RAND's Vice President for External Affairs and as Acting Director of RAND's Center for Middle East Public Policy. Appointed by the U.S. Congress to serve as a commissioner on the Independent Commission to Review the FBI's Post-9/11 Response to Terrorism and Radicalization, Professor Hoffman was a lead author of the commission's final report. He was Scholar-in-Residence for Counterterrorism at the Central Intelligence Agency between 2004 and 2006; an adviser on counterterrorism to the Office of National Security Affairs, Coalition Provisional Authority, Baghdad, Iraq in 2004, and from 2004-2005 an adviser on counterinsurgency to the Strategy, Plans, and Analysis Office at Multi-National Forces-Iraq Headquarters, Baghdad. Professor Hoffman was also an adviser to the Iraq Study Group. He has been a Distinguished Scholar, a Public Policy Scholar, a Senior Scholar, and a Global Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, D.C.; a Senior Fellow at the Combating Terrorism Center, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, N.Y.; a Visiting Professor at the Institute for Counter-Terrorism, Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, Israel; and, a Visiting Professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He is also a contributing editor to The National Interest and a member of the Jamestown Foundation's Board of Directors; a member of the board of advisers to the FBI Intelligence Analysts Association; and, serves on the advisory boards to the Arms Sales Monitoring Project at the Federation of American Scientists and of Our Voices Together: September 11 Friends and Families to Help Build a Safer, More Compassionate World. Professor Hoffman holds degrees in government, history, and international relations and received his doctorate from Oxford University. In November 1994, the Director of Central Intelligence awarded Professor Hoffman the United States Intelligence Community Seal Medallion, the highest level of commendation given to a non-government employee, which recognizes sustained superior performance of high value that distinctly benefits the interests and national security of the United States. Jacob Ware is a Research Associate in the Counterterrorism and Studies Program at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Amb. Roberta Jacobson talks about reestablishing U.S. ties with Cuba, becoming America's first female and civil servant ambassador to Mexico, forging a path during her 31-year career in the Department, and dealing with populist leaders. Ambassador Jacobson also discusses reestablishing diplomatic ties with Cuba, how she forged a path as a woman focusing on Latin America in the State Department and at the NSC over her 31-year career, lost opportunities in Havana, populism in the Western Hemisphere, and what she loved about Latin America.
It has been difficult to have a serious, balanced conversation about what the U.S. and this administration has done right in managing the exit from Afghanistan and what we have done wrong. That is a problem that has plagued the U.S. for the entire 20 year period we have conducted the war and, in fact, it may be one of the reasons the outcome to that conflict has been so unsatisfactory. Nonetheless, on this episode we try to cover a range of views in a thoughtful and respectful way. Our guests are Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations, Stephen Wertheim of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Rosa Brooks of Georgetown University Law School. Please join us. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/deepstateradio. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every week day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of almost 800 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous soul. sign up now and join us every Thursday night for a virtual happy hour. Now on to today's show notes Anushay Hossain is a journalist and political analyst whose work is featured on CNN, MSNBC, PBS, and more. Her writings on politics, gender, race, immigration, and being Muslim in America are published on Forbes, CNN, The Daily Beast, and Medium. She is also the host of the Spilling Chai podcast. Anushay is the Washington Correspondent for the Daily Ittefaq where she pens a political column for the iconic Bangladeshi newspaper, providing in-depth analysis on the latest from Capitol Hill. She guest-hosted Al-Jazeera English's (AJE), “The Stream” from 2012-2013 and is a panelist on PBS' feminist news-analysis program, “To The Contrary.” Anushay completed her undergraduate studies at the University of Virginia (UVA) and has a Master's degree from the University of Sussex. A passionate linguist, she studied Italian while living in Rome and is fluent in five languages. Anushay is married and lives in Washington, DC with her husband and two children. She is currently writing a book about the crisis of women's health in America. Mike Hayes has lived a lifetime of once-in-a-lifetime experiences. He has been held at gunpoint and threatened with execution. He's jumped out of a building rigged to explode, helped amputate a teammate's leg, and made countless split-second life-and-death decisions. He's written countless emails to his family, telling them how much he loves them, just in case those were the last words of his they'd ever read. Outside of the SEALs, he's run meetings in the White House Situation Room, negotiated international arms treaties, and developed high-impact corporate strategies. Over his many years of leadership, he has always strived to be better, to contribute more, and to put others first. That's what makes him an effective leader, and it's the quality that he's identified in all of the great leaders he's encountered. That continual striving to lift those around him has filled Mike's life with meaning and purpose, has made him secure in the knowledge that he brings his best to everything he does, and has made him someone others can rely on. In Never Enough, Mike Hayes recounts dramatic stories and offers battle- and boardroom-tested advice that will motivate readers to do work of value, live lives of purpose, and stretch themselves to reach their highest potential Mike is the former Commanding Officer of SEAL Team TWO, leading a two thousand–person Special Operations Task Force in Southeastern Afghanistan. In addition to a twenty-year career as a SEAL, Mike was a White House Fellow, served two years as Director of Defense Policy and Strategy at the National Security Council, and has worked directly with both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Beyond his military and governmental service, Mike is currently the Chief Digital Transformation Officer at VMware. He joined VMware in October 2020, and leads the company's worldwide business operations and the acceleration of the company's SaaS transition. Previously, he was SVP and Head of Strategic Operations at Cognizant Technology. Mike also served in Chief of Staff and COO roles at Bridgewater Associates, the world's largest and most successful hedge fund. Mike holds an M.A. in Public Policy from Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and received his B.A. from Holy Cross College. His military decorations include the Bronze Star for valor in combat in Iraq, a Bronze Star for Afghanistan, and the Defense Superior Service Medal from the White House. Hayes is a lifetime member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a member of the board of directors of Immuta, a data governance company, and of the National Medal of Honor Museum, and a senior advisor to Inherent Group, an impact investment firm. He lives in Westport, Connecticut with his wife and daughter. Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page
Afghanistan fell to the Taliban in a matter of days, and now the world watches to see what will happen to women who call the country home. Meighan Stone, an adjunct senior fellow in the Women and Foreign Policy program at the Council on Foreign Relations, joins host Krys Boyd to talk about the humanitarian fallout of the rapid collapse of the nation and how the U.S. might help aid the women and girls left behind, which she wrote about recently for the Washington Post.