Search

Begin New Search Journal The Ambassador's Review

21. The Role of Universities in Our Changing Economy

Author:
Jefferey Bleich
Publication Date:
03-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Ambassador's Review
Institution:
Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:
We grew up in a century defined by the Second Industrial Revolution. Today, that revolution is being eclipsed by a Digital Revolution. The uncertainty that we are experiencing in every aspect of our society is the same disorientation that occurred between 1870 and 1910 when the first Industrial Revolution ended and a second one began. It eventually vaulted nations like America and Australia to the top of the world order. But it also produced the Gilded Age, labor unrest, mass migrations, the Great Depression and two world wars. That era is closing, and we are now experiencing the new great dis­ruption that Silicon Valley promised. Digital technology—while solving crucial problems—is creating or compounding others. It has outstripped the capacity of government to control it and amplified the collapse of public confidence in democratic governments. It has inflamed rivalries between those who benefit and those who don’t. It has undermined standards—of altruism and of civility—that are necessary for us to find common ground. To appreciate this, we have to see where we’ve come from. A hundred and fifty years ago, we went through the same thing. Changes in technology revolutionized media, global integration and demographics. The changes were profound. In 1879, during a three-month period, both the electric light and a workable internal combustion engine were invented. Those two inventions alone produced over the next 40 years a dizzying number of new technologies. The telephone, phonograph, motion pictures, cars, airplanes, elevators, X-rays, electric machinery, consumer appliances, highways, suburbs and supermarkets—all were created in a 40-year burst from 1875 to 1915. Technology fundamentally transformed how people live. We’ve known for a while that the structures created by this Second Industrial Revolution were running their course, at least in advanced economies, and that it was being replaced by a new revolution, the digital revolution. Recently, the pace of these advances has started to build exponen­tially, and the pressure has been mounting. Everyone who has had to throw out their CD player for a DVD player for an iPod for an iPhone for Spotify knows what I mean. Further, the pace at which our world is being changed just keeps accelerating. Every year a new massive theory of disruption emerges: “the digital economy,” “the social network,” “the Internet of things,” “sharing economy” and “big data.” Last year, “machine learning”—where machines teach themselves things we do not know—was the buzzword. The word in Silicon Valley this year is “singularity”—where our species itself is altered by technology (gene-editing, bionics, artificial intelligence), creating a new hybrid species.
Topic:
Economics, Education, Digital Economy, Higher Education, and Digital Revolution
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, Australia, and North America

22. The Fund for American Studies: Celebrating 50 Years of Educating Leaders Throughout the World

Author:
Roger R Ream
Publication Date:
03-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Ambassador's Review
Institution:
Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:
In an interview a few years after he was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, F.A. Hayek expressed his strong belief that the climate of opinion mattered much more than current politics. Having engaged for more than half a century in the intellectual debate between socialism and freedom, he came to the following conclusion from his experience: So far as the movement of intellectual opinion is concerned, it is now for the first time in my life moving in the right direction….When I was a young man, only the really old men believed in a free market system. When I was in my middle age, almost I myself and no one else believed in it. Now I have the pleasure of having lived long enough to see the young people believe again in it. That is a very important change. Whether this comes in time to save the world, I don’t know.[1] The Fund for American Studies (TFAS) was founded in 1967 with a mission focused on influencing the intellectual climate in the world by giving young people entering leadership positions a balanced perspective on political and economic systems. It was founded in the heat of the Cold War and during a period of growing unrest and even violent upheaval on college campuses. Many of the founders of the organization were actively engaged in international programs, including former Congressman Walter Judd and political organizer David R. Jones. While TFAS cannot lay claim to the title of ending the Cold War or calming the campuses, TFAS alumni have gone on to play key roles in world and national events. Several have served in Congress, including two serving today, Sen. Claire McCaskill (MO) and Rep. David Rouzer (NC). When TFAS was incorporated in February 1967, the founding articles stressed several priorities, including granting scholarships for preparatory studies for careers in public service and journalism and for summer programs stressing leadership development and internship experience. A distinct objective was to encourage foreign travel and study to encourage youth “to compare the American way of life with that of peoples of other lands and to better understand the problems confronting our Government in the conduct of foreign affairs.” This last objective wasn’t realized until 1993, when TFAS developed overseas institutes where college students from the United States could study with young people from other regions in the world. TFAS now organizes summer programs in Prague, Czech Republic, Hong Kong and Santiago, Chile. Many of the graduates of these overseas programs are now in leadership positions in their countries, including the president of the Central Bank of Latvia, a deputy minister in Georgia, and numerous serving in diplomatic positions or elsewhere in government or international business. TFAS alumni are contrib­uting articles to foreign policy journals, covering breaking news throughout the world, and participating in democracy-building initiatives and conflict resolution programs.
Topic:
Education, Intellectual History, and Higher Education
Political Geography:
United States and North America

23. The Power of Rapid-Response Public Diplomacy: The IVLP On Demand

Author:
Monica Damberg-Ott
Publication Date:
03-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Ambassador's Review
Institution:
Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:
The U.S. Department of State’s International Visitor Leadership Program, or IVLP, is often referred to as the “gold standard” of exchange programs within the public diplomacy community. The program celebrated its 75th anniversary in 2015, and more than 200,000 International Visitors have engaged with Americans through the IVLP, including more than 505 current or former Chiefs of State or Heads of Government,[1] since its inception in 1940. Margaret Thatcher, Hamid Karzai, and Indira Gandhi, to name just a few, are alumni. But with recent budget constraints and the need to demonstrate immediate, results-driven programming, the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) is placing greater emphasis on its most flexible rapid-response exchanges. Among those programs is the highly adaptable and policy-responsive option: the IVLP On Demand. So how does it differ from the original model, how does it compare, and how might it help show results more quickly? Each year, nearly 5,000 exchange participants come to the United States on the IVLP,[2] a foreign policy tool that helps strengthen U.S. engagement with countries around the world and cultivates lasting relationships. The program connects current and emerging foreign policy leaders with their American counterparts through short-term visits to the United States. Ambassadors often chair the rigorous, annual selection committees that embassies overseas use to nominate key contacts viewed as leaders in their respective fields to participate in the program. Each embassy fills its “IVLP slate” with nominees whose participation in the program helps to advance the mission’s key bilateral or multilateral goals. The majority of IVLP exchanges include visits to four U.S. communities over three weeks, although projects vary based on themes, embassy requests and other factors. From D.C. to St. Louis, from Kalamazoo to Seattle, and everywhere in between, participants meet with professional counterparts, visit U.S. public- and private-sector organizations related to the project theme and participate in cultural and social activities. (Baseball games are usually a big hit!) The program benefits the U.S. economy as well—a large portion of the funding goes back to the states in the form of visitors’ hotels, restaurants, transporta­tion and tourism. The success of the program is in its diversity—regional, political, religious and thematic. As the Exchanges Coordinator for the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I had the opportunity to meet and brief nearly 2,000 International Visitors from 2014-2016. Government officials, teachers, judges, law enforcement officers, human rights activists and other leaders from all over Asia participated in programs exploring topics ranging from judicial reform to cyber-security, from disability rights to maritime security, from food safety to trade regulation. For most participants, the program is transformational. I saw it firsthand in their excitement and gratitude in being selected. I witnessed it in the questions they asked and the discussions that ensued. I read it in the emails I received months later from participants who said the program changed their lives and inspired them to start a project, set up a conference or draft legislation.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Economy
Political Geography:
United States and North America

24. Back to the Basics of Growth and Diplomacy: Four Questions to Answer

Author:
Curtis Chin
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Ambassador's Review
Institution:
Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:
If American diplomacy is not to be about freedom and democracy, let it be about economic freedom and growth. And let the United States once again lead by example. In September 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump took to the world stage, addressing the United Nations General Assembly for his first time. It was also a week in which the United States marked the 230th anniversary of the U.S. Constitution—a document that continues to serve as an example for nations around the world. Trump began with words of appreciation to leaders of nations who had offered assistance and aid to the United States following hurricanes that had struck Texas and Florida. The U.S. president then continued with a few sentences about the state of the American economy. “The stock market is at an all-time high, a record,” he said. “Unemployment is at its lowest level in 16 years, and because of our regulatory and other reforms, we have more people working in the United States today than ever before.” “Companies are moving back, creating job growth,” he added. Skeptics were plentiful on the cable television shows. But those would not be the words that captured global headlines and that would overtake social media posts around the world. Instead, it was Trump’s far-from-diplomatic language calling out the threat posed by North Korea, as well as the U.S. leader’s focus in part on Iran, Cuba and Venezuela, that dominated the news cycle and sent pundits—and some ambassadors—into a frenzy.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, United Nations, and Economic Policy
Political Geography:
United States and North America

25. How Ukraine Views Russia and the West

Author:
Steven Pifer
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Ambassador's Review
Institution:
Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:
Following the Soviet Union’s collapse, Ukraine and Russia maintained relations that at times were testy, but their differences largely appeared manageable. That changed in 2014, when the Kremlin used military force to seize Crimea and then supported armed separatism in the eastern Ukrainian region of Donbas. As a result, attitudes within Ukraine toward Russia have hardened to a consider­able degree, and the appeal of Western institutions such as the European Union and NATO has grown.
Topic:
NATO, Imperialism, European Union, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe

26. Kazakhstan: Building a Nuclear-Safe World

Author:
Erzhan Kazykhanov
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Ambassador's Review
Institution:
Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:
As the 72nd session of the United Nations General Assembly convened on September 19, 2017, in New York to address issues with worldwide implications, significant attention was paid to nuclear nonproliferation and the threat that possession of nuclear weapons presents to the security of the entire interna­tional community. Addressing the Security Council, U.S. Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson con­veyed a comprehensive vision of reducing the threats emanating from weapons of mass destruction. First and foremost, Secretary Tillerson outlined the importance of highlighting the positive trajectories of nations that have voluntarily renounced their nuclear weapons. In this context, he said, “Kazakhstan is a particularly illustrative example of the wisdom of relinquishing nuclear weapons. In partnership with the United States, and aided by the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act spearheaded by U.S. Senators Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar, Kazakhstan opted to remove from its territory former Soviet weapons and related nuclear technologies, and [it] joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-weapons state.” This courageous decision by the leaders of Kazakhstan greatly reduced the prospect of nuclear weapons, components of nuclear weapons or nuclear materials and dual-use technologies from falling into the wrong hands. Nuclear weapons introduced complexity into relations with other countries, and they introduced the risk of miscalculation, accident or escalation. Kazakhstan’s actions represented a key step in that country’s becoming part of the community of nations. As a result of Kazakhstan’s letting go of nuclear weapons, the world does not look on Kazakhstan as a potential nuclear aggressor or a rogue state. It did not make enemies of its nuclear neighbors, Russia or China. Today Kazakhstan has overwhelmingly been at peace with its neighbors, and its trade relations are robust. This year, it hosted World Expo 2017, an event in Astana that showcased the sources of future energy and investment opportunities in Kazakhstan to attendees from around the world. This demonstrates that Kazakhstan is a modern nation making a substantial contribution to regional and international peace and prosperity. Kazakhstan has only benefitted from its early decision. In my previous career, I met President Nursultan Nazarbayev, the founding president of Kazakhstan, on many occasions and had the opportunity to ask him about this decision. He is more at peace with his choice than ever. He once remarked to me, “It was the best thing I ever did for our young country.” Indeed, the international community is well aware of the fact that one of the legacies of the former Soviet Union’s policy strategy in the aftermath of World War II and as a result of the Cold War arms race was building the new nuclear-weapons complex on Kazakhstan soil. The USSR leadership sought to use the country’s central geographical location to deploy Soviet nuclear missiles in a way that would reach even the most remote parts of the world and lead to the most devastating outcomes in affected areas.
Topic:
Military Strategy, Nuclear Power, Deterrence, and Denuclearization
Political Geography:
Russia, Kazakhstan, and Eastern Europe

27. Twenty Years of the U.S.-Romanian Strategic Partnership

Author:
Hans Kiemm
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Ambassador's Review
Institution:
Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:
When Bill Clinton came to Bucharest in 1997, he made history as the first U.S. President to visit Romania since the fall of communism. Speaking to the Romanian public, he announced, “Your President and I have agreed to establish a strategic partnership between our nations, a partnership important to America because Romania is important to America—important in your own right and important as a model in this difficult part of the world. Romania can show the people of this region and, indeed, people throughout the world that there is a better way than fighting and division and repression. It is cooperation and freedom and peace. Our friendship will en­dure the test of time. As long as you proceed down democracy’s road, America will walk by your side.” This year marks the 20th anniversary of that U.S.-Romania Strategic Partnership, which President Donald Trump, during a meeting with President Klaus Iohannis this past June in Washington, said is now “stronger than ever.” The Partnership is unique because it is not based upon any written agreement, treaty, or compact, but by mutual respect and un­der­stand­ing, strengthened continuously over time. It is a friendship based on shared values and aspirations, including democracy, freedom, respect for human rights, and the rule of law. While usually invoked when speaking of government-to-government bilateral re­lations, the Partnership extends to people-to-people ties as well. More than 90 percent of the Romanian public rates relations with the United States as good or very good, and overall, associations between the two countries expand far beyond diplomatic obligation.
Topic:
NATO, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, and Diaspora
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, Eastern Europe, Romania, and North America

28. Colombia Mid-2017

Author:
John F. Maisto
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Ambassador's Review
Institution:
Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:
The Colombian peace process—and within it, all issues that have to do with the demobilization of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and its entrance into Colombian political life—is an issue that still divides Colombians and will continue to do so into next year’s election season. The end of hostilities and the peace agreement of 2016 have brought a welcome end to the killing and violence that have plagued Colombia for half a century. The 6,700 to 7,000 FARC members (out of a Colombian population of 49 million) have completed move­ment out of the areas where they fought in rural Colombia, and FARC arms have been turned over to the United Nations—though whether they are all or even most of the FARC arms is still a matter of debate. The execution of the peace process is slow-going, and it has faced roadblocks. The attempt by Juan Manual Santos’ government to “fast track” legislation covering the component parts of the agreement as a package to be voted up or down was rejected by the Colombian Supreme Court in May. President Santos’ response was that the process would have to go forward “brick by brick,” and that is what is now going on. Forward movement also has been hampered by the huge increase in coca produc­tion since 2015. This is due to the government’s agreement to end chemical spraying of coca fields, instead substituting and promoting manual eradication. This has created negative reaction from Washington and generated new efforts in Colombia, this time under the new Vice President, former General Oscar Naranjo. Naranjo, a respected veteran from the Colombian Defense establishment, candidly and publicly has identified the problem as being a policy focused solely on interdiction and eradication without addressing the structural problems causing Colombian farmers to replant coca. Such policy re-tooling is underway. Failure to achieve success in these measures can only have an adverse effect on the gains made under Plan Colombia (and the $10 billion investment of US assistance since 2000). Such failure would embolden organized criminal groups, and huge inflows of illicit earnings would erode citizen security, increase corruption, foment increased illegal immi­gration and destabilize neighbor states. At risk are the legacy and legitimacy of the peace accord.
Topic:
Military Affairs, Elections, Democracy, and Peace
Political Geography:
Colombia and South America

29. The Blockade of Qatar

Author:
Richard W Murphy
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Ambassador's Review
Institution:
Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:
Accusing Qatar of supporting Islamic militants and Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain abruptly announced in June a travel blockade on Qatar. They tabled 13 demands for their fellow member state in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to fulfill before the blockade would be lifted. Egypt, which is particularly sensitive to Qatar’s hosting of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood personalities critical of the Sisi regime, joined in this action. Qatar has protested that the demands constitute an unacceptable infringement on its sovereignty. It has offered to discuss the demands but has been told that the demands are non-negotiable. The blockade adds a further complication for American policymakers dealing with current Middle Eastern power struggles. The initiative for blockading Qatar appears to have been led by Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Bahrain joined, but Oman has steered clear of the controversy, perhaps partly because of its appreciation of Iranian support in earlier decades for the Sultan’s leadership against rebel Omani forces. Kuwait has sought to mediate the dispute but lacks the weight to alter Saudi and Emirati policies.
Topic:
Regional Cooperation, Terrorism, Military Strategy, Violent Extremism, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Persian Gulf, and UAE

30. Investing in Iraq's Cultural Heritage

Author:
Angle Smith
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Ambassador's Review
Institution:
Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:
As Acting Public Affairs Officer in Erbil in 2016, I had the privilege of working with the Iraqi Institute for the Conservation of Antiquities and Heritage (IICAH), the only pan-Iraqi organization located in the Iraqi Kurdistan region. IICAH was originally established with U.S. Department of State funding, and it has since become a regional leader for training cultural heritage specialists. Also with State Department funding, the Smithsonian Institution and the University of Delaware work to train Iraqis in the skills needed to preserve, protect and recover cultural heritage in Iraq, namely “the stabilization, rescue and recovery” of Iraq’s cultural legacy. This mission takes on an even greater importance in times of crisis, when cultural heritage is under threat of annihilation, and IICAH’s role has never been more significant than now, as those it has trained are well placed to preserve and restore sites and artifacts damaged or de­stroyed by ISIS. What is cultural heritage really? There are generally considered to be two categories—tangible and intangible. Tangible heritage includes things such as structures, ruins, handicrafts and landscapes. Intangible heritage includes nonmaterial things such as arts that are communicated through oral traditions. In The Past Is a Foreign Country, David Lowenthal writes that preserved objects also validate memories. While digital acquisition techniques can provide precise visual models of an object’s shape and appearance, it is the actuality of the object, as opposed to a reproduction, that draws people in and gives them a literal way of touching the past.
Topic:
United Nations, Culture, Heritage, and UNESCO
Political Geography:
Iraq and Middle East