Podcasts about International Studies Association

In this episode, we welcome one of the most influential voices in international relations, Professor Craig Murphy. A pioneer in global governance scholarship, Craig has been at the forefront of research on international organizations, industrial change, and the historical evolution of global political structures. His work bridges critical theory, historical materialism, and the study of transnational social movements, offering a sweeping perspective on the forces that have shaped our world. In recognition of his significant contribution to the field, Craig has received the Distinguished Senior Scholar Award in International Political Economy (2013) and International Organization (2024) from the International Studies Associations. In this conversation, we trace Craig's trajectory through the intellectual landscape of the 1970s, where emerging ideas on world-systems theory, quantitative peace research, and environmental limits reshaped the study of international politics. With trademark humour, he reflects on the influence of Robert Cox and historical materialism, the critical need to challenge “relentless presentism” in global governance research, and the dual role of international institutions – as both market-builders for industrial capitalism and platforms for political resistance. We close by reflecting on a world grappling with existential threats and Craig's salutary reminder that the task ahead is not just to critique existing governance but to fundamentally rethink and remake it. Craig Murphy is the Betty Freyhof Johnson '44 Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Wellesley College. A leading scholar of global governance, he has served as President of the International Studies Association (2000-2001) and co-editor of the journal Global Governance. Craig Murphy's Wellesley profile can be found here: https://www1.wellesley.edu/politicalscience/faculty/murphy We discussed: • ‘Every Just Peace is Something New: Translating a Difficult Finding from the Social Sciences to the Humanities and Back', unpublished manuscript. • International Organization and Industrial Change: Global Governance since 1850 (Oxford, 1994). • ‘Global Governance Over the Long Haul', International Studies Quarterly (2014). • ‘Global governance: poorly done and poorly understood', International Affairs (2000).

Jeremy Weinstein became the newest dean in the 88-year history of the Harvard Kennedy School this past June, arriving from Stanford University, where he was an award-winning scholar and the founding faculty director of the Stanford Impact Labs. The pursuit of deep scholarly curiosity and roll-up-your-sleeves impact has been a theme in his life and career, as well as an approach he intends to accelerate schoolwide at HKS under his leadership. Growing up, Weinstein experienced a family run-in with government policy gone horribly wrong—one that could have inspired a deep cynicism about the role of government in people's lives. He found inspiration instead and embarked on a career that has encompassed field research on the ground in post-conflict countries including Uganda, Mozambique, and Peru; wide-ranging scholarship in areas including political violence, the political economy of development, migration, and technology's proper role in society; government service at the National Security Council and as Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations during the Obama administration. He has also been an academic leader who has led major initiatives including the Stanford Impact Labs and the Immigration Policy Lab. His new job marks a return to HKS, where he earned both his master's and PhD in political economy and government. He joins PolicyCast host Ralph Ranalli to talk about his life experiences, how they shaped him as a scholar and leader, and what he believes the role of the Kennedy School should be in challenging times for academia, the United States, and the world.Policy Recommendations:Jeremy Weinstein's recommendations for restoring trust in public institutions, expertise, and scholarship:Reclaim the civic purpose of higher education and prioritize its role in serving democratic institutions and solving societal problems.Reconnect to the real-world problems people are experiencing and ensure that the questions being asked and answered by scholars and researchers are ones that can help public institutions make progress.Leverage expertise and use science and innovation to tackle pressing challenges including economic insecurity, housing insecurity, food access, access to health care, and geographic disparities in economic development.Realign incentives and allocate resources to position higher education institutions as active problem-solving partners, particularly at the state and local level where governors, mayors, and county leaders design policies that directly impact people's daily lives.Demonstrate the value of science, expertise, and policy innovation by producing results people can see and benefit from, and emphasize their value in ensuring that government dollars at all levels are spent efficiently.Episode Notes:Jeremy Weinstein is Dean and Don K. Price Professor of Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School. He is an award-winning researcher and teacher with expertise on civil wars and political violence; ethnic politics; the political economy of development; democracy and accountability; and migration. Before coming to Harvard, he was the Kleinheinz Professor of International Studies at Stanford University, where he led major initiatives, including Stanford Impact Labs and the Immigration Policy Lab, which catalyzed partnerships between researchers and practitioners with the goal of generating innovative policies, programs, and interventions to meaningfully address important social problems.Weinstein has also held senior roles in the U.S. government at the White House and State Department, most recently as Deputy to the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations during President Obama's second term. As Deputy, Weinstein was a standing member of the National Security Council Deputies' Committee—the subcabinet policy committee with primary responsibility for advising the National Security Council, the Cabinet, and the President on foreign policy issues. Before becoming Deputy, he served as Chief of Staff at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations. During President Obama's first term, he served as Director for Development and Democracy on the National Security Council staff at the White House. Weinstein is the author of “Inside Rebellion: The Politics of Insurgent Violence,” co-author of “Coethnicity: Diversity and the Dilemmas of Collective Action,” and co-editor of “Crime, Insecurity, and Community Policing.” For his research, Weinstein received the International Studies Association's Karl Deutsch Award, given annually to the scholar under 40 who has made the most significant contribution to the study of international relations. In recent years, he has also written on issues at the intersection of technology and democracy, including in a co-authored book “System Error: Where Big Tech Went Wrong and How We Can Reboot.”He earned a BA from Swarthmore College and an MA and PhD in political economy and government from Harvard University.Ralph Ranalli of the HKS Office of Communications and Public Affairs is the host and producer of HKS PolicyCast. A former journalist, public television producer, and entrepreneur, he holds a BA in Political Science from UCLA and an MS in Journalism from Columbia University.Scheduling and logistical support for PolicyCast is provided by Lilian Wainaina. Design and graphics support is provided by Laura King and the OCPA Design Team. Social media promotion and support is provided by Natalie Montaner and the OCPA Digital Team. Editorial support is provided by Nora Delaney, Robert O'Neill, and the OCPA Editorial Team.

Othon Anastasakis, Director, European Studies Centre and South Easte European Studies, University of Oxford, based at St. Antony's College, UK, and Gerasimos Tsourapas, Professor of International Relations School of Social & Political Sciences, University of Glasgow, Chair of Ethnicity, Nationalism & Migration Studies Section at the International Studies Association, UK, discuss about "Wind of Change in the Global Map of the 21st Century".

Craig Murphy and Jonathan Rowson join us for a dialogue on global politics and the metacrisis, using as a springboard for this conversation the essay ‘Prefixing the World: Why the polycrisis is a permacrisis, which is actually a metacrisis, which is not really a crisis at all', published by Jonathan on his Substack blog in late 2023. Craig recently participated in a panel on Crisis in Global Governance at the International Studies Association annual meeting where he engaged with Jonathan's work in his remarks, seeing certain affinities between Jonathan's claim that all global problems of the moment are connected to a single source, a single metacrisis and Craig's own insights into the importance of grappling with the possible interconnections across global problems if problem solvers are going to develop the kind of complex solidarity that is likely to be essential to any adequate response to the daunting challenges of our times. We were honoured to be able to bring these two distinguished scholars and authors together for a far-reaching and deeply meaningful conversation. Craig Murphy is Betty Freyhof Johnson '44 Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Wellesley College and is a leading light in the fields of international relations and political science, known particularly for his pioneering research on global governance. Jonathan Rowson is Co-founder and Chief Executive of Perspectiva, which is a collective of scholars, artists and activists who produce and publish outputs concerned with understanding the relationship between systems, souls and society in theory and practice. He was previously Director of the Social Brain Centre at the RSA where he authored a range of influential research reports on behaviour change, climate change and spirituality, and curated and chaired a range of related events. Craig's official website profile can be found here: https://www1.wellesley.edu/politicalscience/faculty/murphy Jonathan's profile can be found on the Perspectiva website: https://systems-souls-society.com/origin/people/ He tweets @Jonathan_Rowson His essays can also be read at Substack: https://substack.com/@jonathanrowson We discussed: Ursula Le Guin, ‘The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas', 1973: https://shsdavisapes.pbworks.com/f/Omelas.pdf Geoff Mann, ‘It Was Not Supposed to End This Way', August 2019: https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/geoff-mann-it-was-not-supposed-end-way/ See our podcast conversation Geoff Mann here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFmOtlbJPts Craig Murphy, ‘Leadership, Global Governance, and Peace', November 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ_nXvzcOEE Craig Murphy, ‘Engineering Rules', 2024: https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/11653/engineering-rules#:~:text=of%20the%20internet.-,In%20Engineering%20Rules%2C%20JoAnne%20Yates%20and%20Craig%20N.,on%20all%20of%20our%20lives. Kim Stanley Robinson, The Ministry of the Future: https://www.orbitbooks.net/orbit-excerpts/the-ministry-for-the-future/ Jonathan Rowson, ‘Prefixing the World,' September 2023: https://perspecteeva.substack.com/p/prefixing-the-world Jonathan Rowson, ‘Tasting the Pickle: ten flavours of meta-crisis and the appetite for a new civilisation', February 2021: https://systems-souls-society.com/tasting-the-pickle-ten-flavours-of-meta-crisis-and-the-appetite-for-a-new-civilisation/ Adam Tooze, ‘Welcome to the world of the polycrisis', Financial Times, 28 October 2022: https://www.ft.com/content/498398e7-11b1-494b-9cd3-6d669dc3de33

Fragmentation in the international relations discipline; normal science versus overarching theory; insights from the International Studies Association annual conference; the best name for a political science department; the US-Japan state visit; state dinners as a signal of alliance ties; insulating the US-Japan relationship from a future Trump administration; Japan's increasing role in defense cooperation; and Marcus prefers running uphillPlease subscribe and leave a review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your podcast player of choicePlease send us your questions! Send us an email or leave us a voicemailJeff's book, Signing Away the Bomb, is now available in paperback!Further Reading:Michael D. Shear. 2024. “To Counter China's Rising Power, Biden Looks to Strengthen Ties With Japan.” New York Times.Cheap Talk recommends:Otter.ai (AI meeting notes)Perplexity.ai (AI-powered information discovery)See all Cheap Talk episodes

The CFR luncheon event held in conjunction with the International Studies Association featured a discussion on Foreign Policy in the Age of Artificial Intelligence on Thursday, April 4, in San Francisco. The conversation featured Rachel Gillum, vice president of ethical and humane use of technology at Salesforce; Andrew W. Reddie, associate research professor of public policy at University of California, Berkeley; and Carla Anne Robbins, senior fellow at CFR. James M. Lindsay, senior vice president, director of Studies, and the Maurice R. Greenberg chair at CFR, moderated the discussion.

On this episode of SEPADPod Simon speaks with Gerasimos Tsourapas, Gerasimos Tsourapas is Professor of International Relations at the University of Glasgow. He is also the Chair of the Ethnicity, Nationalism, & Migration Studies (ENMISA) Section of the International Studies Association. He works on the international relations of the Middle East and the broader Global South, with a particular focus on the politics of migrants, refugees, and diasporas. On this episode, Simon and Gerasimos talk about a movement, scholarship in the US and the UK, Fred Halliday, migration, Egypt, the state and so much more.

Meghan is joined by Valerie Hudson, speaker at our upcoming Awake and Ascend conference, to discuss the vital role of women, and identifying our value in a religious setting, such as the Church. Topics Include: - LDS Doctrine is Pro-Women- Motherhood as an education in free agency and discipleship- The treatment of women and national security- The ultimate female role model-Identifying the priestesshood, female keys, and ordinancesDr. Valerie Hudson, University Distinguished Professor, joined the faculty of the Bush School in 2012 as the holder of the George H. W. Bush Chair. An expert on international security and foreign policy analysis as well as gender and security, she received her PhD in political science at The Ohio State University and comes to Texas A&M University from a senior faculty position at Brigham Young University. Hudson directs the Bush School's Program on Women, Peace, and Security.In 2009, Foreign Policy named her one of the top 100 Most Influential Global Thinkers. Her coauthored book Bare Branches: Security Implications of Asia's Surplus Male Population, and the research it presents, received major attention from the media with coverage in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Financial Times, Washington Post, BBC, CNN, and numerous other outlets. The book also received two national book awards. Another coauthored book, Sex and World Peace, published by Columbia University Press, was named by Gloria Steinem as one of the top three books on her reading list. Another award-winning book, with Patricia Leidl, is The Hillary Doctrine: Sex and American Foreign Policy, published in June 2015. Her newest coauthored book is The First Political Order: How Sex Shapes Governance and National Security Worldwide (Columbia University Press, 2020). She was also named a Distinguished Scholar of Foreign Policy Analysis as well as a Distinguished Scholar of Political Demography and Geography by the International Studies Association.Hudson served as vice president of the International Studies Association for 2011-2012. She is a founding editorial board member of Foreign Policy Analysis, and also serves or has served on the editorial boards of The American Political Science Review, Politics and Gender, the American Journal of Political Science, and International Studies Review. More information can be found on her professional website vmrhudson.org. Register NOW for Awake and Ascend: The Mountain of the Lord, our virtual conference being held on November 3-4. The purpose of this event is to explore ancient and modern temple types and their patterns, to more deeply understand the significance of temple worship, and the application of temple living in our mortal journeys. Also, we have an EXCITING ANNOUNCEMENT, which we will share during the Saturday session. You won't want to miss it!

Today's episode of The Aid Market podcast features Michael as the host, joined by Shannon Green, a senior advisor to the administrator for the USAID's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance, and Barbara Smith, who manages democracy, human rights, conflict resolution, and rule of law programs at the Carter Center.    In this episode, they delve into prominent issues and explore the actions taken in response. Additionally, they discuss the current administration's priorities, election integrity, AI's role, and localization efforts and retrospectively examine our past and present progress.   IN THIS EPISODE: [00:00] Mike begins by sharing who is on today's podcast and an update from Dean Fritz Meyer of the Denver Democracy Summit [09:06] Shannon discusses what her role is at the USAID's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Governance and what is happening there [19:28] Barbara shares how this administration is currently prioritizing this work that Shannon shared and compares where we were to where we are [26:15] Discussion of USAID Forward and localization and the role AI plays [38:38] Discussion of the National Security Council [44:08] Question from a partner regarding Save the Children and the Global Fragility Act [46:47] Question from a listener on how the DRG is promoted versus what is done on counter-authoritarianism [50:41] Questions from two listeners regarding traditional humanitarian and USAID priorities [55:12] Barbara and Shannon leave the listeners with important thoughts    KEY TAKEAWAYS:  People from all over the world hunger for freedom. The USAID is harnessing its development assistance to promote accountable states, active citizens and rights-respecting societies. Brazen attempts at stealing elections are a problem in Africa.    RESOURCES:   Shannon Green - USAID website Barbara Smith - Carter Center Website Fritz Mayer LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/frederick-mayer-11862b3b   ABOUT THE GUESTS:   Shannon N. Green :Assistant to the Administrator Shannon N. Green serves as the Assistant to the Administrator of the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG). In this role, she leads USAID's efforts to invigorate democracy, enhance human rights and justice, and bolster governance that advances the public interest and delivers inclusive development. Previously, Ms. Green was the Senior Advisor to the Administrator and Executive Director of the Anti-Corruption Task Force where she led USAID's historic elevation of anti-corruption and aligned the Agency's policies, programming, and resources to counter corruption at a global scale. Before returning to public service in 2021, Ms. Green was the Senior Director of Programs at the Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC) and Director and Senior Fellow of the Human Rights Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), where her research focused on addressing threats to democratic institutions and norms, enhancing justice and accountability, and improving security forces' respect for human rights. From 2004 - 2015, Ms. Green held a number of positions in the U.S. Government, including as the Senior Director for Global Engagement on the National Security Council. In that role, she spearheaded efforts to deepen and broaden U.S. engagement with critical populations overseas, including the President's Stand with Civil Society Agenda and young leader initiatives around the world. Prior to that, Ms. Green served in the DRG Center, where she developed policies, strategies, and programs to advance political reform and human rights in the Middle East and North Africa. Ms. Green received her B.A. in Political Science and History from the University of Georgia and her M.A. in International Peace and Conflict Resolution from American University, and has served as an adjunct professor for Syracuse University Maxwell School.   Fritz Mayer Dean of Josef Korbel School of International Studies Frederick ‘Fritz' Mayer, Ph.D., is the dean of the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver. Dean Mayer's research interests include international trade and economic globalization and the role of storytelling in politics and collective action. He has published two single-author books, four educational publications, and numerous articles and chapters. He is affiliated with the American Political Science Association, the International Studies Association, and the Association of Public Policy and Management. Prior to DU, Dean Mayer served as professor of public policy, political science and environment; associate dean; director of the Center for Political Leadership, Innovation and Service; and director of the Program on Global Policy and Governance at the Terry Sandford School of Public Policy at Duke University. Barbara Smith, M.S. Vice President, Peace Programs Barbara Smith oversees the Carter Center's democracy, human rights, conflict resolution, and rule of law programs, which operate projects and observe elections in countries across the globe. Before coming to The Carter Center in September 2020, Smith was principal and founder of the international development consulting firm Mountain Time Development. She also was a senior associate at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, focused on the Human Rights Initiative, conducting field work and research on civil society. Her wide-ranging career also includes assignments at the United States Agency for International Development and with the National Security Council in the White House. At USAID, Smith held a number of positions, most recently as deputy assistant to the administrator in the Bureau of Policy, Planning, and Learning. She also co-led the team that created the seminal USAID 2013 Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance Strategy, which is applied across the approximately 100 countries where USAID works. Other positions she held at USAID included senior policy analyst, deputy coordinator for Middle East Transition Response during the Arab Spring, and senior field advisor for democracy and governance. Smith served on the National Security Council as a director for Afghanistan and Pakistan affairs and as senior director for governance and law at the Asia Foundation. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, she was a spokesperson for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. In Afghanistan, she was assistant country representative for the Asia Foundation, where she also directed the foundation's efforts to assist Afghanistan in holding its first post-Taliban elections. Smith earned a bachelor's degree in government from the University of Texas and a master's degree in political science from Texas State University.

Ela chegou querendo revolucionar o século XX, viajou por diversos países e se manteve ativa por décadas. Pode até já ter sido muito xingada, mas continua sendo admirada. Dê o play para conferir significados e histórias da Arquitetura Moderna. Assine o podcast e receba conteúdos exclusivos: https://apoia.se/arquiteturaobjetiva?utm_source=Explore-da-APOIA-se&utm_medium=Card-de-Campanha Foto da capa: Pavilhão de Barcelona, Mies van der Rohe e Lilly Reich | https://yinjispace.com/article/Mies-van-der-Rohe-The-Barcelona-Pavilion.html REFERÊNCIAS:  BERMAN, Marshall. Tudo que é sólido desmancha no ar. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2007. E-book. COHEN, Jean-Louis. The Future of Architecture Since 1889: A Worldwide History. Londres: Phaidon, 2011.  COLQUHOUN, Alan. Modern Architecture. Nova York: OUP Oxford, 2002.  CURTIS, William. Arquitetura Moderna desde 1900. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2008. FRAMPTON, Kenneth. Historia crítica de la arquitectura moderna. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili, 2002.  JONES, Candace, et al. Rebels with a Cause: Formation, Contestation, and Expansion of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture”, 1870-1975. Organization Science, Maryland, vol.23, n.6, p. 1523-1545, nov.-dez. 2012.  LINEHAN, D. Modernity. In: International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. [S.l.], 2009, p. 157-163. LUPFER, Gilbert; PAUL, Jürgen; SIGEL, Paul. Século XX. In: Teoria da Arquitetura: do renascimento até nossos dias. Köln: Taschen, 2015. SHARR, Adam. Modern Architecture: A very Short Introduction. Oxford: OUP Oxford, 2018. E-book. SHILLIAM, Robie. Modernity and Modernization. Oxford Research Encyclopedias. International Studies Association and Oxford University Press. SNYDER,Sharon L. Modernity. Encyclopaedia Britannica. [S.l.], 2016. Disponível em: https://www.britannica.com/topic/neoevolutionism. VICENTINO, Cláudio. História geral. São Paulo: Scipionne, 1997.

When the morning news broke to the world that WNBA Star Brittney Griner was arrested in Russia, it brought the invasion against Ukraine up close and personal to the Black community. The WNBA Star, age 32 at the time, was detained in Russia on February 17, 2022, for allegedly possessing cannabis oil in her luggage after arriving in Moscow from New York City. Griner's wife, Cherelle Griner, along with a host of celebrity friends like Lebron James, pressured the Biden Administration to bring Griner back home, adding an international spotlight to her case. On August 4, 2022, she was sentenced to nine years in prison following weeks of a long trial. Black America poured out their frustrations on social media criticizing President Biden's slow efforts to negotiate her release with Russian President, Vladimir Putin as there were concerns of her personal safety given that she was both black and lesbian. Griner's case was even more complicated given that her negotiation was during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. More importantly, how would Griner's prisoner swap affect U.S. national security? In this episode, Alexanderia Haidara talks with Dr. Nola Haynes to discuss the implications of Griner's case, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the geopolitical shifts with China. Dr. Nola Haynes ⁠Dr. Nola Haynes⁠ is an adjunct professor at Georgetown University. She is an academic, policy writer, and advocate. Her interests center on emerging threats, WMD in space, strategic competition, and intersectionality. Recently, Dr. Nola was named one of the top 50 leaders in national security and foreign affairs by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and Diversity in National Security (DINSN). She is the former Director of the West Coast chapter of Women of Color Advancing Peace and Security (WCAPS) and sits on several boards, including the Women's Caucus for the International Studies Association communications team (WCIS), Foreign Policy board for the American Political Science Association (APSA), and ISA West. She is a Black Professionals in International Affairs (BPIA) member and an alumnus of the WestExec Advisors mentoring program. As a Pacific Council on International Policy member, Dr. Nola works as an Ops Coordinator to help resettle Afghan allies with Evacuate Our Allies (EOA) and is a policy advocate for the Afghan Adjustment Act. Dr. Nola has over ten years of experience working in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and is a proud New Orleans native. Donate and follow Black Professionals in International Affairs at ⁠⁠⁠www.iabpia.org⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠Linkedin⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠, and ⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠.

President Biden is running for his second term in office, but this time it's not just against former President Donald Trump. Republican presidential hopefuls like Governor Nikki Haley, Senator Tim Scott, and let's not forget about Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, are vying for the White House too. Black America will be the deciding vote on the future of U.S. democracy. President Biden boldly boasted that he had Black America's back in his acceptance speech for the presidency. Despite gains in diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and the historic achievement of choosing the first woman of color as his Vice President, Kamala Harris, Black Americans are questioning if President Biden deserves another term in office. But how has U.S. foreign policy impacted the African diaspora? In this three-part series, we will evaluate U.S. foreign policy in the three main corners of the Diaspora: Europe, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean. Alexanderia Haidara, Global Take Podcast Host, talks to Nii Simmonds, Non-resident Fellow of the Atlantic Council, and Dr. Nola Haynes, Georgetown University professor. They discuss how diaspora engagement shapes U.S.-Africa foreign policy, Vice-President Kamala Harris's recent trip to Africa, and reflect on the impact of the 2022 U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit that took place in Washington, D.C. About Nii Simmonds Nii Simmonds is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's GeoTech Center and an expert in emerging and frontier markets. He has held top leadership positions in corporate finance, entrepreneurial ecosystems, supply chains, and research commercialization. Simmonds has previously worked for Fortune 500 firms, including companies in the pharmaceutical, biotech, consumer product, and strategy consulting industries. He also provides thought leadership on artificial intelligence and emerging technologies, analyzing their impact on society for innovation and policy while accelerating impactful solutions to challenges. Simmonds has worked for the World Bank Group, International Finance Corporation, and African Development Bank, providing consultation in the areas of private-sector development, diaspora engagement, and financial inclusion. Simmonds holds a BS in Management from Pennsylvania State University and he has undertaken graduate courses in operations/business process management at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School for Executive Education. Dr. Nola Haynes Dr. Nola Haynes is an adjunct professor at Georgetown University. She is an academic, policy writer, and advocate. Her interests center on emerging threats, WMD in space, strategic competition, and intersectionality. Recently, Dr. Nola was named one of the top 50 leaders in national security and foreign affairs by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and Diversity in National Security (DINSN). She is the former Director of the West Coast chapter of Women of Color Advancing Peace and Security (WCAPS) and sits on several boards, including the Women's Caucus for the International Studies Association communications team (WCIS), Foreign Policy board for the American Political Science Association (APSA), and ISA West. She is a Black Professionals in International Affairs (BPIA) member and an alumnus of the WestExec Advisors mentoring program. As a Pacific Council on International Policy member, Dr. Nola works as an Ops Coordinator to help resettle Afghan allies with Evacuate Our Allies (EOA) and is a policy advocate for the Afghan Adjustment Act. Dr. Nola has over ten years of experience working in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and is a proud New Orleans native. Donate and follow Black Professionals in International Affairs at ⁠⁠www.iabpia.org⁠⁠, ⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠, ⁠⁠Linkedin⁠⁠, ⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠, and ⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠.

The season finale of RadioEd is finally here! This week, Matt chats with Rebecca Galemba, an associate professor at the Joseph Korbel School of International Studies, who specializes the intersections of globalization, illicit markets, migration, security, and labor in Mexico, Central America, and the United States about what Title 42 is and what are its implications, both to immigrants who seek to live in the United States and as a political mechanism.Matt and Rebecca also talk about how Title 42 changed from Trump's administration to Biden's, and how the government has treated immigrants throughout the years, with policies such as Title 8, and what that could mean to future immigrants seeking asylum in the United States. Galemba also tackles the hard topic of the Externalization of Borders the United States and other countries sometimes resort to, which, according to her, can be seen as neglecting their responsibility to take in asylum seekers.Rebecca Galemba, Ph.D., is an anthropologist who studies the intersections of globalization, illicit markets, migration, security, and labor in Mexico, Central America, and the U.S.She teaches graduate and undergraduate courses on Qualitative Research Methodologies, Cultures of Development, Migration, and Illicit Markets. Through research, teaching, and community-engaged work, she draws on interdisciplinary approaches to enhance the public good and contribute to studies of social inequality in Latin America and the US. She is professionally affiliated with the American Anthropological Association, the Latin American Studies Association, the International Studies Association, the Guatemala Scholars Network, the Society for Applied Anthropology, and the Society for Economic Anthropology. More information: Laboring for Justice: The Fight Against Wage Theft in an American City: https://www.amazon.com/Laboring-Justice-Fight-Against-American/dp/1503635201Center for Immigration Policy and Research: https://cipr.du.edu/ The DU Just Wages Project: https://dujustwagesproject.wordpress.com/ Migrants Deported to Mexico Face Criminals and Predatory Officials: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/12/world/americas/migrants-deported-us-mexico.htmlUS authorities ‘seeing large numbers of migrants at border' before Title 42 expiration – as it happened: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/may/11/title-42-expire-republican-immigration-biden-trump-town-hall-politics-live-updates ‘The border is not open': US immediately replaces Title 42 with strict new rules: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/12/us-mexico-border-biden-new-immigration-rules-restrictions What is Title 42, why is it ending and what's happening now at the border: https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/09/politics/title-42-ending-whats-next-explainer-cec/index.html 

Igor Istomin is an Associate Professor at the Department of Applied International Political Analysis, MGIMO University. He holds Ph.D. and M.A. degrees from this institution as well as undergraduate degree from St. Petersburg State University. Igor Istomin teaches undergraduate and graduate classes in methods of applied analysis of international affairs. He is the author of more than 50 academic publications in Russian and in English on issues of the U.S. foreign policy, relations in Euro-Atlantic space and international security.Igor Istomin is also an expert of the Russian International Affairs Council and a Foreign Policy Analytical Agency (both in Moscow) as well as a member of International Studies Association and YGLN for Euro-Atlantic Security.

Season 5, episode 6: Blue helmets have become one of the most visible signs of the UN in the world. These peacekeepers are sent where often nobody else wants to go and asked to accomplish what nobody else often will. After 70 years of service, UN peacekeeping has seen its successes and its well-publicized failures. So in this episode, we took a more thematic approach to multilateralism to look at the role that peacekeeping plays. When did it begin and why? How has it evolved over the years and how effective has it been? How might it change still to meet today's challenges? We discussed these questions and more with peacekeeping expert and Georgetown colleague, Dr. Lise Howard. Lise Morjé Howard is Professor of Government and Foreign Service at Georgetown University and President of the Academic Council on the United Nations System. Her research and teaching interests span the fields of international relations, comparative politics, and conflict resolution. She has published articles and book chapters about civil wars, peacekeeping, and American foreign policy in many leading journals such as International Organization, International Security, International Studies Quarterly, International Peacekeeping, Global Governance, Foreign Affairs, and Oxford University Press. Her book UN Peacekeeping in Civil Wars (Cambridge University Press 2008), about organizational learning, won the 2010 book award from the Academic Council on the UN System. Her recent book, Power in Peacekeeping (Cambridge University Press 2019) is based on field research in the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lebanon, and Namibia. It won the 2021 book award from the International Security Studies Section of the International Studies Association.  Dr. Howard earned her M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science from UC, Berkeley, and her A.B. in Soviet Studies from Barnard College, Columbia University. She has held yearlong fellowships at Stanford University, Harvard University, and the U.S. Institute of Peace. Dr. Howard is fluent in French and Russian, and speaks some Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian, Spanish, and German. Prior to her career in academia, she served as Acting Director of UN Affairs for the New York City Commission for the United Nations.   More of Dr. Howard's recent Work: Power in Peacekeeping (Cambridge University Press 2019) "The Extraordinary Relationship between Peacekeeping and Peace," Cambridge University Press, November 2020 "The Astonishing Success of Peacekeeping," Foreign Affairs, November 2021. "The Case for a Security Guarantee for Ukraine," Foreign Affairs, March 2023   Episode recorded: December 12, 2022   Produced by Daniel Henderson   Episode Image: Simulation exercise of a team of Egyptian blue helmets entirely composed of women in Douentza, in the Mopti region. UN Mission in Mali on Flickr   Diplomatic Immunity: Frank and candid conversations about diplomacy and foreign affairs   Diplomatic Immunity, a podcast from the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University, brings you frank and candid conversations with experts on the issues facing diplomats and national security decision-makers around the world.    Funding support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York.    For more, visit our website, and follow us on Twitter @GUDiplomacy. Send any feedback to diplomacy@georgetown.edu.  

Dr Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann is Canada Research Chair in International Human Rights and Professor Emeritus at the Department of Political Science and the School of International Policy and Governance (Balsillie School of International Affairs), Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario, Canada. A sociologist by training, Professor Howard-Hassmann is widely recognized as a leading interdisciplinary scholar in the field of human rights, named in 2006 the first Distinguished Scholar of Human Rights by the Human Rights Section, American Political Science Association and in 2014 a Distinguished Scholar of Human Rights by the Human Rights Section of the International Studies Association. In this conversation we talk about the universality of human rights, women's rights, citizenship apartheid, cultural relativism, the limits of philosophy, and much, much more. Rhoda can be found here: https://www.wlu.ca/academics/faculties/faculty-of-arts/faculty-profiles/rhoda-e-howard-hassmann/index.html She blogs at: https://rhodahassmann.blogspot.com/ We discussed: 2018. In Defense of Universal Human Rights: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/In+Defense+of+Universal+Human+Rights-p-9781509513536 2021. ‘A new hope for human rights.' Journal of Human Rights: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14754835.2021.1920896?journalCode=cjhr20 2021. ‘Human Rights: What Does the Future Hold?' (by Daniel Braaten). International Studies Review: https://academic.oup.com/isr/article-abstract/23/3/1164/6041199?login=false Image: Frans Francken (II) - Mankind's Eternal Dilemma – The Choice Between Virtue and Vice

After months, and perhaps years, of cajoling and haranguing the Hayseed Scholar, friend of the pod (ep14) Matt McDonald finally convinced Brent to turn the tables and become a guest on the  podcast. Matt interviewed Brent at the end of the International Studies Association conference in Montreal, in Matt's hotel room. This was after Matt had enlisted throughout the week a host of conspirators who helped him lobby Brent to be interviewed. Over a few beers and with much good cheer, they chat about Brent's growing up in Iowa, attending Chicago Bears games as a kid, having two teachers as parents, and how golf shaped his college decision-making. They discuss Brent's journey through graduate school, the PhD, and his positions at the University of Kansas and now the University of Utah. Often pounding the table like some 1930s-era dictator, Brent discussed what the tenure process was like for him at KU, the difficult but also life-changing move to Utah, walking with Chase pups for all kinds of reasons, how he approaches writing and how he unwinds and recharges by going back to Iowa and seeing his family. Matt and Brent first connected in 2010 when Brent reached out to Matt about his IPS article, and that prompted a discussion here about how and why Brent has sent those complimentary emails to scholars. A number of F-bombs were dropped, razzing of Jelena Subotic, Tony Lang, and Chris Agius ensued and friend of the pod and special guest Cian O'Driscoll made an appearance towards the end of the conversation.  It's a whirlwind discussion and one Brent remains self-conscious about, but also a rewarding experience for him in chatting with, and about, longtime friends in this vocation. 

The US government is frequently defined generally as an army with an insurance company.  Regarding the latter, podcast listeners are well aware federal healthcare policymakers have essentially done nothing to address the healthcare industry's annual 500 million ton carbon footprint, 9% of total annual US GHG emissions, despite the fact that at $1.5 trillion the federal government is far and away the largest purchaser of healthcare services.  What about the army?  The army, or the Department of Defense (DOD), is the single largest institutional fossil fuel user and consequently the single largest GHG emitter in the world.  The DOD along with the military-industrial complex annually emit over 110 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions that represents 80% of the federal governments total annual GHG emissions.  This reality is particularly disturbing and paradoxical because the DOD's contribution to the climate crisis compromises its mission to ensure our nation's security.  Despite the fact climate crisis-caused geopolitical instability is increasing, absent proactively working toward building climate security, or climate crisis-related conflict prevention the Pentagon is, Prof. Crawford concludes, inadvertently or deliberately militarizing climate change, that is preparing to fight climate-related battles.  (Listeners are also encouraged to read MIT Press's related 2021 work by Gus Speth titled, They Knew, The US Fed Govt's 50 Year Role in Causing the Climate Crisis.)       This 35-minute interview begins by Prof. Crawford describing what largely accounts for the DOD GHG emissions and problems associated with calculating total DOD emissions.  She explains the 1997 Kyoto agreement that permitted countries to exempt military emissions from nations' reduction goals.  She explains the DOD's use of fossil fuels since Vietnam to present and reductions in DOD emissions over the past few years, discusses US continuing the emission costs of continuing to defend the Persian Gulf, the debate between DOD building resilience versus mitigating GHG emissions and the interview concludes with Prof. Crawford's comments concerning whether increasing climate disruption will necessarily lead to conflict or war.         Neta Crawford is Montague Burton Chair in International Relations and also holds a Professorial Fellowship at Balliol College, Oxford.  She previously taught Boston University and the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.   Prof. Crawford is a co-founder and co-director of the Costs of War Project, based at Brown University and since 2017 has served on the board of the nuclear non-proliferation advocacy organization, Council for a Livable World.   She also serves on the editorial boards of The Journal of Political Philosophy and Global Perspectives.  Prof. Crawford received the Distinguished Scholar award from the International Ethics section of the International Studies Association in 2018.   She was a co-winner of the 2003 American Political Science Association Jervis and Schroeder Award for best book in International History and Politics for her work, Argument and Change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonization, Humanitarian Intervention.  Professor Crawford's most recent publication is The Pentagon, Climate Change, and War (MIT Press, 2022). She is also working on To Make Heaven Weep: Civilians and the American Way of War.  She has authored several other books including, Accountability for Killing: Moral Responsibility for Collateral Damage in America's Post‑9/11 Wars (2013).  Her opinion pieces have appeared in The Washington Post.  Prof. Crawford earned her undergraduate degree at Brown and her doctorate in political science at MIT.  Information on Prof. Crawford's book is at: https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262047487/the-pentagon-climate-change-and-war/. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thehealthcarepolicypodcast.com

Our host Am Johal is joined this week by Dr. Svitlana Matviyenko, Professor of Critical Media Analysis in SFU's School of Communication and Associate Director of The Digital Democracies Institute. Svitlana talks about her experiences living in Ukraine over the past year, documenting a rising militarization and being attentive to the social changes that war imposes. Am and Svitlana also discuss the asymmetrical cases of misinformation between Ukraine and Russia, as well as how the invasion has merged her research interests of media and cyberwar. This episode was recorded on February 21st, 2023. Full episode details: https://www.sfu.ca/vancity-office-community-engagement/below-the-radar-podcast/episodes/204-svitlana-matviyenko.html Read the transcript: https://www.sfu.ca/vancity-office-community-engagement/below-the-radar-podcast/transcripts/204-svitlana-matviyenko.html Resources: Svitlana Matviyenko: https://www.sfu.ca/communication/people/faculty/svitlana-matviyenko.html SFU School of Communication: http://www.sfu.ca/communication.html Digital Democracies Institute: https://digitaldemocracies.org/ Dispatches from the Place of Imminence: https://networkcultures.org/blog/author/svitlana/ Cyberwar and Revolution: https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/cyberwar-and-revolution Below the Radar Episode 39 with Svitlana: https://www.sfu.ca/vancity-office-community-engagement/below-the-radar-podcast/episodes/39-svitlana-matviyenko.html Bio: Svitlana Matviyenko is an Assistant Professor of Critical Media Analysis in the School of Communication. Her research and teaching are focused on information and cyberwar; political economy of information; media and environment; infrastructure studies; STS. She writes about practices of resistance and mobilization; digital militarism, dis- and misinformation; Internet history; cybernetics; psychoanalysis; posthumanism; the Soviet and the post-Soviet techno-politics; nuclear cultures, including the Chernobyl Zone of Exclusion. She is a co-editor of two collections, The Imaginary App (MIT Press, 2014) and Lacan and the Posthuman (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018). She is a co-author of Cyberwar and Revolution: Digital Subterfuge in Global Capitalism (Minnesota UP, 2019), a winner of the 2019 book award of the Science Technology and Art in International Relations (STAIR) section of the International Studies Association and of the Canadian Communication Association 2020 Gertrude J. Robinson book prize. Cite this episode: Chicago Style Johal, Am. “Ukraine: Dispatches from a Place of Imminence — with Svitlana Matviyenko.” Below the Radar, SFU's Vancity Office of Community Engagement. Podcast audio, March 7, 2023. https://www.sfu.ca/vancity-office-community-engagement/below-the-radar-podcast/episodes/204-svitlana-matviyenko.html.

Harvard Kennedy School Professor Erica Chenoweth and Lecturer in Public Policy Zoe Marks say the parallel global trends of rising authoritarianism and attempts to roll back women's rights are no coincidence. The hard won rights women have attained over the past century—to education, to full participation in the workforce, in politics, and civic life, and to reproductive healthcare—have transformed society and corresponded with historic waves of democratization around the world. But they have also increasingly become the target of authoritarian leaders and regimes looking to displace democracy with hierarchies controlled by male elites and to re-confine women in traditional roles as wives, mothers, and caregivers. LGBTQ people and others who don't fit into the traditional binary patriarchal model have become targets not just in places like Iran, Russia, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia but also China, Hungary, Poland, and the United States. But Chenoweth and Marks say the authoritarians are also fearful of empowered women—and that their research says they should be. Social movements like the protests currently underway in Iran that include large numbers of women tend to be more resilient, creative, and ultimately successful—which means the future of democracy and the future of women's empowerment in this pivotal historic era may go hand-in-hand. Erica Chenoweth is the Frank Stanton Professor of the First Amendment at Harvard Kennedy School and a Susan S. and Kenneth L. Wallach Professor at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Studies at Harvard University. They study political violence and its alternatives. At Harvard, Chenoweth directs the Nonviolent Action Lab, an innovation hub that provides empirical evidence in support of movement-led political transformation. Chenoweth has authored or edited nine books and dozens of articles on mass movements, nonviolent resistance, terrorism, political violence, revolutions, and state repression. Their recent book, Civil Resistance: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford, 2021), explores what civil resistance is, how it works, why it sometimes fails, how violence and repression affect it, and the long-term impacts of such resistance. They also recently co-authored the book On Revolutions (Oxford, 2022), which explores the ways in which revolutions and revolutionary studies have evolved over the past several centuries. Their next book with Zoe Marks, tentatively titled Rebel XX: Women on the Frontlines of Revolution, investigates the impact of women's participation on revolutionary outcomes and democratization.Chenoweth maintains the NAVCO Data Project, one of the world's leading datasets on historical and contemporary mass mobilizations around the globe. Along with Jeremy Pressman, Chenoweth also co-directs the Crowd Counting Consortium, a public interest and scholarly project that documents political mobilization in the U.S. since January 2017.Foreign Policy magazine ranked Chenoweth among the Top 100 Global Thinkers of 2013 for their efforts to promote the empirical study of nonviolent resistance and they are a recipient of the Karl Deutsch Award, which the International Studies Association gives annually to the scholar under 40 who has made the greatest impact on the field of international politics or peace research.They are also a Faculty Associate at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, where Chenoweth and Zoe Marks co-chair the Political Violence Workshop. They hold a Ph.D. and an M.A. in political science from the University of Colorado and a B.A. in political science and German from the University of Dayton.  Zoe Marks is a Lecturer in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. Her research and teaching interests focus on the intersections of conflict and political violence; race, gender and inequality; peacebuilding; and African politics. In addition to her research on peace and conflict, Professor Marks is committed to creating space for conversations about ethical research praxis and making academia more inclusive. She has convened workshops related to decolonizing the academy and with colleagues at the University of Cape Town edited a related special double issue of the journal Critical African Studies. Her research has been published in leading journals in the field, including Political Geography, African Affairs, and Civil Wars, and in peer-reviewed books and edited volumes from Oxford University and Palgrave press. Her dissertation received the Winchester Prize for the best dissertation in Politics at the University of Oxford. She serves on the editorial boards for the journals Critical African Studies and Civil Wars, and on the editorial committee of the Journal of Peace Research. Dr. Marks holds a DPhil in Politics and MSc in African Studies from the University of Oxford, and a BA in Government and African American Studies from Georgetown University. She has previously worked for UN and non-governmental organizations in Ethiopia, France, Sierra Leone, South Africa, the UK, and the US.Ralph Ranalli of the HKS Office of Public Affairs and Communications is the host, producer, and editor of HKS PolicyCast. A former journalist, public television producer, and entrepreneur, he holds an A.B. in Political Science from UCLA and an M.S. in Journalism from Columbia University.The co-producer of PolicyCast is Susan Hughes. Design and graphics support is provided by Lydia Rosenberg, Delane Meadows and the OCPA Design Team. Social media promotion and support is provided by Natalie Montaner and the OCPA Digital Team. 

Thomas G. Weiss is a distinguished scholar at the CUNY Graduate Center who as past president of the International Studies Association, chair of the Academic Council on the United Nations System, editor of the journal Global Governance, and Research Director of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty has written extensively about global governance, international peace and security, humanitarian action, and sustainable development. In this broad-ranging interview he makes a compelling case for the need to urgently reinforce the crumbling foundations of our global order to mitigate the risks of destabilizing shocks to our economic, social and political systems. Learn more on GlobalGovernanceForum.org

CN Live! interviews Prof. Richard Falk about his new memoir. Falk became prominent in America and internationally as both a public intellectual and citizen pilgrim. Falk built a life of progressive commitment, highlighted by visits to North Vietnam where he met PM Pham Von Dong, to Iran during the Islamic Revolution after meeting Khomeini in Paris, to South Africa where he met with Nelson Mandela at the height of the struggle against apartheid, and frequently to Palestine and Israel. His memoir is studded with encounters with well-known public figures in law, academia, political activism and even Hollywood. Falk mentored the thesis of Robert Mueller, taught David Petraeus. His publications and activism describe various encounters with embedded American militarism, especially as expressed by governmental resistance to responsible efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons, and his United Nations efforts on behalf of the rights of the Palestinian people. In 2010 he was named Outstanding Public Scholar in Political Economy by the International Studies Association. He has been nominated annually for the Nobel Peace Prize since 2009. “This intimate and penetrating account of a remarkable life is rich in insights about topics ranging from the academic world to global affairs to prospects for a livable society.  A gripping story, with many lessons for a troubled world.” NOAM CHOMSKY “Richard Falk is one of the few great public intellectuals and citizen pilgrims who has preserved his integrity and consistency in our dark and decadent times. This wise and powerful memoir is a gift that bestows us with a tear-soaked truth and blood-stained hope”.  CORNEL WEST “Richard Falk's Public Intellectual is a citizen pilgrims journey across the world , over  nearly a century, contributing to peace in Vietnam, Iran, Palestine …Through his life and ideas he invites us to imagine and shape the ‘politics of impossibility ‘  to heal our ‘endangered planet'  and our fractured societies.  Whether you are a peace activist or researcher, or you care about the earth and fellow human beings , Public Intellectual will enrich you intellectually and  politically.” VANDANA SHIVA “Richard Falk recounts a life well spent trying to bend the arc of international law toward global justice. A Don Quixote tilting nobly at real dragons. His culminating vision of a better or even livable future—a ‘necessary utopia'—evokes with current urgency the slogan of Paris, May 1968: ‘Be realistic: demand the impossible.'” DANIEL ELLSBERG

Just as we were starting to see an end to a global pandemic, Russia invades Ukraine and the world goes into crisis mode. The refugee crisis is growing at the Ukraine/Poland border. Beautiful, picturesque Ukrainian cities have now turned into ruins. Russia is threatening to cut oil supplies in Europe. Gas prices are rising past $4.15 per gallon in the United States. In this episode, Alexanderia Haidara, host of Global Take Podcast, talks with a foreign policy expert, Nola Haynes, and former Peace Corp Volunteer to Ukraine, Violet Esipila. They dive deep into the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine and its impact on the black community both in America and abroad. As NATO, the European Union, and the United States scramble to de-escalate tensions in the region and end the war, what role will Africa play in the new global world order? The U.S. Congress shored up 1.5 trillion for defense and non-defense discretionary spending and roughly 12 billion to help Ukraine respond to Russia's invasion, yet critical criminal justice, and civil rights legislation remain in limbo. The outpour of African immigrants fighting to leave Ukraine but were discriminated against at the Polish/Ukraine border struck a nerve with Black America. Join our discussion online with Global Take! Bio: Nola Haynes is an academic, policy writer, and advocate. Nola's interests center on emerging threats, WMD in space, strategic competition, and intersectionality. Most recently, Nola was named one of the top 50 leaders in national security and foreign affairs by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and Diversity in National Security (DINSN). She is the director of the West Coast chapter of Women of Color Advancing Peace and Security (WCAPS) and sits on several boards including, the Women's Caucus for the International Studies Association communications team (WCIS), Foreign Policy board for American Political Science Association (APSA) and ISA West. She is a member of the Black Professional in International Affairs (BPIA) communications team along with being an alumnus of the WestExec Advisors mentoring program. She has been featured on MSNBC Show with Tiffany Cross and the Grio to name a few. Violet Esipila is a Disaster Recovery Specialist at U.S. Small Business Administration. She's responsible for responding to a variety of clients' inquiries, ranging from routine to complex, and providing detailed information to the public regarding President's Federal Declared Disaster Programs. She is an Outreach Volunteer Chair for Returned Peace Corps Volunteers of NJ and Communications Committee for Black Professionals in International Affairs. She previously served in Peace Corps Ukraine as a Community Development and PEPFAR Response Volunteer. She holds a BA in Sociology from WPUNJ and MPS in Human Resources and Employment Relations from PSU. She speaks Swahili and English. Podcast Team Alexanderia Haidara, Host and Podcast Producer Cheryle Galloway-Podcast Op-Ed Writer Sidney Walters-Podcast Social Media Coordinator Follow Black Professionals in International Affairs at www.iabpia.org, Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter, and Instagram.

The conversation on Geopolitical Implications of Russia's Invasion of Ukraine during the International Studies Association 2022 Annual Convention featured Audrey Kurth Cronin, distinguished professor in the School of International Service and director of the Center for Security, Innovation, and New Technology at American University; Charles A. Kupchan, CFR senior fellow and professor of international affairs in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and Department of Government at Georgetown University; and Kori Schake, senior fellow and director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. James M. Lindsay, senior vice president, director of studies, and Maurice R. Greenberg chair at CFR, moderated the discussion. LINDSAY: Good afternoon everyone. I am Jim Lindsay, senior vice president at the Council on Foreign Relations. It is my great pleasure to welcome you to today's on-the-record CFR luncheon discussion on the geopolitical implications of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It is also my great pleasure to introduce a stellar set of panelists: Audrey Cronin, Charles Kupchan, and Kori Schake. I am going to keep my introductory remarks short even though I could talk at great length about each of them and the wonderful work they have done. Immediately to my left—at least geographically; not necessarily politically—(laughter)—is Audrey Cronin. She is distinguished professor in the School of International Service and director of the Center for Security, Innovation and New Technology at American University. She is the author of How Terrorism Ends: Understanding the Decline and Demise of Terrorist Campaigns. Her most recent book, Power to the People: How Open Technological Innovation is Arming Tomorrow's Terrorists was short-listed for the Lionel Gelber Prize and won the 2020 Airey Neave Prize. So congratulations on that, Audrey. CRONIN: Thanks, Jim. LINDSAY: In the center of the stage—not necessarily politically—(laughter)—is Charlie Kupchan. Charlie is a senior fellow at the Council, and a professor of international affairs at Georgetown University. From 2014 to 2017, Charlie served as special assistant to the president and senior director for European affairs on the staff of the National Security Council under President Barack Obama. Charlie's most recent book is Isolationism: A History of America's Efforts to Shield Itself from the World. Finally, to my far left—again, geographically; not necessarily politically—is Kori Schake. Kori is senior fellow and director of foreign and defense policy at the American Enterprise Institute. She has held policy positions across government including on the staff of the National Security Council, and at the U.S. State Department where she was deputy head of policy planning. Her most recent book is America vs. the West: Can the Liberal World Order be Preserved? So Audrey, Charlie, Kori, thank you very much for joining me. We have agreed that we will engage in a conversation for about twenty-five minutes. At that point we're going to open it up to everyone else in the room. Given that the title of our session is Geopolitical Implications of Russia's Invasion of Ukraine, I'd like to focus our conversation more on what the invasion means or doesn't mean for global order rather than focus on why Russia invaded or why Putin didn't get the quick victory that he anticipated. So where I'm going to start is a question for all of you. Vladimir Lenin once remarked that there are decades where nothing happens and weeks where decades happen. Now it certainly feels like we are in the latter situation right now, but is this really an inflection point in the global order, and if it is, is the best historical analogy for the current moment 1815? 1857? 1905? 1914? 1939? Pick whatever you want. Since I introduced you last, Kori, you get the first crack at the question. SCHAKE: No, I decline. I give Charlie the first crack at the question. (Laughs.) KUPCHAN: I was—you were going to buy time for me to think, so—(laughter). The era that most resembles—I'm going to— LINDSAY: I'm going to ask you the first question. Is this an inflection point? KUPCHAN: It's definitely an inflection point, and I guess the decade that most immediately comes to mind would be the 1890s, and that's because I think it's in the 1890s that a series of developments took place that enabled us to actually see the changes in the global balance of power that were taking place slowly, but it brought them to the surface. And that's because during that—it was during that decade the United States came online as a power with geopolitical ambition outside its neighborhood, picked a fight with the Spanish, turned into a colonizer of the Philippines and other places. Germany embarked on its High Seas Fleet in 1898. And so there was a kind of consolidation of a multi-polar setting that I think looked similar to today. And there was also a lot of domestic change and political fluidity that was the product of industrialization in Germany, in the United States. This was the progressive era dealing with large corporations, trusts, how do we tame them. This resonates with our age, both in terms of what's happening in other places, but also in here. There's a lot of economic or socio-economic dislocation that is taking place because of globalization. So that's—I think I'd say 1890s. SCHAKE: So can I now confess that I was actually reading the ISA tribute to the Trail of Tears so I had to punt to Charlie because I actually didn't know what question you were asking. I wasn't listening, Jim—(laughter)—and now that I know it's is this an inflection point—thank you, Charlie for stepping forward when I was unprepared—I don't actually think it's an inflection point. LINDSAY: Why not? SCHAKE: I think we are still litigating the end of the Cold War, that we assumed that the end was 1991 and 1992 with the unification of Germany, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the expansion of freedom, but in fact, Russia is more continuous with the Soviet Union than it is different from the Soviet Union under Vladimir Putin. And so, I think what we are seeing is a resurgent effort by the countries of the West to restrict Russian power when it is used for the suppression of the sovereignty and freedom of others. So I think we are still litigating the end of the Cold War. I hope it will be an inflection point because we succeed and we will end up with a Russia that either lives within the existing rules of the Western order or changes. LINDSAY: OK, Audrey, so we have a vote for an inflection point. We have a vote for no inflection point. Where do you weigh in? CRONIN: Well, I think that whenever we talk about historical analogies, I get really nervous because Ernest May's book had a huge impact on me early in my career—Thinking in Time—and I think personally I'm going to split the difference, and we can choose from different analogies. So I think we do have a lot of what Charlie has talked about; certainly at the end of the nineteenth century you had globalization, you had inequality at tremendous levels. You had a huge monopolization of major companies that were controlling more and more. You had the maturation of fossil-fuel-based economies, which is quite similar to the maturation of digitally based economies, and also the equivalent to oil, I would say, is—many have said—the equivalent to oil and coal is data. The data economy is becoming quite mature. And so I think the broader context is more the way that Charlie laid it out. But I also agree with you, Kori, because I think that, you know, 1947 is a period where I would look back and say we were—I mean, I did write my first book on the negotiations over Austria, so I see that as being very comparable to what we're thinking about in some ways with respect to Ukraine—or what the Ukrainians are thinking about. So I can certainly see the continuation with respect to the Soviet Union and Russia there, too. So I think we—you know, we have to pick and choose a little bit. LINDSAY: OK. Kori, I want to come back to you, and you can throw this question to Charlie or Audrey if you want— SCHAKE: (Laughs)—I'm listening now, I promise. LINDSAY: OK. You know, you have written a book asking about whether the liberal world order can be preserved, and you have mentioned that we have seen a remarkable show of unity and action in the West. I think the West as a term has sort of gotten a new lease on life. But the fact that there is unity at the start of the crisis doesn't mean there will be unity at the end of the crisis. How do you assess the chances for Western cooperation to continue to be sustained? Do you think it's temporary? Or is there an opportunity here for it to be long lasting? SCHAKE: That's a really good question, and the honest answer is I don't know. But I do see—and things are about to get a lot more painful for the countries of the West economically and possibly even politically to sustain the very hard line we have taken, and not just because it looks like Russia is going to turn off the gas pumps unless Western countries will pay in rubles to get Russia around some of the creative economic sanctions that the West has put forward, but also the inability to export wheat from Ukraine and natural resources from Russia. This is going to be a huge humanitarian crisis. We are going to have a food crisis, most particularly in the developing world. And that, too, will put pressure on Western governments. The good news is the amazing creativity of the treasury departments of the Western countries to come up new tools to try and impose economic costs on Russia. The bad news is it's not yet clear what the second-order effects of those tools are going to be, and who they're going to hurt, and who they're going to help as they—as they sink their roots. So we have set sail in very choppy waters. We did it for very good reasons, and I think, though, that two things will help Western countries hold together. The first is Russia is so obviously in the wrong here, and in a way, that's dangerous—not just to Ukraine; it's dangerous to this system of rules that have made the West safe and prosperous; namely borders only changed by consent, and sovereignty is inherent in any state—large, small, weak, powerful. So having the German SPD chancellor almost triple German defense spending this year, to commit to the NATO 2 percent next year as opposed to 2035, which was Germany's opening position, to start sending arms to Ukraine, and to agree to wean Germany off of Russian oil and gas by the end of this year—I don't see how you walk that back. He planted his sword, and I think that will hold—since Germany is one of the weakest links in Western unity on the sanctions that have been taken against Russia, it will be very hard for others to walk back if Germany holds the line. And the second thing is the war in Ukraine is taking on the trappings of a moral crusade, right? There are good guys in this and there are bad guys in this. And it will be very hard for a country of the West to—after all they have already said, look in the face what Russia is doing—you know, kidnapping mayors from towns they have occupied, shelling apartment buildings, and it was easier for us to look away in Afghanistan, in Syria, and in other places. It will be harder for them to look away in a neighboring country as it takes on this overtly moralistic overtone. LINDSAY: Let me ask you, Audrey, since you have written about Austria, do you see the potential for a negotiated deal that could stick, particularly in light of the point that Kori just made that this is starting—at least in the United States—to turn into a moral crusade, and it's very difficult to compromise when you are supposedly fighting over good versus evil? CRONIN: Yes, well, neutrality is not necessarily good versus evil. I mean, it's a different plane altogether, right? So you're talking geopolitics. You can have good or evil regimes that are neutral. So I don't really see the question of whether Ukraine could be neutral in those kind of crusade terms. I think it's all up to the Ukrainians and whether or not they can negotiate a deal that serves their interests. And there's a bunch of key things that I'm really worried about. One of them is they are talking about not joining any kind of foreign alliances. So the details on that are very, very important. So if that's part of an agreement, who decides what a foreign alliance is, is going to be very important. The second thing is that security guarantees—they want security guarantees, and they're saying from the United States, France, and Britain, and that's essentially an Article 5 commitment. That is quite potentially dangerous to NATO, so it could be quite destabilizing depending upon the details. What if the security guarantor were China, as well? What if Russia were insisting upon that as the agreement. So the devil is in the details in this agreement and to what degree are the Russians going to insist that there be demilitarization? I think that if the Ukrainians become neutral, it's going to have to be very important that they maintain robust defenses. And then the last thing I'm really worried about is what's it going to look like. What is the territory going to be? Because there is going to be partition, probably. They are going to have to give something up, and it would be the Donbas and Crimea probably—I'm guessing—and this is up to the Ukrainians, not us. But, where is that line going to be? Some people think that it could be along the Dnieper River. Some people think it could only be the Donbas region in Ukraine as I've just said. But exactly what it is that they're neutralizing is crucial. We could have actually a divided Ukraine that begins to look a little bit like the divided Germany after the Second World War. LINDSAY: Charlie, you have written in the pages of Foreign Affairs just last year, that there is a need for a great power concert. But given what we've just talked about and Kori's notion that we're really sort of moralizing this conflict, what are the prospects for a concert of great powers, and what would they cooperate on in this current context? KUPCHAN: Let me tie that question back to Kori's comment because you all—you clearly want us to disagree to get some friction here. LINDSAY: I want you to disagree nicely. (Laughter.) KUPCHAN: I will be very nice, but I—you know, I think there are some differences that should be delineated. Is this a moment of Western rejuvenation? Yes, on some level. But I also think it is a wake-up moment that will force us to confront the prospect of liberal overreach that we, at the end of the Cold War, thought that the order that we built was going to be universalized, and to some extent I think we are seeing blowback from that assumption, and may need to take a more conservative approach to the expansion of the liberal rules-based system that is more focused on us than it is on bringing others in. And I would point out that there is a big liberal democracy out there called India that has not decided to stand with the liberal democracies of the world in this conflict. Second point: I'm more worried than you are, Kori, that this kind of resurgence of moralism and Western strength will last, and that's because all the problems that we were concerned about before February 24 are still there, and in fact, they're getting worse. Gas prices are going up, egg prices are going up, grain and bread is going up. What—four million or close to four million refugees have arrived in Europe, and not too far off the Europeans are going to wake up and say, holy crap, most of these aren't going to go home. Where are we going to put them? How are we going to deal with this? And immigration has been really one of the toughest issues for Europe. So I do worry that as this clock moves forward, as we head into the midterms here in the United States, this kind of burst of bipartisanship will be just a burst, and that the Republicans are going to get their knives out—I'll defer to you on the Republican Party—but I don't think the America First crowd is gone; it's just quiet for now because it doesn't play well. I expect it to come back vocally as we get closer to the midterms. Final comment: I think the impulse, Jim, is to say forget a global concert; it's over. And to some extent I agree with that because Richard and I wrote a global concert depends upon the absence of an aggressor state. We have an aggressor state. It's called Russia. It has invaded its neighbor. But I would also point out that we cannot afford to go back to a world that looks like the Cold War. We are in the boat together on pandemics, on climate change, on proliferation, on global economic interdependence. So I do think we need to talk about either a post-Putin Russia or even a Putin Russia, and what can be done after the dust settles in Ukraine to figure out how to make sure that the broader global agenda that we face doesn't go by the wayside. LINDSAY: Kori, I want to get you to respond to Charlie's point that India has not joined in the effort to sanction. And I should note it's not just India; it's Brazil, it's South Africa. Indeed most of the countries of the global south have not rallied behind Western sanctions and in fact have criticized them. So what does that mean for the future of the rules-based order that you have spoken about? SCHAKE: I think it's a fabulous challenge. So I have a couple of reactions to it. The first is I would be doing exactly what they are doing if I were a developing country, an emergent economy because Germans can have the luxury of paying double gas prices. It's an incredibly wealthy country. The government can float bonds and pay for things in the future because there is a lot of confidence in the dynamism of the German economy. That's not the case for most emergent economies, and they have more pressing problems than the problems we are worried about. And so I think the first thing is we need to not be so judgmental about the fact that they are solving other harder problems than what we are trying to recruit them to help us with. Second, I also think that's good alliance management because allies very often disagree. They even disagree on really important things, so it's reasonable that people who are not tied as tightly into the benefits of the liberal international order are questioned more what they're going to offer for its continuation. So that's the second thing. The third thing is I think there's a difference between not wanting to be counted on something and opposing it. And India is an interesting case in this point—example in this case, sorry—because on the one hand they get a lot of their military equipment from Russia, and they have a budding, burgeoning relationship with the United States, Australia, and Japan; not because of Russia but because of China, and trying to figure out how to synchronize the gas pedal and the clutch on their series of concerns is actually genuinely difficult. And so, again, I don't think we should be too judgmental about this. But we should work hard to win the argument and explain to them why it is in their interest that countries cannot change borders by force. That's what Pakistan has attempted to do to India. That's what China is attempting to do to India. And they have a stake in a system in which all of us work together to prevent that. LINDSAY: Do you want to jump in here, Audrey? CRONIN: Yes, I was—so jumping off of that point, actually, Kori, isn't it interesting that China, the great defender of sovereignty, does not seem to be interested in defending Ukraine's sovereignty, and is quite interested in supporting the aggressor in this case. But getting back to India, I think the fact that only within the last two years the Indians have been fighting the Chinese in the Himalayas. You know, they have a lot of other things to worry about. And the other thing I would say is that, what major power war can you think of where what is essentially the non-aligned movement in the world has ever aligned with those who are currently defending the global order. And then the last thing that I'll say—to disagree a little bit since I think that's what you want—disagree a little bit with Charlie is that I don't think we could have a concert of Europe right now or a concert of great powers because we have a lot of new actors that are as powerful as great powers are in certain dimensions, including the major tech companies who are having a massive influence geopolitically on this crisis. So, we are not in 1815. We are in a different situation with a lot of new stakeholders and a different economic situation than the one that existed then. LINDSAY: Audrey, can I draw you out on that point about technology companies and the role they are playing? Can you just sort of spell it out for me—how you see them influencing or being influenced by the conflict? CRONIN: Yeah, so in some respects the tech companies have been—have sort of been bunged by reality because they have been very poor at dealing with situations of war. So you've got Meta that has been—you know, Facebook, and Instagram, and WhatsApp have all been shut down in Russia, and now Meta is being criminalized by the Putin administration—Putin regime—and so, because Meta claimed that they would go to an exception of their moderation rules and allow the Ukrainians to cry for blood against the Russians, this made them seem hypocritical and gave the Russians the excuse to criminalize them within Russia. So this whole concept of neutrality where—neutrality in terms of communications that they have sort of tied their whole identity to for many decades is proving to be extremely frayed. Meta is now being, you know, as I said, criminalized, and it's giving the Russians a greater argument for why it is that, you know, they can clamp down within Russia. And so, as a result, the Russian people are getting less information. For the first time that I can remember, the New York Times has pulled its people from Moscow. All of the major bureaus have either closed down or pulled people. You've got a, you know, crackdown that started to occur before this crisis where Google and Apple representatives were being harassed and, you know, very, very severely. There is kind of a hostage-taking approach to making sure that there were people there that the Putin administration could control. So I don't see Meta as having been very successful. However, then you've also got Elon Musk and Starlink. Look at the role that Starlink has played in Ukraine. I mean, he's the one who in many respects are keeping the Ukrainians connected, and that's not unrelated to how this crisis is going. Starlink, with its two thousand individual-sized satellites which are very difficult to shoot down—this has been a huge boon and a support for Ukraine. So I think that major tech companies are an important stakeholder in the international geopolitical realm that we don't put enough emphasis upon. LINDSAY: Kori, did you have a two-finger? SCHAKE: Yeah, I wanted to tag along on Dr. Cronin's very good—Dr. Cronin's very good point and say that it's not just— CRONIN: Kori, call me Audrey. We've known each other for decades. (Laughter.) SCHAKE: Thank you, my friend. It's not just the big tech companies. What we are looking at is a war in which civil society—business, private charities—all these different dimensions are playing extraordinary roles, right? Chef José Andrés is not only buffeting Poland and other countries that are taking in enormous numbers of refugees, he is also running aid convoys to Odessa. We could be in a point before this war is over where you have private charities breaking sieges of Ukrainian cities and the Russians trying to hold the sieges. You see the hackers group, Anonymous, going after the Russians something fierce, and that's where the values, the moral crusade part of this matters because civil society in free societies are taking it upon themselves—often beyond the control of the government and without the government's blessing—to do things that they think will help the people they think are good guys in the war. LINDSAY: I see you've done a two-finger, Charlie. I'll let you do that, but I'm going to ask one last question of you before we bring the rest of the room in. And it is what do you make of President Xi's decision to back Russia rather than to stand up for the principle of sovereignty? Are Russia and China now joined at the hip? How should U.S. statecraft respond to that? But I know you wanted to get a two-finger first. KUPCHAN: Yes. One quick two-finger to Dr. Professor Cronin. CRONIN: Oh, please. (Laughter.) KUPCHAN: And that is that—and this will just be in defense of the concert system, and I just came from a roundtable—I see Chet Crocker and others who were there—on concerts, one of their assets being the flexibility to put at the table Google, and Meta, and International Rescue Committee, and other groups precisely because they are not formal U.N. Security Council bodies. But you seem skeptical— CRONIN: You are—you are redefining the terms. KUPCHAN: —so let's not let you talk. (Laughter.) To your question, Jim, I think that the Chinese were a little bit uncertain at first, and they said some things that suggested that they were going to back Russia and some things that said they weren't so comfortable with the disruption that's being caused. My sense is that they have now coalesced around standing fairly firmly behind Putin. And I think that's because this is a war that, on balance, is probably good for China. And that's because it pushes Russia more fully into China's embrace and turns Russia irretrievably into the junior partner. It distracts the United States and Europe from the Asia-Pacific. We're going to be focused on the new central front for the foreseeable future, and I think the Chinese like that, just like they like the fact that we were spinning our wheels for twenty years in Afghanistan and Iraq. The big question mark in my mind is will they go the next step. Will they provide economic assistance and military assistance? Will they bail out a Russian economy that could be collapsing? And I don't know the answer to that. My guess is they're going to be careful not to see secondary sanctions get imposed. But one issue that I do worry about—and then I'll throw this out for discussion—is, are the Chinese going to look at what's happening here, and are we going to look at what's happening here, and say globalization and interdependence has become too dangerous, and as a consequence, we're moving into what could become an era of deglobalization? That's scary in a world in which two-thirds of the countries in the world already trade more with China than with us. So deglobalization may be unstoppable, but it's not necessarily good for the U.S. LINDSAY: OK, fair enough. On that note, I'm going to bring the rest of the room into our conversation. I want to remind everybody that this meeting is on the record. If you would like to ask a question, raise a hand, and please stand. Wait for the microphone to arrive, then state your name and affiliation before asking your question. And I do ask that you ask a question. Right here in the front—right here. CRONIN: (Laughs.) The race is on. Q: Thank you. Victoria Hui at University of Notre Dame. These days people talk about today it's Ukraine, tomorrow it's Taiwan. So do you think— LINDSAY: Can you hold it a little closer? Q: Oh. LINDSAY: Thank you. Q: People say today it's Ukraine; tomorrow it's Taiwan. So do you think that today it's Ukraine means— tomorrow it's Taiwan means that there is a bigger chance that there will be a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, or Ukraine—the experiences that we are seeing is actually going to make Taiwan safer? Thank you. LINDSAY: So have the chances of an invasion of Taiwan gone up or gone down? SCHAKE: So I honestly don't know. Let me tell you the two arguments. The first argument would be what the Chinese could learn from Russia's invasion of Ukraine is it's shocking that the Western world actually can pull together when it's serious. Second, the diabolical creativity of Western financial institutions to develop new tools in market—to affect markets, again, should be scary to them. Third, the only way to tell whether a military is any good at what it's doing is to fight it, and I—like a whole bunch of other people thought the Russian military was an awful lot better than it is. And China hasn't fought in a long time, and so whether they would have the grit for this fight or the ability to do the orchestration of logistics and air power, getting across a hundred miles of choppy water in an amphibious operation on Taiwan—that's a pretty sophisticated military task. So lots of reasons they should take caution from that. Not at all clear to me that Xi Jinping will take caution from that—that he may very well be arrogant enough to think, well, of course the Russians are terrible at this, but my military is great at this. And of course the Ukrainians feel Western. The Taiwanese are starting to feel Western; we'd better shut this down before it goes much further. Like I could see arguments where he would think the West would never have the stomach to impose on China the kind of economic restrictions they are imposing. So it's touch and go I think. KUPCHAN: Two quick thoughts: the first is that I think on balance it makes a Chinese attack less likely, and that's simply because the Chinese are watching what's happening to Russia, and they're probably going to calculate we don't want to go down that rabbit hole; that does not look good to us. My second observation is that I think it probably makes sense for the United States to end strategic ambiguity—not to change the One China policy, but to say we're going to defend Taiwan because I think part of what happened in Ukraine is we were ambiguous, and the Russians called our bluff. So if we intend to defend Taiwan, let's say so. If we don't intend to, let's say so. But living with this ambiguity, it seems to me, invites trouble. We just learned that in Ukraine. LINDSAY: Charlie, how do you square that with your observation earlier that you worry that the America First movement is just sort of in abeyance right now and will come back with great force? Because that would seem to be the kind of commitment that they would oppose. KUPCHAN: You know, it is a huge and interesting question, and if Trump is reelected, I don't know what the future of NATO and U.S. alliances in Asia will be. I do think, though, that the impetus for the America First movement came out of the forever wars, and that if you look at the Trump administration, they were actually pretty tough on China and supportive of Taiwan. LINDSAY: The administration was; the president wasn't necessarily— KUPCHAN: President not so, but the Republicans are—you know, they're pretty gung-ho on China, and so I think that this geopolitical realignment that we have been undertaking: out of wars of choice in the Middle East let's focus on meat-and-potatoes issues in Eurasia is good because I think that's the sweet spot in American politics. LINDSAY: Audrey, do you want to jump in here? CRONIN: Just two things on the Taiwan question and also the relationship between Russia and China—I think firstly that China is going to find that it has developed a kind of a vassal state now and, you know, the Russians are going to be depending upon China for weapons, for buying their oil, for technology, for evading sanctions, and I'm not sure that China, over time, is going to find that this is a good deal for them, so I think that may—in theory—change the desire that they might have had to take aggressive action against Taiwan. I think you can see it both ways, though. I agree with Kori. I'm not sure that it's possible to say definitively that way. But the second thing I would say is that Taiwan has a lot to learn from what Ukraine has done. So, you know, urban warfare; using easily accessible and cheap technologies; engaging in, you know, skirmishes; fighting forward; not depending upon huge legacy systems—instead using the kinds of tactics that we associate with insurgents. I think that Taiwan would be extremely good at that, and they're going to learn from Ukraine. LINDSAY: I think it's a really important point that both sides can learn from the events in Ukraine. If you want to ask a question in the back of the room, you're really going to have to stand up and wave because I'm not sure I can see that far back. But we have a question right here. Q: Hi. Jim Morrow, University of Michigan. LINDSAY: Go blue! Q: It's clear that the Europeans are going to come close to meeting their commitments to increase their military spending. My question is do you also think that they'll go further to create something like a really unified European military, and also to take the political changes to have a coherent European foreign policy? And then the other part of the question is should the United States encourage this because it seems to me there's two sides to this. One is greater burden sharing—the Europeans can carry more, but at the same time, it will decrease U.S. influence on security and defense issues. SCHAKE: Those are great questions. So I think the result of Russia's aggression is going to be Europeans clinging more tightly to the United States because when we are scared, we like to hold hands with each other. And even watching how awful the Russian military is at the profession of arms doesn't appear to be making our European friends and allies any less desirous of having the United States in the mix of it. So I don't anticipate that the increased spending is going to be external to NATO or to build European capabilities autonomous of the United States. I do think, however, we should be encouraging closer political and even military cooperation among the Europeans for exactly the reason you said, which is after watching the performance of this Russian military, the Poles could defeat the Russians pretty easily. And once you start mixing all the NATO countries in, our opposition to greater European autonomy has actually encouraged the Europeans to think of themselves as weak, and they are not. And we should want allies that feel their strength and are confident in their strength as a way of better balancing the risks all of us run together. KUPCHAN: I would just add, Jim, that I think what's going on in Germany is an inflection point because if there were to be a development on the European side that changed, in a consequential way, Europe's defense capability, it had to happen in Germany. And Germany was the laggard. I mean, its military has atrophied, deteriorated in a way that's hard to overstate. And if there is to be a kind of European pillar, it has to start with Germany, and it looks like they are starting. But I agree with Kori that this is not the beginning of Macron's strategic autonomy, and that's because France is alone in having a view of Europe as standing apart from the United States and flexing its muscles on the global stage. Just about every other EU member state wants a stronger Europe that's tethered to the United States; not that goes off on its own. That's good for them, and I think it's good for us. CRONIN: Yeah, the only thing I would add is let's look at what the non-NATO members have done to get a sense of how important this shift is. I mean, if you look at the tremendous increase in spending—defense spending in Sweden, increase in defense spending in Finland; the fact that Switzerland, which is not a member of NATO or the EU is now abiding by the sanctions—you know, this is an inflection point if only from that perspective. The Europeans are drawing together in anger and frustration, and it is unprecedented. LINDSAY: We'll go over here to the right side of the room. Q: Hi, deRaismes Combes from American University. Thank you so much for an interesting conversation. I'm still thinking about this notion of historical analogies that you started with, and I'm wondering if you think Ukraine is teaching us anything about 21st century geopolitics in the digital age that we just haven't really grasped before in terms of where this is heading, both specifically with Ukraine, but also with Taiwan and with the broader geopolitical system and the liberal world order. So thank you. LINDSAY: Do you want to take first crack at that, Audrey? CRONIN: Yes, I mean, that's a huge question, and the answer is yes—(laughs)—it's teaching us a lot about geopolitics in the digital age. Some of this I've already talked about. I think that major digital actors need to be parts of this Concert of Europe that we're talking about, the concert of the great powers, because I think they play an enormous role in affecting the future and how things are evolving. You know, I think that we see a lot with respect specifically to Ukraine, which is that the fact that Ukraine had a pretty advanced technology element to their economy; they are very advanced in aeronautics; they had their own drone industry, and their use of drones has come very naturally to Ukrainian citizens—you know, those who are volunteering. You know, this shows you that—again, getting back to the question on Taiwan—countries that are advanced in terms of their digital capabilities, and their populations are able to use digital technologies effectively, are going to be, I think, more successful as we move into the 21st century. LINDSAY: Kori, you want to jump in here? SCHAKE: Yeah, two quick, additional points. One is that one of the surprises of this war was that we all expected it was going to start with a cyber Armageddon, right, that power stations were—power systems were going to go down all over Ukraine, that the government wouldn't be able to communicate. All of these fancy cyber things were supposed to happen, and they didn't. And it looks like they didn't happen for three reasons: first, is the Russians gave us so much lead time of what they were potentially doing that NSA and CYBERCOM were able to forward deploy to Ukraine and other places teams to assist in the defense of the architectures. Second, the Russians—for reasons I don't understand—were evidently more restrained than anybody anticipated. Maybe it's the nature of cyber tools that once you unleash them your adversaries can use them back against you. Maybe we are seeing an assured destruction leveling. And the third thing is it's just easier to blow stuff up—(laughter)—and so the Russians blew stuff up. And so one big thing we expected was going to happen actually turns out not to be as significant in modern warfare. But Audrey's point about the technological sophistication—I mean, the Ukrainian government dispensing an app so that people can identify Russian troops as they come. That gave them country-wide situational awareness. A couple hundred thousand people are actively using the app, so you get societal resilience and you also get better information. It is really extraordinary. LINDSAY: Did you want to— KUPCHAN: Just one quick sentence on the—how important the information space has been. You know, the Biden administration I think deserves credit for stealing the march from the Russians, right? The Russians have spent the last five, ten years cleaning our clocks in the information space. I think that the Biden people reversed it. They got out ahead. They released intel that they probably shouldn't have released, but they did it anyway, and I really think it has made a difference. LINDSAY: Going to go all the way to the back of the room. Q: Thank you. I'm Chandler Rosenberger from Brandeis University. And I wanted to follow up on this point about resilience because I think we've talked a lot about tactics. We've talked a lot about specific things that the Ukrainians have done. But I think the most impressive thing about them is how resilient they have been militarily and as a society. And I wonder if that tells us something about the advantages of a kind of, you know, liberal, democratic, civic order in which people feel deeply invested and its ability to survive an assault from an authoritarian states where the soldiers seem not to know what they are fighting for, that there's—maybe we can have more faith in that kind of democratic social resilience than we might have had otherwise. LINDSAY: Who wants to take first crack at the question? CRONIN: I will. LINDSAY: OK, Audrey, you're closest, got your finger up first. CRONIN: All right, well, so yes, I think that we are going to learn a lot about societal resilience, but I think we have to wait. I think we have to wait and find out how this plays out because Kori's point about it being a lot easier to just blow things up, that is also still true. So if all you want to do is crush a country and, you know, occupy that country by killing a lot of civilians and, you know, targeting corridors of humanitarian fleeing civilians, if all you want to do is kill a lot of people, I think the Russians are capable of doing that. And I don't think we can yet come to full conclusions about how strong that resilience is going to be to stand up to that. We're still pretty early in this fight. I hope from my heart that what you are saying is what we learn from this conflict. But we're only, what, about a month and a half into it—five weeks into it, so I hope that resilience is what we get out of it. SCHAKE: So it clearly makes a difference in the willingness of soldiers to run risks in a fight, right? We see the comparative difference in Russia and Ukraine, and I do think that that's partly about societal resilience. In better militaries than the Russians there's also the professionalism that gives resilience, right? They're not fighting for me; they are fighting for the guy standing next to them kind of resilience. Temperamentally I want so much to believe it's true, and yet, I think there are a couple of factors that make Ukraine uniquely resilient against a Russian invasion. First, the terrors of Soviet occupation. There are still Ukrainians alive who experienced the Holodomor that Russia—the Soviet Union imposed on Ukraine. They feel like they are fighting for survival. They don't feel like they are fighting for a particular kind of government—in addition to a particular kind of government. The second thing is that I think it matters that the World War II generation is still alive in our countries because I think they have a slightly different perspective. But let me add one hopeful note. When Jim Mattis and I did the surveys of American public attitudes about military issues for our book, Warriors and Citizens several years ago, the weirdest anomaly in the data was that the attitudes of people under twenty-five most closely approximated the attitudes of people who had lived through the Great Depression and World War II: that the world feels fundamentally uncertain and unsafe to them, and that does give a kind of resilience that I think the intervening generations might not have to the same extent. LINDSAY: Charlie? KUPCHAN: Yeah, what I'm sort of ruminating on, vis-à-vis this question, is how did Putin get it so wrong, right? Because we will look back at this crisis and say Putin made Ukraine great again. The Ukraine that he envisaged did exist, but it was—it was pre-2014 and probably all the way going back to the Orange Revolution. You know, you used to go to Mariupol, or Donetsk, or Lugansk, and it was full of Russians, and they felt like Russians, and they affiliated with Russia. That's gone, right? They have come together around a strong Ukrainian national identity, including the president, who grew up speaking Russian, right? How did he get elected? He got elected by, you know, pro-Russian and Russian speakers in eastern and southern Ukraine. That's gone, right? He's now a rock star because he's giving his middle finger to Putin. And so the country has really come together as a consequence of Russian aggression. It's a kind of blowback that the Russians are going to have to live with forever. LINDSAY: This gentleman here with the dark jacket. Q: Fen Hampson from north of the border. The panel—I've forgotten who it was—raised the interesting question about Russia with Putin and Russia without Putin. And I'd like to ask you, if and when this crisis ends, what sort of relationship do we have with Russia if Putin is still around? Do we walk back sanctions? Do we take oligarchs off Magnitsky? Do we stop proceedings in the International Criminal Court? Do we welcome them back to the various organizations they've been thrown out of, and that includes the G-20? And if he leaves—for whatever reason—you know, is Russian going to be easier to deal with or more difficult to deal with? And I would say, you know, be careful what you wish for because he has provided stability—and I'm not defending him—but one can envisage a scenario where the security vacuum extends now to Russia as others see weakness in Moscow. LINDSAY: Charlie, do you want to take a first crack at that? KUPCHAN: A lot depends, Fen, on how this ends, and my best guess is that it will not end cleanly, and it will not end well. Audrey already mentioned some of the provisions that are tentatively on the table. I have a hard time imagining them seeing the light of day. Who is going to guarantee Ukraine's security? Is Zelenskyy going to get the support of the Rada to change the constitution? Is he going to have the domestic support to recognize Crimea, Mariupol, and Donetsk, and Lugansk as Russian? So I'm guessing that what will end up here is another frozen conflict in which Russia takes a big bite out of eastern Ukraine, probably doesn't go into Kyiv because it's not going very well, and then we sort of have to say, well, the fighting is over. They did more, they took more; now what? And I guess I'm enough of a realist to say that, you know, we're going to have to go back to something that looks more like the Cold War which mixes containment and engagement. And that's because there is simply too much at stake to put Russia in the penalty box and throw the key away. And so I would say that even in a post-war Putin Russia as opposed to a post-Putin Russia, we're going to have to find ways of getting some difficult hedging cooperation on arms control, on the question of energy issues—I mean, there's a lot of stuff here that we can't just throw away. LINDSAY: I want to get in one last question because we're nearing the end of our time, so we'll go to that young lady over there, if we can, and then I'll have to ask the panelists to be short in the response. Q: Hi, I hope this won't be too long. My name is Eve Clark-Benevides. I'm from SUNY Oswego. And I—there was an editorial in the New York Times yesterday that infuriated me, but it has been really coming up during this whole talk. Bret Stephens argues maybe we're being a little bit too premature, kind of celebrating that Putin has miscalculated. Maybe actually Putin really only wanted eastern Ukraine all along. He never really thought—and that a lot of the goals that Putin has wanted over time—getting rid of the free press, getting the moderates to move out, and really having full power over the Russian society—is really coming to pass. So this is kind of a piggyback off the last question that, really, are we going to see sort of these steps to disengage economically and politically with Russia—you know, Britain realizing that maybe having Russian money completely floating their economy—we're trying to divest. Do you think that maybe in this new Cold War—whatever occurs—that we're going to continue to really try to get away from oligarch money in the political systems in the West? LINDSAY: OK, Audrey, you had your hand up first so— CRONIN: Yes, so when it comes to our analyses of Putin, I think it's a mistake for us to personalize this as much as we are. You know, put aside this unfortunate comment about potentially regime change in the way that it was interpreted. I think that the Russians have always, throughout their history, gone back and forth between kind of a Slavophile approach and a Westernizer approach, and Putin is a Slavophile. So what we're seeing right now is a reawakening of Russian nationalism, a move back exactly along the lines that you just suggested to having greater control over their domestic population, getting rid of some of the threats that Putin personally feels are quite dangerous; you know, domestic movements within Russia. I hate to see all of this happen, but yes, it does feel quite familiar. I mean, I spend my—some of my teenage years living in Moscow in the American embassy. I remember the Cold War; I'm old enough to remember all of that. And I think we are going to have to move back to that kind of relationship where sometimes we can deal on certain things and at other times we can't deal on those things, we deal on other things. But the worst thing that we could do would be to make Russia a complete pariah because, if you understand European history, you also know that anytime you have a complete pariah that is aside from the whole system, you are more likely to end up in a major war. LINDSAY: Charlie or Kori? SCHAKE: So Putin—I don't buy the argument that Putin is a grand strategic genius and invaded Ukraine in order to crackdown domestically for two reasons: first because he is already cracking down. It was just a slow strangulation—CREF, Nemtsov, and Navalny—and so he didn't need the Ukraine invasion to be more repressive domestically. But the second thing is I think the failure of Russian force and arms in Ukraine is actually making his domestic position much more tenuous in ways that I think are unpredictable from the outside to understand. My answer to—just quickly, my answer to the what do we—how do we deal with Putin still in power, I think it would be a good thing for us to find ways for a strategically smaller, weaker, and humiliated Russia to have a U.S. counterparty on some things that are important to them and to us. It will make Ukraine's longer-term future and Russia's longer-term future easier to handle if we, who have had so little invested in this fight, step forward and help integrate Russia in ways that we can. KUPCHAN: To the question of was Putin a grand master and he intended this from the beginning, I don't see it, and that's because he could have done the eastern bit at any time, and he wouldn't have needed to put almost two hundred thousand troops all around Ukraine, including in Belarus. He could have just gone into the separatist territories, turned south, gone to Mariupol and connected to Crimea, and called it a day. I think what's happening here is he's changing the goalposts because his original goal of regime change and the occupation of the country, it does not look feasible anymore, although I agree with my colleagues that he might just keep bombing for another few months. Who knows what will happen? But the key question in my mind is whatever that ultimate disposition is, can he portray it as a victory? Can he sell it—not just to the Russian people, but to the Russia elite system, which is showing more discontent than I think we've ever seen in modern Russia. I don't think Putin is about to go, but I do think that this is a war that is going to loosen his grip on power, and anything could come of that. It could mean he goes and we get a worse outcome. After all, a lot of the people around him share his views. It could also be that we get a more benign outcome. We don't know, and as a consequence, I think we just have to hedge our bets. LINDSAY: Well, that brings us to the end of our time here. I want to thank everyone in the room for joining us for this conversation on the geopolitical implications of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I want to do a shout-out to Irina Faskianos and her team— AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yay, Irina! (Applause.) LINDSAY: —for arranging today's thing. And I want to say thank you to our three guests: Kori Schake, Charlie Kupchan, and Audrey Cronin for their expertise. (Applause.) (END

On this episode of SEPADPod Simon speaks with Andrew Delatolla, Lecturer in Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Leeds, a Visiting Research Fellow at the Middle East Centre at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He was the former Chair of the LGBTQA+ Caucus of the International Studies Association 2020/2021. You can find him on twitter @a_delatolla. Andrew is the author of the wonderful Civilization and the Making of the State in Lebanon and Syria. 1Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan (2021) along with articles in ISQ, TWQ, BJMES and ISR. On this episode, Simon and Andrew talk about Lebanon, Lebanese culture, the state, the concepts of civilisation and sexuality and much more. Please do like, share and subscribe in all the usual ways. We even have a jingle now (thanks Eddie) so we're contractually obliged to ask you to do this.

On this episode I speak with Dr. Eleanor Paynter about her work in Critical Refugee Studies, including a recent essay on soundwalking, as well as her role as a Migrations Postdoctoral Fellow at Cornell University. Dr. Paynter's work focuses on testimony as a multifaceted object: a legalistic framework for migrants seeking refugee status, as well as a mode of expressing agency in creative ways. In this conversation we touch on the so-called "refugee crisis" in Europe, as well as poetry, interdisciplinarity, public scholarship, and more. Eleanor Paynter is part of the Einaudi Center's Migrations research team, building interdisciplinary conversations and collaborations around the study of migration. She hosts the Migrations initiative podcast, Migrations: A World on the Move. She graduated from The Ohio State University with a doctorate in comparative studies. Her work is in the area of critical refugee studies, incorporating approaches from narrative, media, and cultural studies to consider experiences and representations of precarious and undocumented migration, asylum, and human rights. Focused on the Black Mediterranean, her research and public writing respond to anti-immigrant racism and postcolonial border dynamics. Her dissertation received the International Studies Association's 2021 Lynne Rienner Publishers Award for Best Dissertation in Human Rights. Her current book project examines migration from Africa to Europe via the Mediterranean Sea, drawing on migrant testimonies produced in Italy to reconsider the common framing of irregular migration as a crisis or emergency. In addition, she's collaborating on a project about precarious mobilities and visual culture and is developing a study of European migration governance through social media analysis. Eleanor is also a poet and holds an MFA from Sarah Lawrence College. Here is some of Dr. Paynter's work that we discussed in this episode: The soundwalking article we discuss is forthcoming with a/b: Auto/Biography Studies. Dr. Paynter's podcast is Migrations: A World on the Move You can find more of her publications here, including many open access/public articles. Other work mentioned in the show: Guide Invisibili Amade M'charek, Katharina Schramm and David Skinner, "Introduction: Technologies of Belonging: The Absent Presence of Race in Europe" The work of Igiaba Scego Yen Le Espiritu, Body Counts: The Vietnam War and Militarized Refugees Ma Vang, History on the Run Secrecy: Fugitivity, and Hmong Refugee Epistemologies

Robyn Eckersley is Professor and Head of Political Science in the School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia where she specialises in environmental governance, politics, political theory and international relations. She was elected as Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia in 2007 and in 2019, she received a Distinguished Scholar Award from the Environmental Studies Section of the International Studies Association. Robyn has been working at the interface of deep ecology, green political theory and international relations scholarship for over two decades. In her 2004 book ‘The Green State', she laid out her argument for a ‘critical political ecology' as a paradigm to navigate the political challenge of ‘greening states', a theme which has continued to animate her work. Robyn has also been a vocal advocate for climate justice in the UN intergovernmental system, a shrewd analyst of the US's role as a swing state in the long history of climate negotiations, and – most recently – begun evaluating the climate emergency movement and its implications for the future of the state and democracy. In this conversation, Robyn helps us take stock of where we are five years after the landmark Paris Agreement. We discuss why current targets are unlikely to cut it unless ambitious concrete action is brought forward to 2030. We probe the imperative of tackling pervasive structural injustices which continue to perpetuate harm upon those most vulnerable to climate extremes, as well as the complex moral terrain posed by the issue of historic responsibility. Switching gears, Robyn revisits her earlier work on the transformation of the state in a context of ecological crisis and some of the opportunities, challenges and contradictions which the current moment throw up, not least the spectacle of the military declaring their green credentials on the battlefield. We also reflect on the enduring value of Robert Cox's seminal distinction between problem-solving and critical theory, and its modification to ‘critical problem-solving' in light of the pressing, pragmatic challenge of transformative change. Robyn closes by reflecting on what deep ecology means for better understanding our relationship between the human and non-human in environmentalism, as well as – riffing on Sarah Parkin's popular book – a call to all young people to be ‘positive deviants' and to insist that everyone “walks the walk” when it comes to the climate emergency. Robyn can be found here: https://findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/profile/1470-robyn-eckersley She tweets @EckersleyRobyn Publications we discussed include: Robyn Eckersley, ‘Greening states and societies: from transitions to great transformations', Environmental Politics vol. 30(1-2), pp. 245-265. Robyn Eckersley (2017), ‘Geopolitan Democracy in the Anthropocene', Political Studies vol. 65(4), pp. 983-999. Peter Christoff and Robyn Eckersley. 2013. Globalisation and the Environment. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Robyn Eckersley. 2004. The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty. Cambridge: MIT Press. Robyn Eckersley. 1992. Environmentalism and Political Theory: Toward an Ecocentric Approach. State University of New York Press.

Today's episode is all about China. My guest is Michael Beckley, who's an associate professor of Political Science at Tufts University and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He's received awards from the American Political Science Association and the International Studies Association and he's been featured in numerous media outlets, including the Financial Times foreign affairs, foreign policy, The New York Times, NPR, and The Washington Post. Michael is also the author of the book Unrivaled: Why America Will Remain the World's Sole Superpower. Many people are worried that China will one day surpass America as the world's leading superpower. Michael Beckley doesn't think so. He thinks that China's extremely fast growth since the late 20th century is unsustainable and that its flaws will soon lead to a decline, which is an interesting counterpoint to my conversation with Neil Ferguson many months ago. I really enjoyed this one and I hope you do too. #AdWhen we try to get healthier, we tend to think of the food we have to hold ourselves back from instead of focusing on giving ourselves more of what our bodies need. Noom uses a psychology-based approach to help us change our mindset for good because building better habits means a more sustainable journey to better health. With Noom, you'll take a path toward better health one step at a time. Their psychology-based approach helps you change your mindset rather than demanding a whole new lifestyle. Noom teaches you about food and the psychology of eating. It helps you better understand your cravings, not seeing any food as “bad” food. By customizing a program for you based on your personal goals, Noom fits into your life, on your terms.Start building better habits for healthier, long-term results. Sign up for your trial at www.noom.com/COLEMAN#AdWhen hiring gets hard, you need Indeed, the job site that makes hiring incredibly simple -- just Attract, Interview, and Hire. In fact, with Indeed you can do all of your hiring in one place -- even interviewing! Don't just hope your perfect candidate will find you, Indeed's hiring tools help you cut through the noise to hire faster and smarter. In fact, Indeed Instant Match provides a list of quality candidates whose resumes are on Indeed the moment you post a sponsored job. With Indeed Assessments, choose from ONE HUNDRED and THIRTY-FIVE SKILLS TESTS, to help make sure you're finding applications from people with the skills you need.Get started RIGHT NOW with a free 75$ sponsored job credit to upgrade your job post at www.indeed.com/CONVERSATIONSThe Offer is valid through September 30th. Terms and conditions apply.#ConversationswithColeman #CwC #ColemanHughes #MichaelBeckely #America #China #Superpower #AI #Technology #Military #EconomicTrends

Welcome to another episode of Conversations with Coleman. Today's episode is all about China. My guest is Michael Beckley, who's an associate professor of Political Science at Tufts University and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He's received awards from the American Political Science Association and the International Studies Association and he's been featured in numerous media outlets, including the Financial Times foreign affairs, foreign policy, The New York Times, NPR, and The Washington Post. Michael is also the author of the book Unrivaled: Why America Will Remain the World's Sole Superpower. Many people are worried that China will one day surpass America as the world's leading superpower. Michael Beckley doesn't think so. He thinks that China's extremely fast growth since the late 20th century is unsustainable and that its flaws will soon lead to a decline, which is an interesting counterpoint to my conversation with Neil Ferguson many months ago. I really enjoyed this one and I hope you do too. #Ad When we try to get healthier, we tend to think of the food we have to hold ourselves back from instead of focusing on giving ourselves more of what our bodies need. Noom uses a psychology-based approach to help us change our mindset for good because building better habits means a more sustainable journey to better health. With Noom, you'll take a path toward better health one step at a time. Their psychology-based approach helps you change your mindset rather than demanding a whole new lifestyle. Noom teaches you about food and the psychology of eating. It helps you better understand your cravings, not seeing any food as “bad” food. By customizing a program for you based on your personal goals, Noom fits into your life, on your terms. Start building better habits for healthier, long-term results. Sign up for your trial at www.noom.com/COLEMAN #Ad When hiring gets hard, you need Indeed, the job site that makes hiring incredibly simple -- just Attract, Interview, and Hire. In fact, with Indeed you can do all of your hiring in one place -- even interviewing! Don't just hope your perfect candidate will find you, Indeed's hiring tools help you cut through the noise to hire faster and smarter. In fact, Indeed Instant Match provides a list of quality candidates whose resumes are on Indeed the moment you post a sponsored job. With Indeed Assessments, choose from ONE HUNDRED and THIRTY-FIVE SKILLS TESTS, to help make sure you're finding applications from people with the skills you need. Get started RIGHT NOW with a free 75$ sponsored job credit to upgrade your job post at www.indeed.com/CONVERSATIONS The Offer is valid through September 30th. Terms and conditions apply. #ConversationswithColeman #CwC #ColemanHughes #MichaelBeckely #America #China #Superpower #AI #Technology #Military #EconomicTrends

Dr Patrick Ophuls (who writes under the pen name William Ophuls) is an American political scientist, ecologist, independent scholar and author. He is known for his pioneering role in the modern environmental movement. A prominent voice in the environmental movement since the 1970s, Patrick received his PhD in political science from Yale University in 1973. His 1977 book Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity was awarded the Sprout Prize from the International Studies Association. Subsequent work has sought to bring to public attention some of the ecological, social, and political implications of modern industrial civilization. In his 2011 book, Plato's Revenge: Politics in the Age of Ecology, Patrick argues that political struggle must now urgently focus on making ecology the master science and Gaia the key metaphor of our age. In this conversation, we discuss why we need to stop thinking of ourselves as somehow above or outside the natural systems that support us. We also explore how humanity's efforts to embrace the politics of ecology could well prove to be the defining story of this century if we are to avoid indulging the tragedy of homo (in)sapiens. Patrick's publication include: Immoderate Greatness: Why Civilizations Fail (2012) Plato's Revenge: Politics in the Age of Ecology (2011) Requiem for modern politics: the tragedy of the enlightenment and the challenge of the new millennium (1997) Ecology and the politics of scarcity (1977) Episode image by Raul Lieberwirth: https://www.flickr.com/photos/lanier67/6825685137/

This week on Sustainability Now!, your host, Justin Mog, brings you the University of Louisville’s 2021 Grawemeyer Award Lecture on Global Environmental Governance, which was held virtually on April 13th. Ken Conca is the 2021 Grawemeyer Award winner for Ideas Improving World Order, and he spoke on his award winning ideas set forth in his book "An Unfinished Foundation: The United Nations and Global Environmental Governance." Learn more at http://grawemeyer.org/world-order/ The UN must rethink its approach to environmental problems. The United Nations can tackle global environmental challenges far more effectively by incorporating two overlooked parts of its mandate—human rights and peace—into its efforts. So says Ken Conca, an American University international relations professor. The U.N. has addressed environmental issues using legal and sustainable development approaches but also needs to pursue strategies linked to its role as a protector of human rights and peace. The organization should declare a safe and healthy environment to be a basic human right, give its Security Council a well-defined role in safeguarding the environment, make sure its environmental initiatives are conflict-sensitive and seek environmental peace-building opportunities. Conca is a member of the U.N. Environment Programme’s Expert Advisory Group on Conflict and Peace-building and founded the Environmental Peace-building Working Group in Washington. He was a reviewer for the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and served on a scientific steering committee for the International Human Dimensions Program on Global Environmental Change. He has twice won the International Studies Association’s award for best international environmental affairs book. As always, our feature is followed by your community action calendar for the week, so get your calendars out and get ready to take action for sustainability NOW! Sustainability Now! airs on Forward Radio, 106.5fm, WFMP-LP Louisville, every Monday at 6pm and repeats Tuesdays at 12am and 10am. Find us at http://forwardradio.org The music in this podcast is courtesy of the local band Appalatin and is used by permission. Explore their delightful music at http://appalatin.com

In this episode of Sukhan Unplugged, we have Dr Anita Wiess who will be talking about her latest book Countering Violent Extremism in Pakistan: Local Actions, Local Voices (available at https://oup.com.pk/all-titles/countering-violent-extremism-in-pakistan.html). Professor Weiss has published extensively on social development, gender issues, and political Islam in Pakistan. Professor Weiss is a member of the editorial board of Globalizations, has been a member of the Research Advisory Board of the Pakistan National Commission on the Status of Women, has been Treasurer and Vice President of the American Institute of Pakistan Studies (AIPS), and is on the Executive Committee of the Religion and International Relations as well as the IDSS sections of the International Studies Association. She recently stepped down, after seven years, from being Department Head of International Studies at the University of Oregon. The panel includes Raza Rumi who is a Pakistani writer and a public policy specialist currently based in Ithaca, New York, USA. He is Director at the Park Center for Independent Media, Ithaca College and visiting faculty at Cornell Institute for Public Affairs. He is also the founding editor of Nayadaur Media. Also joining panel is Gauher Aftab who has held leadership roles at companies involved in education, advertising, financial services, telecom, and various tech industries. He is currently the CEO of Generation Pakistan, a global non profit that operates training-to-employment programs for youth and adults in 14 countries, across 29 professions. Watch the episode here

In this episode of Sukhan Unplugged, we have Dr Anita Wiess who will be talking about her latest book Countering Violent Extremism in Pakistan: Local Actions, Local Voices (available at https://oup.com.pk/all-titles/countering-violent-extremism-in-pakistan.html). Professor Weiss has published extensively on social development, gender issues, and political Islam in Pakistan. Professor Weiss is a member of the editorial board of Globalizations, has been a member of the Research Advisory Board of the Pakistan National Commission on the Status of Women, has been Treasurer and Vice President of the American Institute of Pakistan Studies (AIPS), and is on the Executive Committee of the Religion and International Relations as well as the IDSS sections of the International Studies Association. She recently stepped down, after seven years, from being Department Head of International Studies at the University of Oregon. The panel includes Raza Rumi who is a Pakistani writer and a public policy specialist currently based in Ithaca, New York, USA. He is Director at the Park Center for Independent Media, Ithaca College and visiting faculty at Cornell Institute for Public Affairs. He is also the founding editor of Nayadaur Media. Also joining panel is Gauher Aftab who has held leadership roles at companies involved in education, advertising, financial services, telecom, and various tech industries. He is currently the CEO of Generation Pakistan, a global non profit that operates training-to-employment programs for youth and adults in 14 countries, across 29 professions. Watch the episode here

Welcome to another episode of Fully Automated! This is not only our 30th episode, but it is the first episode of our fifth year bringing you the most fully-automated space-aged communist podcast around! And, to mark the occasion, we are returning to an old theme for this show: the politics of technology and space exploration! Our guest for this discussion is Daniel Deudney, Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University. In this episode we will be discussing Prof. Deudney’s new book, Dark Skies, Space Expansionism, Planetary Geopolitics & the Ends of Humanity (Oxford University Press). For non-academic audiences, Prof. Deudney is not a fully-automated space communist like myself — but he is kind of a big deal when it comes to thinking about the politics of world order and space exploration. He has published extensively on world political theory and globalization, focusing especially on the environment, and nuclear weapons. His book, Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village (Princeton, 2007) received the Book of the Decade Award (2000-2009) from the International Studies Association, and the Jervis-Schroeder Prize from the American Political Science Association. As you’ll hear, Prof. Deudeny and I certainly don’t agree about everything, but we one thing is for sure — we have a shared disdain for Silicon Valley boosterism! In this interview, you’ll hear Prof. Deudney talk a bit about his intellectual background, and his earlier work on how nuclear weaponry creates the need for world government. Then we get into his current book, where you’ll hear him talk about the disconnect between the optimism of our space imaginary and the thin record of accomplishments in actually existing space exploration. Part of the problem, says Deudney, is that we take our cues too much from the realms of science fiction and space futurism, and not enough from science. For me, one of the real accomplishments of the book is that it brings together a genealogy of space imagination from an extraordinarily diverse range of sources. One particularly important important figure here is the nineteenth century space futurist, Konstantin Tsiolokovsky. But there are others. What they all seem to have in common is a tendency to predict a kind of organic destiny of man to expand out into the solar system and beyond, and to engineer and denaturalize everything he sees. They also pose a universe of plenitude where there will be no need for war, and an eventually suppression of the human species itself. For Deudney, there’s a lot of hubris on display in this discursive record, not least in terms of its naive grasp of the limits of our planet’s ecology (in the book, Deudney evokes the prosaic style of Kim Stanley Robinson, with clauses such as “the turbulent earth and its unruly life”). With his map of our space imaginary laid out, Deudney closes the book by suggesting a new set of coordinates by which we might imagine the use of space exploration. However, as we enter “the astrocene,” he notes that we seem stuck with hopelessly archaic and impractical forms of political management. Our future survival, he contends, will demand the emergence of new kinds of world-governmental institutions — these will preferably be of a democratic nature, but he doesn’t rule out something akin to what Marx termed “hydraulic despotism.” So what exactly is the choice on the table for us here? Staying within the realm of closure and archaic forms of interdependency, or something like the movie Elysium? Or is there another option? These and other questions preoccupy us as the discussion concludes. We hope you enjoy the program! Special thanks to Phil Davis for the new theme music!

How do states’ foreign policy goals affect their policies towards refugees? What is the impact of forced displacement on host states’ political development? Gerasimos Tsourapas draws on elite interviews conducted across Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey in the context of the Syrian refugee crisis to examine the particularities of migration diplomacy in the Levant. He identifies how the three states sought to secure economic aid from the international community, relying on both bargains and threats, in exchange for hosting Syrian refugees within their borders. In fact, the absence of a functioning global refugee regime and the reluctance of Western countries to host refugees led to the commodification of forced migration and the emergence of a new type of state, in which forced migration constitutes an instrument of economic leverage – the refugee rentier state. In this talk, Gerasimos discusses the effects of such processes on the international politics of the Levant, as well as on the future of refugee protection across the world. About the speaker: Dr Gerasimos Tsourapas is Senior Lecturer in Middle East Politics at the University of Birmingham and CBRL’s Acting Honorary Treasurer. His research focuses on the politics of migrants, refugees, and diasporas in the Middle East and the broader Global South. He has also written on the international dimension of authoritarianism. Gerasimos’ first book, The Politics of Migration in Modern Egypt – Strategies for Regime Survival in Autocracies (Cambridge University Press, 2019), was awarded the 2020 ENMISA Distinguished Book Award by the International Studies Association. His second book, Migration Diplomacy in the Middle East and North Africa – Power, Mobility, and the State, is forthcoming with Manchester University Press.

The role of technology in formal educational institutions has been gradually changing over the decades, with a lot of debate on the impact and the way technology should shape teaching and learning in the future. The 2020 pandemic suddenly changed everything. Around the world, from one day to the next, with no preparation or training, millions of educators and students switched to fully online learning, integrating several technologies into the school experience. Although emergency online learning is not an ideal that anyone should aspire to, the same way no one would recommend teaching someone to swim by throwing them in the turbulent ocean, but there are many valuable insights to be gained. This is one of two episodes in which we dig deeper into one school and one university's experience of emergency online learning, how they managed the challenges, and what they learned along the way. Dr David Hornsby is a Professor of International Affairs and the Associate Vice-President of Teaching and Learning at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada.  David has lived and worked in South Africa and the UK and is an honorary professor at Wits University in Johannesburg and University College London. David holds a PhD from the University of Cambridge and has published widely spanning the social and biological sciences. He is a recognized scholar having been the recipient of teaching and research awards and is currently the Vice-President of the International Studies Association.   Dr David Hornsby: https://carleton.ca/npsia/people/david-j-hornsby/   Twitter: https://twitter.com/DavidJHornsby Towards a Pandemic Pedagogy: power and politics in learning and teaching https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341113230_Towards_a_Pandemic_Pedagogy_power_and_politics_in_learning_and_teaching Guest recommendation: Teaching to Transgress https://www.amazon.ca/Teaching-Transgress-Bell-Hooks/dp/0415908078

This event was a discussion around Gerasimos Tsourapas' latest book The Politics of Migration in Modern Egypt: Strategies for Regime Survival in Autocracies. In this ground-breaking work, Tsourapas examines how migration and political power are inextricably linked, and enhances our understanding of how authoritarian regimes rely on labour emigration across the Middle East and the Global South. Tsourapas identifies how autocracies develop strategies to tie cross-border mobility to their own survival, highlighting domestic political struggles and the shifting regional and international landscape. In Egypt, the ruling elite has long shaped labour emigration policy in accordance with internal and external tactics aimed at regime survival. Tsourapas draws on a wealth of previously-unavailable archival sources in Arabic and English, as well as extensive original interviews with Egyptian elites and policy-makers in order to produce a novel account of authoritarian politics in the Arab world. The book offers a new insight into the evolution and political rationale behind regime strategies towards migration, from Gamal Abdel Nasser's 1952 Revolution to the 2011 Arab Uprisings. Gerasimos Tsourapas is Senior Lecturer in Middle East Politics at the University of Birmingham. He works on the politics of migrants, refugees, and diasporas in the Middle East and the broader Global South. He has also written on the international dimension of authoritarianism. His first book, The Politics of Migration in Modern Egypt - Strategies for Regime Survival in Autocracies (Cambridge University Press, 2019), was awarded the 2020 ENMISA Distinguished Book Award by the International Studies Association. Tsourapas has published in International Studies Quarterly, International Migration Review, International Political Science Review, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, and other leading journals. He has held research fellowships at Harvard University (2019–20) and the American University in Cairo (2013–14). Ibrahim Awad is Professor of Practice in Global Affairs and Director, Center for Migration and Refugee Studies, School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, at the American University in Cairo. He has worked for the League of Arab States, the United Nations and the International Labour Organization, holding positions of Secretary of the Commission, UN-ESCWA, Director, ILO Sub-regional Office for North Africa and Director, ILO International Migration Programme. He currently is Chair of the Global Knowledge Partnership on Migration and Development (KNOMAD), hosted by the World Bank, Chair of the Steering Committee of the Euro-Mediterranean Research Network on International Migration (EuroMedMig) and Senior Fellow at the Migration Policy Centre (MPC) of the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva. Join the conversation on Twitter using #LSEEgypt

International Development Studies is focusing more on the impact, damage, and legacies of colonialism, not just in the global South, but in the global North as well.  At the forefront of this conversation are scholars like Ajay Parasram, who studies "The Colonial Present" and who brings important critical dialogue on colonialism into the heart of research and teaching in International Development Studies. Ajay Parasram is a transnational, multigenerational byproduct of empire and this is central to my research and teaching. Working broadly around the theme of the colonial present, I study structural forms of violence (e.g. race, caste, class, patriarchy) rooted or exacerbated through imperial encounters that have been sanitized of their colonial histories and normalized in the present day. Dr. Parasram is crossed appointed between the Departments of International Development Studies, History, and Political Science and he is interested in working with graduate students interested in similar and related themes. He is a Founding Fellow at the MacEachen Institute of Public Policy and Governance  (2019 – 2021) and served as the Chair and Program Chair of the Global Development Section of the International Studies Association (2019 – 2020). He teaches courses on the colonial foundations of development studies and the state, M.K. Gandhi, postcolonial politics, and activism Follow Dr. Bob on Twitter: @ProfessorHuish

In this episode, we speak with Dr. Michael Beckley, who is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Tufts University and the author of Unrivaled: Why America Will Remain the World’s Sole Superpower , published in 2018 by Cornell University Press. His research on U.S.-China relations has received awards from the American Political Science Association and the International Studies Association and been featured by numerous media including the Financial Times, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, the New York Times, NPR, and the Washington Post. Previously, Dr. Beckley worked for Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, the U.S. Department of Defense, the RAND Corporation, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He continues to advise offices within the U.S. Intelligence Community and U.S. Department of Defense. Unrivaled: Why America Will Remain the World’s Sole Superpower https://amzn.to/3kuWcFr Research and articles written by today's guest: https://www.michaelbeckley.org/research Book recommendations: * Why the West Rules - for Now (https://amzn.to/2Fc6oCG) * The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (https://amzn.to/3fGuaDi) * Books by George Orwell (https://amzn.to/3al4Q4H) Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/decade-of-2020-podcast-dr-tobias-straumann/donations

The state of diversity in national security is inextricably linked to the state of diversity in security studies. In this presentation, Maria Rost Rublee discusses the broad contours of diversity and inclusion in the academic field of security studies -- gender, race, and intellectual orientation -- based on ongoing research from the International Studies Association. Rublee is also interested in participant experiences in universities, as well as how university experiences shaped our ideas about security. Hosted by Maria Rost Rublee

One of the hallmarks of Xi Jinping’s tenure as China’s leader, since 2012, has been the notable strengthening of the state’s coercive architecture, through which it endeavors to control Chinese society.  In particular, Xi Jinping’s administration has substantially restructured the legal and institutional frameworks underpinning China’s domestic security, while also tightening central discipline over security personnel, and pioneering new technology-based methods for surveillance and social control.  In this episode, Neysun Mahboubi discusses with Sheena Chestnut Greitens, a leading expert on the politics of domestic security in Asian countries, how ideas about domestic security have developed in China under CCP rule, what are the institutions that embody them, and where the future may lead for China’s internal security–a discussion made all the more relevant today, when the Chinese state appears to be making use of the COVID-19 crisis to push its methods of social control even further afield.  The episode was recorded on May 3, 2019. In August 2020, Sheena Chestnut Greitens will become an associate professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, Austin, where she will also serve as a Faculty Fellow with the Clements Center for National Security, and a Distinguished Scholar at the Robert Strauss Center for International Security and Law.  Her work focuses on East Asia, authoritarian politics, and American national security policy.  She is also a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, an adjunct fellow with the Korea Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and a member of the Digital Freedom Forum at the Center for a New American Security.  From 2015 to 2020, Greitens was an assistant professor of political science at the University of Missouri, and co-director of the University's Institute for Korean Studies.  Her first book, Dictators and their Secret Police: Coercive Institutions and State Violence(Cambridge, 2016) received the 2017 Best Book Award from both the International Studies Association and the Comparative Democratization Section of the American Political Science Association.  She is currently working on two main research projects: one on China's internal security policies and their implications for China in the world, and another on authoritarian diasporas, particularly focused on North Korea.  She is active on Twitter, where you can follow her @SheenaGreitens Sound engineering: Neysun Mahboubi Music credit: "Salt" by Poppy Ackroyd, follow her at http://poppyackroyd.com

This week we present two stories from people who used technology to understand their relationships. Part 1: Digital consultant Phong Tran navigates his relationship through various digital platforms. Part 2: Fed up with feeling lonely, Sufian Zhemukhov embarks on a data driven analysis of his own unlikability. Phong Tran is a Creative Technologist at a digital consultancy. He works on websites and applications in both roles as a designer and a developer. As someone with a preference to dabble and a short attention span, he works on art projects in various mediums. The projects tend to ask questions about our relationship to our digital selves, and overall how that changes how we see each other. Also, at other times it's just about food Phong ate. A collection of his design can be found at phonghtran.com, and a collection of other things will be at his Instagram account, @phonghtran. Sufian Zhemukhov is an award-winning author and performer. He received the 2020 J. J. Reneaux Emerging Artist Award, from the National Storytelling Network, "to a storyteller of major and unique performing talent." He is The 2019 Moth Champion and winner at the 2018 Story Slam at the National Storytelling Festival. Sufian’s recent solo show, Flirting Like an American, received critical acclaim in Washington, DC and Rochester, NY. Sufian's stories are based on his personal experience as a first-generation immigrant and professor of international affairs at George Washington University that might be much funnier than you would expect. His recent book, Mass Religious Ritual and Intergroup Tolerance, won the 2019 Best Book Award at the International Studies Association. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode examines China’s role in the World Health Organization (WHO), and how its relationship with the organization has changed over time. Our guest, Dr. Jeremy Youde, discusses how China has influenced how the WHO responds to global health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Youde also explores the challenges WHO leadership faces when balancing public health concerns with sensitive geopolitical issues, best illustrated by China’s opposition to Taiwan’s inclusion in the organization.  Dr. Jeremy Youde is Dean of the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Minnesota Duluth. He is a member of the editorial board of Global Health Governance and is the current chair of the Global Health Section of the International Studies Association. Previously, Dr. Youde was an associate professor in the Department of International Relations at the Australian National University.

Brent interviews Professor Cameron Thies of Arizona State University and the current President of the International Studies Association. Cameron talks about growing up in Nebraska, how the farm crisis along with world events got him interested in politics, almost taking a job globetrotting with Arthur Anderson, the helpful advice of his professors at the University of Nebraska during his Master's, getting his PhD at ASU and the breadth of courses and professors there, working with Steve Walker, getting a job late in the cycle at LSU, his time at Missouri, Iowa, and then back to ASU, his approach to administration, being chosen as the President of the ISA, how he approaches writing (including waking up in the middle of the night and emailing himself), and more! 

Professor Daniel Bodansky will speak about ‘Law and Politics in the UN Climate Regime: A Preview of the Santiago Climate Conference.’ Followed by a Q&A. Is implementation of the Paris Agreement on track? What are the Agreement's prospects for success? The talk will review developments in the international climate change regime, including the recently concluded UN Climate Change Summit, analyze the state of play in the UNFCCC regime, and preview the upcoming conference of the parties (COP25) in Santiago in December. Professor Daniel Bodansky is Regents’ Professor at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. He served as Climate Change Coordinator at the U.S. State Department from 1999-2001. His book, The Art and Craft of International Environmental Law, received the 2011 Sprout Award from the International Studies Association as the best book that year in the field of international environmental studies. His latest book, International Climate Change Law, co-authored with Jutta Brunnée and Lavanya Rajamani, was published by Oxford University Press in June 2017, and received the 2018 Certificate of Merit from the American Society of International Law as the best book in a specialized area of international law published the previous year. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a graduate of Harvard (A.B.), Cambridge (M.Phil.) and Yale (J.D.).

Professor Daniel Bodansky will speak about ‘Law and Politics in the UN Climate Regime: A Preview of the Santiago Climate Conference.’ Followed by a Q&A. Is implementation of the Paris Agreement on track? What are the Agreement's prospects for success? The talk will review developments in the international climate change regime, including the recently concluded UN Climate Change Summit, analyze the state of play in the UNFCCC regime, and preview the upcoming conference of the parties (COP25) in Santiago in December. Professor Daniel Bodansky is Regents’ Professor at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. He served as Climate Change Coordinator at the U.S. State Department from 1999-2001. His book, The Art and Craft of International Environmental Law, received the 2011 Sprout Award from the International Studies Association as the best book that year in the field of international environmental studies. His latest book, International Climate Change Law, co-authored with Jutta Brunnée and Lavanya Rajamani, was published by Oxford University Press in June 2017, and received the 2018 Certificate of Merit from the American Society of International Law as the best book in a specialized area of international law published the previous year. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a graduate of Harvard (A.B.), Cambridge (M.Phil.) and Yale (J.D.).

Professor Daniel Bodansky will speak about ‘Law and Politics in the UN Climate Regime: A Preview of the Santiago Climate Conference.’ Followed by a Q&A. Is implementation of the Paris Agreement on track? What are the Agreement's prospects for success? The talk will review developments in the international climate change regime, including the recently concluded UN Climate Change Summit, analyze the state of play in the UNFCCC regime, and preview the upcoming conference of the parties (COP25) in Santiago in December. Professor Daniel Bodansky is Regents’ Professor at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. He served as Climate Change Coordinator at the U.S. State Department from 1999-2001. His book, The Art and Craft of International Environmental Law, received the 2011 Sprout Award from the International Studies Association as the best book that year in the field of international environmental studies. His latest book, International Climate Change Law, co-authored with Jutta Brunnée and Lavanya Rajamani, was published by Oxford University Press in June 2017, and received the 2018 Certificate of Merit from the American Society of International Law as the best book in a specialized area of international law published the previous year. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a graduate of Harvard (A.B.), Cambridge (M.Phil.) and Yale (J.D.).

What have been the key themes in the legal evolution of the UN climate regime? How were these themes addressed In the recently adopted Paris Rulebook? And what are the principal legal issues going forward? The talk will review the legal evolution of the international climate change regime, and preview the upcoming conference of the parties (COP25) in Santiago in December. Daniel Bodansky is Regents' Professor at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law. He served as Climate Change Coordinator at the U.S. State Department from 1999-2001. His book, The Art and Craft of International Environmental Law, received the 2011 Sprout Award from the International Studies Association as the best book that year in the field of international environmental studies. His latest book, International Climate Change Law, co-authored with Jutta Brunnée and Lavanya Rajamani, was published by Oxford University Press in June 2017, and received the 2018 Certificate of Merit from the American Society of International Law as the best book in a specialized area of international law published the previous year. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a graduate of Harvard (A.B.), Cambridge (M.Phil.) and Yale (J.D.).

What have we learned in the 18 years since 9/11? Chris, Melanie, and Bryan discuss whether counterterrorism policy takes account of academic research on the subject. Going forward, the goal should be to implement the most cost-effective policies — and over time, to calm public anxiety about terrorism. Bryan gives a shout out to a bipartisan duo of Net Assessment fans, Chris gripes about NFL officiating, and Melanie offers her appreciation of the Constitution via an unlikely source: former Vice President Joe Biden.   Links Khusrav Gaibulloev and Todd Sandler, "Six Things We've Learned About Terrorism Since 9/11," Washington Post, September 11, 2019 Khusrav Gaibulloev and Todd Sandler, "What We Have Learned about Terrorism since 9/11," Journal of Economic Literature, June, 2019 John Mueller and Mark Stewart, Terror, Security, and Money: Balancing the Risks, Benefits, and Costs of Homeland Security, (Oxford, 2011) John Mueller and Mark Stewart, Are We Safe Enough? Measuring and Assessing Aviation Security, (Elsevier, 2018) Trevor Thrall and Erik Goepner, "Step Back: Lessons for U.S. Foreign Policy from the Failed War on Terror," Cato, June 26, 2017 Scott Simon, "Edward Snowden Tells NPR: The Executive Branch Sort of Hacked the Constitution," NPR, September 12, 2019 Tom Schad, "As New Season Begins, NFL Coaches Still Trying to Sort Out Pass Interference Rule Changes," USA Today, September 5, 2019 Christopher Preble, “Covert Wars, to What End?" War on the Rocks, August 7, 2019 Austin Carson, "Recipient of the Georgetown University Lepgold Prize," Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago, September 4, 2019 Ari Cohn, Tweet, September 12, 2019 International Security Studies Section of the International Studies Association, Tweet, August 19, 2019

Undercurrents returns with two new interviews this week; on life as a Chinese millennial, and how targeted attacks on infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza affect the lives of civilians. Karoline Kan, author of Under Red Skies, speaks to Agnes Frimston about being a second daughter under China’s one-child policy and what Brexit looks like from the East.  Next Ben Horton meets Erika Weinthal, a recent contributor to International Affairs, at the International Studies Association conference in Toronto. They discuss the problem of targeted attacks on civilian infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza, and what the international community can do in response.   Read the interview in The World Today: Karoline Kan on being a Chinese millennial Read the article in International Affairs: Targeting infrastructure and livelihoods in the West Bank and Gaza Credits: Hosts: Ben Horton and Agnes Frimston Editors: Ben Horton and Agnes Frimston Sound Editor: Jamie Reed Record and produced at Chatham House, London

Undercurrents returns with two new interviews this week; on life as a Chinese millennial, and how targeted attacks on infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza affect the lives of civilians. Karoline Kan, author of Under Red Skies, speaks to Agnes Frimston about being a second daughter under China’s one-child policy and what Brexit looks like from the East.  Next Ben Horton meets Erika Weinthal, a recent contributor to International Affairs, at the International Studies Association conference in Toronto. They discuss the problem of targeted attacks on civilian infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza, and what the international community can do in response.   Read the interview in The World Today: Karoline Kan on being a Chinese millennial Read the article in International Affairs: Targeting infrastructure and livelihoods in the West Bank and Gaza Credits: Hosts: Ben Horton and Agnes Frimston Editors: Ben Horton and Agnes Frimston Sound Editor: Jamie Reed Record and produced at Chatham House, London

Dara Kay Cohen is a Ford Foundation Associate Professor of Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. Her research and teaching focus on international security, civil war and gender. Her book, Rape During Civil War (2016) received the 2017 Theodore J. Lowi First Book Award from the American Political Science Association, the 2018 Best Book Award from the International Security Studies Section. Dr. Cohen is the recipient of the 2019 Emerging Scholar Award from the International Studies Association.

Two episodes ago, our guest was Lee Jones — an advocate of ’The Full Brexit.’ During the show, Jones advanced the idea that the ideals of the Left cannot be satisfied within the EU, whereas the most meaningful historic victories of the left have been achieved only by wielding the power of the state. Then, in our last episode, we heard a rebuttal of this idea from Luke Ashworth, who suggested that while the political entity we know as the modern state has played an important historical role for the Left, its time has been fleeting, and the forces of globalization are today of such power that any project of returning to sovereignty will prove inevitably fruitless. Recorded late in the afternoon on Friday, March 29, in the lobby bar of the Toronto Sheraton, during the 60th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, this episode brings Jones and Ashworth back to the microphone, this time for a live, in person debate. To keep things cordial, we bought them a brace of beers. And they appreciated the gesture it would seem, as the exchange proved to be probably the most collegial airing of political grievances in podcast history.

Undercurrents is back this week with interviews on India-Pakistan relations and how to regulate cyberspace.  Ben speaks to us from the International Studies Association conference in Toronto, where he discussed the recent crisis in Kashmir with Rajesh Basrur from Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Then Agnes meets Emily Taylor, from the International Security Department at Chatham House, to discuss how policymakers should approach the regulation of big tech giants such as Facebook and Google.  Jacob Parakilas from the US & Americas Programme is our surprise guest host this week - thanks Jacob! Read the article: 'Modi's Foreign Policy Fundamentals: a Trajectory Unchanged' Read the Expert Comment: Even Without Cambridge Analytica, the Trump Campaign Already Had Everyone's Data Read the journal: Journal of Cyber Policy   Credits: Hosts: Ben Horton and Agnes Frimston Editors: Ben Horton and Agnes Frimston Sound Editor: Jamie Reed Record and produced at Chatham House, London

Undercurrents is back this week with interviews on India-Pakistan relations and how to regulate cyberspace.  Ben speaks to us from the International Studies Association conference in Toronto, where he discussed the recent crisis in Kashmir with Rajesh Basrur from Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Then Agnes meets Emily Taylor, from the International Security Department at Chatham House, to discuss how policymakers should approach the regulation of big tech giants such as Facebook and Google.  Jacob Parakilas from the US & Americas Programme is our surprise guest host this week - thanks Jacob! Read the article: 'Modi's Foreign Policy Fundamentals: a Trajectory Unchanged' Read the Expert Comment: Even Without Cambridge Analytica, the Trump Campaign Already Had Everyone's Data Read the journal: Journal of Cyber Policy   Credits: Hosts: Ben Horton and Agnes Frimston Editors: Ben Horton and Agnes Frimston Sound Editor: Jamie Reed Record and produced at Chatham House, London

This is the second episode in a series on the adjudication of harassment and bullying complaints pursuant to #MeToo-inspired academic and professional association codes of conduct. Heidi talks to Richard Ned Lebow, the man at the center of the ‘lingerie elevator joke’ scandal that erupted at the 2018 International Studies Association conference. Professor Lebow, who is an expert in conflict prevent and resolution, explains why it was so important to him to fight this complaint. Links Professor Lebow’s faculty page at King’s College London: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/person?id=5402e739-96f2-4936-86d6-203f197283a5 Richard Ned Lebow, “Warning: Telling a Lame Joke in an Elevator can Endanger Your Career,” Quillette, Nov. 23, 2018. https://quillette.com/2018/11/23/warning-telling-a-lame-joke-in-an-elevator-can-endanger-your-career/ Richard Ned Lebow, “How my lame joke saw me fall foul of the campus zealots,” The Spectator, May 14, 2018. https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/how-my-lame-joke-saw-me-fall-foul-of-the-campus-zealots/ Richard Ned Lebow, “My innocent joke about lingerie and an insidious culture of censorship: Leading academic says trouble caused by a one-liner he cracked in a lift left him reeling,” Daily Mail, May 16, 2018. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5738391/PROFESSOR-RICHARD-NED-LEBOW-innocent-joke-lingerie-insidious-culture-censorship.html The installation on display at the ISA 2019 panel on “Confronting Political Backlash: Creative Feminist Responses”: https://twitter.com/simonasharoni/status/1112377478465630208 Code of Conduct, International Studies Association, April 8, 2018. https://www.isanet.org/Portals/0/Documents/ISA/ISA%20Code%20of%20Conduct%200418.pdf

You and a body of like-minded people want to reform a wretched regime, or perhaps just break away from it and create an independent state. Are you more likely to achieve your goals by a campaign of bombings, assassinations and riots, or by mass protests which are avowedly peaceful? Erica Chenoweth, a professor of public policy at Harvard Kennedy School and a Susan S. and Kenneth L. Wallach Professor at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, has studied this question in depth, her latest book being Civil Resistance: What Everyone Needs to Know. (And people do listen: In 2014 she received the Karl Deutsch Award, given annually by the International Studies Association to the scholar under 40 who has made the most significant impact on the field of international politics or peace research.) Starting in 2006, she and Maria Stephan, and later other colleagues, have collected and cataloged mass movements – those with at least a thousand participants and with repeated actions—since 1900, trying to see whether violence or nonviolence help bring reform. “Turns out,” Chenoweth tells Dave Edmonds in this Social Science Bites podcast, “that the nonviolent campaigns in the data had about a two-to-one advantage in success rate over the violent campaigns.” This isn’t to say that violent movements have never worked, or that nonviolent ones always work (they fail as often as they succeed); it is saying that nonviolence tends to work better. One contributing factor seems to be that nonviolent campaigns are generally larger – 11 times larger, on average—than violent ones. “That allows them to activate many different elements of political power,” Chenoweth notes. Success comes in various forms. In anti-dictatorial movements, the strongman’s departure within a year of the peak of the movement—and with the movement being an obvious factor—would be considered a success; same for kicking out an occupying power or seceding from a larger entity Some notable nonviolent mass movements that succeeded were the Iranian Revolution (although a violent consolidation of power did follow the removal of the Shah) and the 2000 “Bulldozer Revolution” in Serbia which toppled Slobodan Milosevic. “There are hundreds if not thousands of techniques of nonviolent action,” she explains. “It’s any form of unarmed conflict where people actively confront an opponent without threatening or directly harming them physically. So it can be a protest, a sit-in, but it can also be a strike, a withdrawal of economic cooperation (like a boycott), a withdrawal of social cooperation (like refusing to wear a certain prescribed attire).” This is a subset of civil resistance movements, what Chenoweth calls “maximalist” movements, while the bigger tent of civil resistance would include the reformist efforts or Martin Luther King, Jr. or the Suffragettes. Chenoweth says she “errs on the conservative side” by classifying protests that involve destruction of property as violent, although she does study hybrid campaigns which are generally nonviolent but have “violent flanks,” as long as those fringe actions are not inherently adopted, or are specifically rejected, by the larger movement. Chenoweth has worked diligently to spread her message outside of academia. In addition to her books and journal articles, she co-hosts the blog Political Violence @ a Glance, hosts the blog Rational Insurgent, and blogs occasionally at the Washington Post’s The Monkey Cage. She directs, with Jeremy Pressman, the Crowd Counting Consortium, which has examined American political mobilization during the Trump years. Her 2012 book with Stephan, Why Civil Resistance Works, won the 2013 Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order and the American Political Science Association’s 2012 Woodrow Wilson Foundation Award. Some of her other books include the edited volume, The Oxford Handbook of Terrorism, with Richard English, Andreas Gofas, and Stathis N. Kalyvas; last year’s  The Politics of Terror with Pauline Moore; and the 2013 SAGE book Political Violence. Chenoweth is currently a research associate at the Peace Research Institute Oslo, a fellow at the One Earth Future Foundation, and a term member at the Council on Foreign Relations.

This is the first episode in a series on the adjudication of harassment and bullying complaints pursuant to #MeToo-inspired conference codes of conduct. Heidi talks to Simona Sharoni, the professor of Women’s and Gender Studies at the center of the ‘lingerie elevator joke’ scandal that erupted at the 2018 International Studies Association conference. Prof. Sharoni gives her account of the incident, and explains why it was important for her to launch a formal harassment complaint in the wake of the alleged ‘joke.’ Links Professor Simona Sharoni on Twitter: @simonasharoni https://twitter.com/simonasharoni?lang=en Conor Friedersdorf, “Is ‘Ladies Lingerie’ a Harmless Joke or Harassment?, The Atlantic, May 9, 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/is-this-old-lingerie-joke-harmless-or-harassment/559760/ Katherine Mangan, “Dispute Over ‘Lingerie’ Comment Persists, as Society Rejects Professor’s Appeal,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Nov. 14, 2018. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Dispute-Over-Lingerie-/245094 Ruth Marcus, ‘She called his elevator joke offensive. He called her complaint ‘frivolous.’ Who’s right?,” The Washington Post, May 3, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/she-called-his-elevator-joke-offensive-he-called-her-complaint-frivolous-whos-right/2018/05/03/43ba4084-4ee1-11e8-af46-b1d6dc0d9bfe_story.html?utm_term=.7ef0456094ed Code of Conduct, International Studies Association, April 8, 2018. https://www.isanet.org/Portals/0/Documents/ISA/ISA%20Code%20of%20Conduct%200418.pdf

The last minute new trade agreement among Mexico, Canada and the United States, the so-called USMCA, made headlines in late September. But beneath those headlines, the difference the agreement could mean for those countries are likely to be minimal. The difficult negotiating issues – Canada's dairy market/supply management, intellectual property, and the dispute settlement mechanism between member countries as well as investors - have been controversial since the inception of NAFTA in 1994 and even earlier It's not uncommon for politicians to rebrand existing trade deals, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that President Trump wanted to call the new agreement USMCA. While little has changed, it's far more eye-catching to announce a brand-new agreement, rather than to work within the confines of existing agreements. Signing ceremonies and new acronyms stick in voters' minds longer than simply tinkering with an agreement that already is in place—even if the new agreement only includes minor changes. How will Canada's dairy farmers and auto workers be affected by the new deal? Was dispute settlement and intellectual property protected? And could the agreement limit Canada's ability to negotiate trade deal with other nations, for example China? The speaker will draw attention to what sets apart USMCA from NAFTA and speculate on the long term consequences of the agreement. Speaker: Dr. Chris Kukucha Christopher J. Kukucha is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Lethbridge. He is the author of The Provinces and Canadian Foreign Trade Policy and a co-editor of several books including The Harper Era in Canadian Foreign Policy (Adam Chapnick), International Political Economy (Greg Anderson), and the third edition of Readings in Canadian Foreign Policy (Duane Bratt). Chris also served as the William J. Fulbright Research Chair in Canadian Studies at the State University of New York (Plattsburgh) and is a past President of the International Studies Association of Canada. Moderator: Martin Heavy Head Date: Thursday, October 25, 2018 Time: Doors open 11:30 am, Presentation 12 noon, buffet lunch 12:30 pm, Q&A 1 – 1:30 pm Location: Royal Canadian Legion (north door) 324 Mayor Magrath Dr. S. Lethbridge Cost: $14 buffet lunch with desert & coffee/tea/juice or $2 coffee/tea/juice. RSVP not required

The last minute new trade agreement among Mexico, Canada and the United States, the so-called USMCA, made headlines in late September. But beneath those headlines, the difference the agreement could mean for those countries are likely to be minimal. The difficult negotiating issues – Canada's dairy market/supply management, intellectual property, and the dispute settlement mechanism between member countries as well as investors - have been controversial since the inception of NAFTA in 1994 and even earlier It's not uncommon for politicians to rebrand existing trade deals, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that President Trump wanted to call the new agreement USMCA. While little has changed, it's far more eye-catching to announce a brand-new agreement, rather than to work within the confines of existing agreements. Signing ceremonies and new acronyms stick in voters' minds longer than simply tinkering with an agreement that already is in place—even if the new agreement only includes minor changes. How will Canada's dairy farmers and auto workers be affected by the new deal? Was dispute settlement and intellectual property protected? And could the agreement limit Canada's ability to negotiate trade deal with other nations, for example China? The speaker will draw attention to what sets apart USMCA from NAFTA and speculate on the long term consequences of the agreement. Speaker: Dr. Chris Kukucha Christopher J. Kukucha is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Lethbridge. He is the author of The Provinces and Canadian Foreign Trade Policy and a co-editor of several books including The Harper Era in Canadian Foreign Policy (Adam Chapnick), International Political Economy (Greg Anderson), and the third edition of Readings in Canadian Foreign Policy (Duane Bratt). Chris also served as the William J. Fulbright Research Chair in Canadian Studies at the State University of New York (Plattsburgh) and is a past President of the International Studies Association of Canada. Moderator: Martin Heavy Head Date: Thursday, October 25, 2018 Time: Doors open 11:30 am, Presentation 12 noon, buffet lunch 12:30 pm, Q&A 1 – 1:30 pm Location: Royal Canadian Legion (north door) 324 Mayor Magrath Dr. S. Lethbridge Cost: $14 buffet lunch with desert & coffee/tea/juice or $2 coffee/tea/juice. RSVP not required

The last minute new trade agreement among Mexico, Canada and the United States, the so-called USMCA, made headlines in late September. But beneath those headlines, the difference the agreement could mean for those countries are likely to be minimal. The difficult negotiating issues – Canada's dairy market/supply management, intellectual property, and the dispute settlement mechanism between member countries as well as investors - have been controversial since the inception of NAFTA in 1994 and even earlier It's not uncommon for politicians to rebrand existing trade deals, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that President Trump wanted to call the new agreement USMCA. While little has changed, it's far more eye-catching to announce a brand-new agreement, rather than to work within the confines of existing agreements. Signing ceremonies and new acronyms stick in voters' minds longer than simply tinkering with an agreement that already is in place—even if the new agreement only includes minor changes. How will Canada's dairy farmers and auto workers be affected by the new deal? Was dispute settlement and intellectual property protected? And could the agreement limit Canada's ability to negotiate trade deal with other nations, for example China? The speaker will draw attention to what sets apart USMCA from NAFTA and speculate on the long term consequences of the agreement. Speaker: Dr. Chris Kukucha Christopher J. Kukucha is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Lethbridge. He is the author of The Provinces and Canadian Foreign Trade Policy and a co-editor of several books including The Harper Era in Canadian Foreign Policy (Adam Chapnick), International Political Economy (Greg Anderson), and the third edition of Readings in Canadian Foreign Policy (Duane Bratt). Chris also served as the William J. Fulbright Research Chair in Canadian Studies at the State University of New York (Plattsburgh) and is a past President of the International Studies Association of Canada. Moderator: Martin Heavy Head Date: Thursday, October 25, 2018 Time: Doors open 11:30 am, Presentation 12 noon, buffet lunch 12:30 pm, Q&A 1 – 1:30 pm Location: Royal Canadian Legion (north door) 324 Mayor Magrath Dr. S. Lethbridge Cost: $14 buffet lunch with desert & coffee/tea/juice or $2 coffee/tea/juice. RSVP not required

The last minute new trade agreement among Mexico, Canada and the United States, the so-called USMCA, made headlines in late September. But beneath those headlines, the difference the agreement could mean for those countries are likely to be minimal. The difficult negotiating issues – Canada's dairy market/supply management, intellectual property, and the dispute settlement mechanism between member countries as well as investors - have been controversial since the inception of NAFTA in 1994 and even earlier It's not uncommon for politicians to rebrand existing trade deals, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that President Trump wanted to call the new agreement USMCA. While little has changed, it's far more eye-catching to announce a brand-new agreement, rather than to work within the confines of existing agreements. Signing ceremonies and new acronyms stick in voters' minds longer than simply tinkering with an agreement that already is in place—even if the new agreement only includes minor changes. How will Canada's dairy farmers and auto workers be affected by the new deal? Was dispute settlement and intellectual property protected? And could the agreement limit Canada's ability to negotiate trade deal with other nations, for example China? The speaker will draw attention to what sets apart USMCA from NAFTA and speculate on the long term consequences of the agreement. Speaker: Dr. Chris Kukucha Christopher J. Kukucha is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Lethbridge. He is the author of The Provinces and Canadian Foreign Trade Policy and a co-editor of several books including The Harper Era in Canadian Foreign Policy (Adam Chapnick), International Political Economy (Greg Anderson), and the third edition of Readings in Canadian Foreign Policy (Duane Bratt). Chris also served as the William J. Fulbright Research Chair in Canadian Studies at the State University of New York (Plattsburgh) and is a past President of the International Studies Association of Canada. Moderator: Martin Heavy Head Date: Thursday, October 25, 2018 Time: Doors open 11:30 am, Presentation 12 noon, buffet lunch 12:30 pm, Q&A 1 – 1:30 pm Location: Royal Canadian Legion (north door) 324 Mayor Magrath Dr. S. Lethbridge Cost: $14 buffet lunch with desert & coffee/tea/juice or $2 coffee/tea/juice. RSVP not required

Neste episódio do Elas Chutando a Escada trouxemos a professora Lara Martim Selis (UFU) e a doutoranda Ana Carolina Evangelista Mauad (UnB) para conversar sobre as mulheres e a área de relações internacionais com foco para o que aconteceu e o que foi discutido no âmbito do Women's Caucus no encontro da International Studies Association (ISA) deste ano. Este espaço foi criado como uma iniciativa para apoiar e incentivar o desenvolvimento de pesquisas entre as mulheres na área de relações internacionais. Quais são as dificuldades que elas enfrentam neste espaço? O que aconteceu neste encontro? Temos iniciativas semelhantes no Brasil? As limitações às mulheres pesquisadoras são comuns nas diferentes áreas de conhecimento? Aperte o play e participe conosco deste debate. The post Mulheres na International Studies Association appeared first on Chutando a Escada.

Neste episódio do Elas Chutando a Escada trouxemos a professora Lara Martim Selis (UFU) e a doutoranda Ana Carolina Evangelista Mauad (UnB) para conversar sobre as mulheres e a área de relações internacionais com foco para o que aconteceu e o que foi discutido no âmbito do Women's Caucus no encontro da International Studies Association (ISA) deste ano. Este espaço foi criado como uma iniciativa para apoiar e incentivar o desenvolvimento de pesquisas entre as mulheres na área de relações internacionais. Quais são as dificuldades que elas enfrentam neste espaço? O que aconteceu neste encontro? Temos iniciativas semelhantes no Brasil? As limitações às mulheres pesquisadoras são comuns nas diferentes áreas de conhecimento? Aperte o play e participe conosco deste debate. The post Mulheres na International Studies Association appeared first on Chutando a Escada.

In 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into effect, creating one of the world's largest free trade zones at that time and arguably laying the foundations for strong economic growth and rising prosperity for Canada, the United States, and Mexico. However, since Donald Trump became US President last year, renegotiating NAFTA along with other trade deals, has been high on his agenda The original NAFTA took 14 months to negotiate and just as long to ratify. The current negotiations are into their eight month and of the roughly 30 chapters to complete, many are not agreed upon. That's too slow, current U.S. trade czar Robert Lighthizer, said at the close of a recent negotiating session in Mexico City. The Trump administration are hoping to complete negotiations by May, 2018 so the agreement can be ratified before the opposition Democrats have a chance to regain control of Congress and or the Senate in January 2019. Mexican presidential hopeful Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador could also hurt progress on a NAFTA deal if it's not completed soon, should he be elected later this year. The speaker will untangle the web of possible scenarios surrounding NAFTA negotiations and speculate on its final outcome, including the potential of Canada getting caught up in a trade war with US Speaker: Dr. Chris Kukucha Christopher J. Kukucha is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Lethbridge. He is the author of The Provinces and Canadian Foreign Trade Policy and a co-editor of several books including The Harper Era in Canadian Foreign Policy (Adam Chapnick), International Political Economy (Greg Anderson), and the third edition of Readings in Canadian Foreign Policy (Duane Bratt). Chris also served as the William J. Fulbright Research Chair in Canadian Studies at the State University of New York (Plattsburgh) and is a past President of the International Studies Association of Canada. Moderator: Austin Fennell Date: Thursday, April 26, 2018 Time: Doors open 11:30 am, Presentation 12 noon, buffet lunch 12:30 pm, Q&A 1 – 1:30 pm Location: Royal Canadian Legion (north door) 324 Mayor Magrath Dr. S. Lethbridge Cost: $14 buffet lunch with desert & coffee/tea/juice or $2 coffee/tea/juice. RSVP not required

In 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into effect, creating one of the world's largest free trade zones at that time and arguably laying the foundations for strong economic growth and rising prosperity for Canada, the United States, and Mexico. However, since Donald Trump became US President last year, renegotiating NAFTA along with other trade deals, has been high on his agenda The original NAFTA took 14 months to negotiate and just as long to ratify. The current negotiations are into their eight month and of the roughly 30 chapters to complete, many are not agreed upon. That's too slow, current U.S. trade czar Robert Lighthizer, said at the close of a recent negotiating session in Mexico City. The Trump administration are hoping to complete negotiations by May, 2018 so the agreement can be ratified before the opposition Democrats have a chance to regain control of Congress and or the Senate in January 2019. Mexican presidential hopeful Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador could also hurt progress on a NAFTA deal if it's not completed soon, should he be elected later this year. The speaker will untangle the web of possible scenarios surrounding NAFTA negotiations and speculate on its final outcome, including the potential of Canada getting caught up in a trade war with US Speaker: Dr. Chris Kukucha Christopher J. Kukucha is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Lethbridge. He is the author of The Provinces and Canadian Foreign Trade Policy and a co-editor of several books including The Harper Era in Canadian Foreign Policy (Adam Chapnick), International Political Economy (Greg Anderson), and the third edition of Readings in Canadian Foreign Policy (Duane Bratt). Chris also served as the William J. Fulbright Research Chair in Canadian Studies at the State University of New York (Plattsburgh) and is a past President of the International Studies Association of Canada. Moderator: Austin Fennell Date: Thursday, April 26, 2018 Time: Doors open 11:30 am, Presentation 12 noon, buffet lunch 12:30 pm, Q&A 1 – 1:30 pm Location: Royal Canadian Legion (north door) 324 Mayor Magrath Dr. S. Lethbridge Cost: $14 buffet lunch with desert & coffee/tea/juice or $2 coffee/tea/juice. RSVP not required

In 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into effect, creating one of the world's largest free trade zones at that time and arguably laying the foundations for strong economic growth and rising prosperity for Canada, the United States, and Mexico. However, since Donald Trump became US President last year, renegotiating NAFTA along with other trade deals, has been high on his agenda The original NAFTA took 14 months to negotiate and just as long to ratify. The current negotiations are into their eight month and of the roughly 30 chapters to complete, many are not agreed upon. That's too slow, current U.S. trade czar Robert Lighthizer, said at the close of a recent negotiating session in Mexico City. The Trump administration are hoping to complete negotiations by May, 2018 so the agreement can be ratified before the opposition Democrats have a chance to regain control of Congress and or the Senate in January 2019. Mexican presidential hopeful Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador could also hurt progress on a NAFTA deal if it's not completed soon, should he be elected later this year. The speaker will untangle the web of possible scenarios surrounding NAFTA negotiations and speculate on its final outcome, including the potential of Canada getting caught up in a trade war with US Speaker: Dr. Chris Kukucha Christopher J. Kukucha is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Lethbridge. He is the author of The Provinces and Canadian Foreign Trade Policy and a co-editor of several books including The Harper Era in Canadian Foreign Policy (Adam Chapnick), International Political Economy (Greg Anderson), and the third edition of Readings in Canadian Foreign Policy (Duane Bratt). Chris also served as the William J. Fulbright Research Chair in Canadian Studies at the State University of New York (Plattsburgh) and is a past President of the International Studies Association of Canada. Moderator: Austin Fennell Date: Thursday, April 26, 2018 Time: Doors open 11:30 am, Presentation 12 noon, buffet lunch 12:30 pm, Q&A 1 – 1:30 pm Location: Royal Canadian Legion (north door) 324 Mayor Magrath Dr. S. Lethbridge Cost: $14 buffet lunch with desert & coffee/tea/juice or $2 coffee/tea/juice. RSVP not required

In her new book, Everyday Sustainability: Gender Justice and Fair Trade Tea in Darjeeling (SUNY Press, 2017), Debarati Sen analyzes the paradoxes and promises of Fair Trade-organic tea production in Darjeeling, India. Based on more than a decade of feminist longitudinal ethnographic research, Sen investigates why independent women small farmers growing tea on their own land experience market-based social justice regimes like Fair Trade differently from women wage laborers in tea plantations. Simultaneously circumspect and hopeful of the extent and kind of empowerment Fair Trade can bring about, women workers nonetheless use sustainable development as a space to mobilize for more favorable intra-household relations, collective bargaining and access to resources. Everyday Sustainability received the Global Development Studies Book Award from the International Studies Association in 2018. Sen is an Associate Professor of Anthropology and Conflict Management at the School of Conflict Management, Peacebuilding and Development in Kennesaw State University. Madhuri Karak is a Ph.D. candidate in cultural anthropology at The Graduate Center, City University of New York. Her dissertation titled “Part-time Insurgents, Civil War and Extractive Capital in an Adivasi Frontier explores processes of state-making in the bauxite-rich mountains of southern Odisha, India. She tweets @madhurikarak and more of her work can be found here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In her new book, Everyday Sustainability: Gender Justice and Fair Trade Tea in Darjeeling (SUNY Press, 2017), Debarati Sen analyzes the paradoxes and promises of Fair Trade-organic tea production in Darjeeling, India. Based on more than a decade of feminist longitudinal ethnographic research, Sen investigates why independent women small farmers growing tea on their own land experience market-based social justice regimes like Fair Trade differently from women wage laborers in tea plantations. Simultaneously circumspect and hopeful of the extent and kind of empowerment Fair Trade can bring about, women workers nonetheless use sustainable development as a space to mobilize for more favorable intra-household relations, collective bargaining and access to resources. Everyday Sustainability received the Global Development Studies Book Award from the International Studies Association in 2018. Sen is an Associate Professor of Anthropology and Conflict Management at the School of Conflict Management, Peacebuilding and Development in Kennesaw State University. Madhuri Karak is a Ph.D. candidate in cultural anthropology at The Graduate Center, City University of New York. Her dissertation titled “Part-time Insurgents, Civil War and Extractive Capital in an Adivasi Frontier explores processes of state-making in the bauxite-rich mountains of southern Odisha, India. She tweets @madhurikarak and more of her work can be found here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In her new book, Everyday Sustainability: Gender Justice and Fair Trade Tea in Darjeeling (SUNY Press, 2017), Debarati Sen analyzes the paradoxes and promises of Fair Trade-organic tea production in Darjeeling, India. Based on more than a decade of feminist longitudinal ethnographic research, Sen investigates why independent women small farmers growing tea on their own land experience market-based social justice regimes like Fair Trade differently from women wage laborers in tea plantations. Simultaneously circumspect and hopeful of the extent and kind of empowerment Fair Trade can bring about, women workers nonetheless use sustainable development as a space to mobilize for more favorable intra-household relations, collective bargaining and access to resources. Everyday Sustainability received the Global Development Studies Book Award from the International Studies Association in 2018. Sen is an Associate Professor of Anthropology and Conflict Management at the School of Conflict Management, Peacebuilding and Development in Kennesaw State University. Madhuri Karak is a Ph.D. candidate in cultural anthropology at The Graduate Center, City University of New York. Her dissertation titled “Part-time Insurgents, Civil War and Extractive Capital in an Adivasi Frontier explores processes of state-making in the bauxite-rich mountains of southern Odisha, India. She tweets @madhurikarak and more of her work can be found here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In her new book, Everyday Sustainability: Gender Justice and Fair Trade Tea in Darjeeling (SUNY Press, 2017), Debarati Sen analyzes the paradoxes and promises of Fair Trade-organic tea production in Darjeeling, India. Based on more than a decade of feminist longitudinal ethnographic research, Sen investigates why independent women small farmers growing tea on their own land experience market-based social justice regimes like Fair Trade differently from women wage laborers in tea plantations. Simultaneously circumspect and hopeful of the extent and kind of empowerment Fair Trade can bring about, women workers nonetheless use sustainable development as a space to mobilize for more favorable intra-household relations, collective bargaining and access to resources. Everyday Sustainability received the Global Development Studies Book Award from the International Studies Association in 2018. Sen is an Associate Professor of Anthropology and Conflict Management at the School of Conflict Management, Peacebuilding and Development in Kennesaw State University. Madhuri Karak is a Ph.D. candidate in cultural anthropology at The Graduate Center, City University of New York. Her dissertation titled “Part-time Insurgents, Civil War and Extractive Capital in an Adivasi Frontier explores processes of state-making in the bauxite-rich mountains of southern Odisha, India. She tweets @madhurikarak and more of her work can be found here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In her new book, Everyday Sustainability: Gender Justice and Fair Trade Tea in Darjeeling (SUNY Press, 2017), Debarati Sen analyzes the paradoxes and promises of Fair Trade-organic tea production in Darjeeling, India. Based on more than a decade of feminist longitudinal ethnographic research, Sen investigates why independent women small farmers growing tea on their own land experience market-based social justice regimes like Fair Trade differently from women wage laborers in tea plantations. Simultaneously circumspect and hopeful of the extent and kind of empowerment Fair Trade can bring about, women workers nonetheless use sustainable development as a space to mobilize for more favorable intra-household relations, collective bargaining and access to resources. Everyday Sustainability received the Global Development Studies Book Award from the International Studies Association in 2018. Sen is an Associate Professor of Anthropology and Conflict Management at the School of Conflict Management, Peacebuilding and Development in Kennesaw State University. Madhuri Karak is a Ph.D. candidate in cultural anthropology at The Graduate Center, City University of New York. Her dissertation titled “Part-time Insurgents, Civil War and Extractive Capital in an Adivasi Frontier explores processes of state-making in the bauxite-rich mountains of southern Odisha, India. She tweets @madhurikarak and more of her work can be found here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices