Brookings: Experts - Strobe Talbott

A Statesman’s Forum with H.E. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Prime Minister of Turkey

Fri, 17 May 2013 10:30:00 -0400

Event Information

May 17, 2013
10:30 AM - 12:00 PM EDT

Online Only
Live Webcast

Webcast Archive:

This text will be replaced

On May 17, the Center on the U.S. and Europe at Brookings hosted a Stateman's Forum with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. In his remarks, Mr. Erdoğan reflected on three terms of Justice and Development Party (AK Party) leadership during a period of rapid evolution for Turkey and its role in the world.

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan became Prime Minister of Turkey in March 2003, following the electoral success in 2002 of the AK Party. In the 2007and 2011 elections, the AK Party was returned to power with landslide victories in Turkey's parliamentary elections, making Mr. Erdoğan the longest-serving prime minister in Turkish history. Previously, Mr. Erdoğan served as Mayor of Istanbul from 1994 to 1997. He was educated at Marmara University.

Brookings President Strobe Talbott introduced Mr. Erdoğan. At the conclusion of the Prime Minister's remarks, Brookings TUSIAD Senior Fellow Kemal Kirişci moderated a discussion.

Video

Emerging Nations and the Evolving Global Economy

Thu, 02 May 2013 10:30:00 -0400

Event Information

May 2, 2013
10:30 AM - 12:00 PM EDT

Falk Auditorium
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

On May 2, the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings (CUSE) hosted Kaushik Basu for the ninth annual Sakıp Sabancı Lecture. In his address, Basu discussed the persisting global economic crisis and the policy challenges facing emerging countries.

Kaushik Basu is senior vice president (Development Economics) and chief economist of the World Bank. He was until recently the chief economic adviser to the Government of India. Basu’s contributions to economics span development economics, welfare economics, industrial organization and game theory. He has published widely, including 160 papers in refereed journals and scholarly volumes; numerous articles for magazines and newspapers; and several books, including Beyond the Invisible Hand: Groundwork for a New Economics (Princeton University Press and Penguin, 2010).

Brookings President Strobe Talbott and Güler Sabancı, chair of the board of trustees of Sabancı University, provided introductory remarks. Following Basu’s address, students at Sabancı University and a wider overseas audience participated in the event via videoconference, moderated in Washington by Kemal Kirişci, TUSIAD senior fellow and director of the Brookings Turkey Project at Brookings and in Istanbul by Sabanci University Professor İzak Atiyas.

The Sakıp Sabancı Lecture is given annually by a leading international expert or statesman and explores issues important to Turkey and its relations to the U.S. and the world. The event honors the memory of Sakip Sabanci, one of Turkey’s foremost business leaders, a visionary supporter of democratic and economic reforms, and a leading advocate of Turkey’s efforts to join the European Union.

Audio

Emerging Nations and the Evolving Global Economy

Transcript

Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20130502_sabanci_emerging_nations_transcript

Battle for Afghanistan: Lessons from the First Anglo-Afghan War

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:30:00 -0400

Event Information

April 24, 2013
3:30 PM - 4:45 PM EDT

Falk Auditorium
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

Register for the Event
A discussion with William Dalrymple on current day Afghanistan and lessons learned from the British experience there, as detailed in his new book, "Return of a King: The Battle for Afghanistan."

On April 24, the Brookings Institution hosted noted historian and journalist William Dalrymple for a discussion on current day Afghanistan and lessons learned from the British experience in Afghanistan, as detailed in his new book, Return of a King: The Battle for Afghanistan (Bloomsbury, 2013). Brookings Senior Fellow Bruce Riedel participated as a discussant and Brookings President Strobe Talbott moderated the conversation.

When Westerners talk about the Taliban, they object to the treatment of women and football stadium executions. When you talk to Afghans about the Taliban, they object to the fact there was no electricity, there was no mobile phone network, the economy was a complete mess and it was a medieval darkness economically. No one wants that back again. - William Dalrymple

We have, in my view, studied Afghanistan as pitifully little as the British in the 19th century and the Soviets in the 20th century. One concrete examination of that is the Taliban, our enemy. - Bruce Riedel

We are extremely unlikely to see the Taliban roll through Afghanistan as they did in the late-90s. I think the Northern Alliance is too well-armed. I think the Taliban is too unpopular. - William Dalrymple

In the spring of 1839, nearly 20,000 British and East India Company troops poured into Afghanistan, in a massive invasion for its time. From first-hand accounts, the Afghan people initially offered little organized resistance, but in 1842 rose in violent rebellion across the country. The first Anglo-Afghan War ended in retreat, ambush and rout; an utter military humiliation for the then-most powerful nation in the world at the hands of poorly equipped Afghan tribesmen. Fast forward to the 20th and 21st centuries—new global powers enter Afghanistan with new motivations and goals. Each finds Afghanistan to be a military challenge of unexpected proportions. Each nation leaves the country questioning its mission and arguably facing national humiliation, forced out by tribal fighters. Britain's greatest military disaster serves as a powerful and important parable for our times, underscoring the terrible outcomes when cultures and national agendas collide.

Video

Battle for Afghanistan: Lessons from the First Anglo-Afghan War

Audio

Battle for Afghanistan: Lessons from the First Anglo-Afghan War

Transcript

Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20130424_dalrymple_afghanistan_transcript

The Way Forward for the Eurozone and Europe: A Conversation with European Policymakers

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:15:00 -0400

Event Information

April 18, 2013
4:15 PM - 6:00 PM EDT

Falk Auditorium
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036

Register for the Event
On April 18, Global Economy and Development at Brookings and the Center for the United States and Europe hosted a discussion on the European economy and the ongoing crisis in the eurozone with a distinguished panel of European policymakers. Panelists included: Olli Rehn, European Commission vice president for economic and monetary affairs and the euro; Jeroen Dijsselbloem, Dutch finance minister and president of the Eurogroup; Klaus Regling, managing director of the European Stability Mechanism; Werner Hoyer, president of the European Investment Bank; and Jorg Asmussen, executive board member of the European Central Bank. Brookings President Strobe Talbott provided introductory remarks. Vice President Kemal Derviş, director of Global Economy and Development, moderated the discussion.

Video

Full Event - The Way Forward for the Eurozone and Europe: A Conversation with European Policymakers

Audio

The Way Forward for the Eurozone and Europe: A Conversation with European Policymakers

Transcript

Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20130418_eurozone_europe_transcript

Examining North Korea’s Recent Heated Rhetoric

Strobe Talbott, Richard C. Bush III, Michael E. O'Hanlon and Jonathan D. Pollack — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:04:00 -0400

As the United States and South Korea undertake joint military exercises, North Korea has responded with harsh rhetoric, saying that its people are “burning with hatred” for the United States. Brookings President Strobe Talbott leads a discussion with Richard Bush, Michael O’Hanlon, and Jonathan Pollack focusing on the latest saber rattling by North Korea and exploring the intentions of Kim-Jong Un, North Korea’s young leader.

Strobe Talbott: Do you think that the current bluster (and more) from Pyongyang represents more of what we’ve seen before from North Korea or is there a real danger of conflict? If the latter, what should the U.S. be doing to prevent that terrible prospect and what would happen if it comes to blows?

Michael O’Hanlon: I recently wrote on the subject in Politico following the third nuclear test in an effort encourage the U.S. against overreaction given Kim Jong-Un's youth and inexperience—and his potential for moderation/change as he ages (I hope!). My proposal was to make any additional sanctions temporary, partly as a way to induce Chinese support and partly as an incentive to North Korea not to test again (since the new sanctions would only sunset in the event of no further tests or big provocations).

But, of course, that's not quite the same as an answer to your question. In light of the above thinking, my own druthers would be to make any upgrades in our capability quietly—even secretly—so as not to provoke the action-reaction cycle we are now in (e.g., sending F-22 aircraft to bases in South Korea to improve the effectiveness of any initial air strikes, but not telling anybody except Seoul).

Richard Bush: The consensus opinion among specialists is that North Korea’s recent actions are the same old-same old, the typical way North Korea responds to U.S.-ROK exercises every year. Specifically, because the regime portrays the exercises as a segue for a U.S.-ROK attack, even nuclear attack, then it must make at least verbal threats about what it will do when that war happens. The intensity this time may have been dialed up a bit because Kim 3.0 is feistier than his father was, but it's a question of degree.

What may happen (or may not) is a limited conventional strike at the DMZ, against a ROK naval ship, or against one of the West Sea Islands (like the one that preceded our November 2010 visit to Seoul). The ROKs have pledged retaliation, which does create the problem of escalation, but how it might play out is speculative at this point.

Talbott: Thanks, Richard. Most convincing and, to a point, reassuring.

O’Hanlon: Yes, to a point, indeed. "Consensus among specialists" is not always a concept I find reassuring, though! I am glad, Richard, that you seem willing to deviate somewhat from that consensus yourself (at least to some extent). This is probably the same old-same old….until it's not, that is. I actually do worry that the U.S. default approach of tit-for-tat with North Korea (and the imposition of additional, permanent sanctions after the third test), while of course morally defensible, may exacerbate the situation in this particular case—which feels somewhat different to me than past periods of bluster.

Talbott: Interesting point, Mike. I’d be interested in your assessment of Kim-Jong Un, or Kim 3.0 as Richard calls him. His recent rhetoric and actions show that he is willing to test the boundaries of what is internationally acceptable. But, I had the impression that he was subject to a lot of supervision from the North Korean military, meaning he doesn't have much autonomy, especially, one hopes, when it comes to declaring the Korean War back on and taking other actions that would significantly escalate the situation.

O’Hanlon: Right and Kim-Jong Un wants to be friends with Dennis Rodman and he grew up largely in Europe—and he doesn't strike me as the suicidal type, so I'm hoping that someday he'll want to be the next leader of a "reform from within" movement as in Vietnam years ago, Burma of late, etc. Obviously a long-shot concept at the moment though....

Jonathan Pollack: The reality is that we don't really know very much about what animates Kim 3.0, so we must infer from what we can observe about his behavior. He seems very much like Kim Il Sung and may even be modeling himself on his grandfather. (He has his physicality and extroversion; even his body language seems reminiscent of the grandfather.) Very few foreigners have met 3.0. The Chinese blessed his succession at an early date (November 2010, as I recall), when a then serving member of the Politburo Standing Committee was on the podium with young Mr. Kim. So far as I can determine no senior Chinese official has met with him since then, and he has not been invited to visit China. In contrast to the distinct warming in China-SK relations (including several messages between Xi Jinping and Pres Park), there is a decided coldness/distancing in China-NK relations. I think Beijing early on calculated that there was a potential opening with 3.0 (as did we—witness the abortive February 29 agreement), but this seems largely a dead letter at this point.

The most troubling possibility is that he is very full of himself, listens to few others, and is now consorting regularly with the North Korean military leadership. Despite some early hopes for reform in the North, he has now wrapped himself in the "military first" rhetoric every bit as much as his father did. Worse yet, he has a successful satellite launch and another nuclear test under his belt, with clear expectations that more could be in the offing.

As I wrote in the Foreign Policy program’s Big Bets-Black Swans project, there needs to be a much more determined effort by the United States and ROK to deal fully with China in the event that things go from bad to worse in Korea. Now is definitely the time, lest we find ourselves in an acute crisis. That said, North Korean propaganda always spikes whenever the U.S. and the ROK are in the middle of major exercises, so perhaps the latest campaign will subside as the exercises wind down next month. But the tone and threats are particularly worrisome at present - even they are intended largely for domestic effect.

O’Hanlon: That's an excellent point, Jonathan, if I may say so (the focus on consultation with China).

I can't disagree with any of the analysis, and of course, you know the dynamics in the region very well. However, I still would venture to say that our February 2012 hopes (just two months into 3.0's rule, when he still hadn't even turned 30 years old as I recall) were unrealistically optimistic that early in his tenure within a Stalinist system, and we should remember how unlikely glasnost and perestroika would have seemed (or Chinese and Vietnamese economic reform) a few years before they occurred. But that's a footnote, not a central argument, of course.

Pollack: I and a few others met with the State Department’s Glyn Davies immediately after the signing the 2/29/12 agreement. He remained very sober about the possibilities—and that it seemed too good to be true. Davies was careful not to oversell the agreement, which, in the end, blew up two weeks later.

Authors

Image Source: © KCNA KCNA / Reuters

The Innovative Metropolis: Fostering Economic Competitiveness through Sustainable Urban Design

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:00:00 -0500

Event Information

February 21, 2013
9:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST

Falk Auditorium
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036

Register for the Event
As global cities have embraced sustainable urban design and entrepreneurism, their strategies can serve as a source of inspiration and new knowledge to U.S. cities and beyond. By pairing best practices from international metros with their U.S. counterparts, the Sam Fox School of Design & Visual Arts at the Washington University in St. Louis has developed a series of case studies that examine the urgent challenges of an increasingly urbanized planet, focusing on the development of sustainable products, services, technology, and land use patterns following the economic recession.

On February 21, the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings and the Sam Fox School’s Master of Urban Design Program hosted an all-day forum which explored the intersection between sustainable urban design and economic growth while discussing the implications for design and practice. The event also highlighted policies that have enabled individual cities to become successful models of sustainability and examined specific design and policy issues through the lenses of economy, government, climate and social systems.

Mark Wrighton, chancellor of the Washington University in St. Louis, welcomed the forum participants and audience members, followed by a presentation from Ricky Burdett, professor of urban studies at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Panel discussions covered transportation; environmental and building technologies; and adaptation and renewal. The program closed with a presentation from Mohsen Mostafavi, dean and the Alexander and Victoria Wiley professor of design at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design, followed by a reception and respondent discussion.

Download city-specific profiles

Video

Transcript

Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

Mr. Vladimir Putin: Operative in the Kremlin

Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:30:00 -0500

Event Information

February 6, 2013
10:30 AM - 12:00 PM EST

Falk Auditorium
Brookings Falk Auditorium
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036

Follow the conversation on Twitter using the hashtag #MrPutin

President Vladimir Putin has been Russia’s dominant political figure for more than a decade, but during this term, the West has learned little about his background and the formative experiences that shape his worldview. In their new book, Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin (Brookings, 2013), Brookings Senior Fellows Fiona Hill and Clifford G. Gaddy reveal the complex identities of Mr. Putin and argue that an awareness of his real personas is essential to understanding the influence he has had on Russia and what the future holds for the country.

On February 6, the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings hosted the launch of Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin featuring a panel discussion to explore how Vladimir Putin has singularly defined Russian leadership and its role in the world in the new century. The discussion featured Hill and Gaddy, who will examine how Putin has turned himself into the ultimate political performance artist and how his identities have shaped the way the political and economic system operates today in Russia.

Brookings President Strobe Talbott, who served in the U.S. State Department from 1993 to 2001 as ambassador-at-large for the former Soviet Union and then as deputy secretary, also joined the panel. Brookings Guest Scholar Marvin Kalb, former chief diplomatic correspondent for CBS News and NBC News who first reported from Russia in the 1950s, provided introductory remarks and moderated the discussion. During the discussion, Kalb and Talbott used experiences from their distinguished careers covering Russia to offer perspectives on the sweep of Russia’s modern history that encompasses Putin’s lifetime from the end of the Stalin-era until today.

Download Media

Fiona Hill: Putin’s Statist Personality: Restoring the Greatness of Russia

Video

Fiona Hill: Putin’s Statist Personality: Restoring the Greatness of Russia

Colin Powell, Chuck Hagel and the Republican Party

Strobe Talbott — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 10:33:00 -0500

In an exchange with David Gregory on Meet the Press Sunday, Colin Powell gave a full-throated defense of Chuck Hagel’s qualifications to be secretary of defense, rebutting forcefully attacks on Hagel from fellow Republicans. That led Gregory to "challenge" Powell on whether he was still a Republican himself. The exchange is worth noting in its entirety.

GREGORY: To mix in foreign policy with some politics, I’m struck when you talk about Republicans as they. I know you insist despite voting for President Obama twice now that you’re still a Republican. But as-- as I go through your record on some social issues and even foreign policy issues, I challenge you a little bit to say on what basis are you still a Republican? Do you feel like this Republican Party has left you or have you left it?

GEN. POWELL: I think the Republican Party right now is having an identity problem. And I’m still a Republican. I’m a Republican who grew up along with George Bush XLI. I grew up with Ronald Reagan, Cap Weinberger, Frank Carlucci, that Republican Party, the Republican Party of Dick Lugar and John Tower. But in recent years, there’s been a significant shift to the right and we have seen what that shift has produced, two losing presidential campaigns. I think what the Republican Party needs to do now is take a very hard look at itself and understand that the country has changed. The country is changing demographically. And if the Republican Party does not change along with that demographic, they’re going to be in trouble. And so, when we see that in one more generation, the minorities of America, African-Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans will be the majority of the country, you can’t go around saying we don’t want to have a solid immigration policy. We’re going to dismiss the 47 percent. We are going to make it hard for these minorities to vote as they did in the last election. What did that produce? The court struck most of that down and most importantly, it caused people to turn out and stand in line because these Republicans were trying to keep us from voting. There’s also a dark-- a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the Party. What I do mean by that? I mean by that is they still sort of look down on minorities. How can I evidence that? When I see a former governor say that the president is shuckin’ and jivin’, that’s a racial era slave term. When I see another former governor after the president’s first debate where he didn’t do very well, says that the president was lazy. He didn’t say he was slow, he was tired, he didn’t do well, he said he was lazy. Now, it may not mean anything to most Americans but to those of us who are African-Americans, the second word is shiftless and then there’s a third word that goes along with it Birther, the whole Birther Movement. Why do senior Republican leaders tolerate this kind of discussion within the Party? I think the Party has to take a look at itself. It has to take a look at its responsibilities for health care. It has to take a look at immigration. It has to take a look at those less fortunate than us. The Party has gathered unto itself a reputation that it is the party of the rich. It is the party of lower taxes. But there are a lot of people who are lower down the food chain, the economic chain, who are also paying lots of taxes relative to their income and they need help. We need more education work being done in this country. We need a solid immigration policy. We have to look at climate change. There are a lot of things that the American people are expecting and the Republican Party, as they get ready for the next election, really has to focus on some of these issues and not ignore them. Everybody wants to talk about who’s going to be the candidate. You better think first about what’s the party they’re actually going to represent. If it’s just going to represent the far right-wing of the political spectrum, I think the Party is in difficulty. I’m a moderate but I’m still a Republican, that’s how I was raised. And until I voted for Mister Obama twice, I had voted for seven straight Republican presidents.

In the two days since the interview aired, much of the reaction has been anger and denunciation of Powell from precisely those in the party whom he was criticizing. Let’s hope that initial counterattack will prod Powell’s fellow moderates to speak out as well. This experienced soldier knows that the important political battles in the U.S. are won in the center, not on the fringes. He wants to see his party move in that direction. All Americans should hope for the same for the sake of the country, which needs a healthy two-party system.

Authors

Strobe Talbott

Image Source: Jason Reed / Reuters

Fostering Growth Through Innovation

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:00:00 -0500

Event Information

January 15, 2013
9:00 AM - 3:00 PM EST

Falk Auditorium
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036

President Obama approaches his second inauguration after an electoral victory broader and deeper than most had predicted, with a slightly increased majority in the U.S. Senate, but with Republicans still holding a distinct (yet smaller) majority in the House of Representatives. While deep partisan divides still remain in Washington, the president has the chance to use his second term to make his mark on public policy. The first 100 days of this second term and his relationship with a newly seated Congress provide an opportunity for policy changes that can find support across party lines. Brookings is committed to developing a set of high-impact policy recommendations to present to the Obama administration in January in order to reinvigorate the American economy, create jobs and strengthen competitiveness.

On January 15, the Brookings Institution brought together a distinguished group of private and public sector leaders for a day-long series of panels addressing fiscal challenges, U.S. manufacturing and government performance. Brookings experts have released several new papers on these topics with recommendations focused on the first 100 days.

Welcoming Remarks and Panel 1:

This text will be replaced

Panel 2:

This text will be replaced

Panel 3 & Closing Remarks

This text will be replaced

Related Papers:

Cut to Invest: Create a "Race to the Shop" Competition for Advanced Manufacturing
Bruce Katz and Peter Hamp
Cut to Invest: Create a Nationwide Network of Advanced Industries Innovation Hubs
Devashree Saha and Mark Muro
Cut to Invest: Support the Designation of 20 "U.S. Manufacturing Universities"
Robert D. Atkinson and Stephen Ezell
Smart Policy: Building an Innovation-Based Economy
Darrell West, Allan Friedman and Walter Valdivia

Video

Audio

Transcript

Event Materials

The Internationalization of Law

Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:30:00 -0500

Event Information

December 18, 2012
5:30 PM - 7:00 PM EST

Falk Auditorium
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

Ninth Annual Raymond Aron Lecture Featuring Professor Mireille Delmas-Marty and Justice Stephen Breyer

On December 18, the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings hosted Professor Mireille Delmas-Marty to deliver the ninth annual Raymond Aron Lecture. A leading French legal scholar, Dr. Delmas-Marty is professor emeritus at the Collège de France and a member of France's Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques. After a prestigious career in academia, including visiting professorships in major universities from the Americas to Asia, and advising the French government on constitutional and legal reform, Dr. Delmas-Marty has focused her work at the Collège de France on the internationalization of law.

Dr. Delmas-Marty delivered remarks on how national bodies of law are increasingly being reshaped by transnational forces, including universal human rights norms, economic integration, and global risks, and the challenges this presents in terms of accountability, legitimacy and predictability. She discussed how direct dialogue among the world’s top jurisdictions, such as the U.S. Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice, has also changed conceptions of self-contained national legal systems; and suggest how cross-country comparisons and understanding the evolving nature of international law can help make sense of the rapidly changing legal landscape.

Following Dr. Delmas-Marty's remarks, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer offered a response. Justice Breyer was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Clinton and took his seat in 1994. A former law clerk to Justice Arthur Goldberg, he held many prominent offices in both the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government, and was also a professor of Law at Harvard University, a visiting professor in various universities, and the author of numerous books and articles.

Brookings President Strobe Talbott provided introductory remarks and Brookings Senior Fellow Benjamin Wittes moderated the discussion. After the program, panelists took audience questions. The Raymond Aron lecture series, named after the renowned scholar of post-war France, annually features leading French and American scholars and statesmen speaking on critical issues affecting the transatlantic relationship.

Video

Full Event - The Internationalization of Law

Audio

The Internationalization of Law

Transcript

Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20121218_aron_internationalization

U.S. and Europe: A Revitalized Global Partnership - A Statesman’s Forum with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:30:00 -0500

Event Information

November 29, 2012
1:30 PM - 2:15 PM EST

Online Only
The Brookings Institution

A Statesman’s Forum with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

For decades, Europe has been an essential partner working with the United States to confront a wide range of challenges around the globe. From Afghanistan, Libya and Iran, to issues such as counterterrorism, climate change and economic recovery, the Transatlantic Partnership remains critical to achieving common strategic objectives.

On November 29, the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings hosted an address by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on U.S.-European relations titled, "The U.S. and Europe: a Revitalized Global Partnership." Secretary Clinton was sworn in as the 67th Secretary of State of the United States in January 2009, after nearly four decades in public service as an advocate, attorney, First Lady, and Senator. During her tenure in the Senate, she served on the Armed Services Committee and worked to launch the government’s Vital Voices Democracy Initiative. She was also a Commissioner on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Brookings President Strobe Talbott provided introductory remarks.

Video

Audio

U.S. and Europe: a Revitalized Global Partnership

Transcript

Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20121129_transatlantic_clinton

Managing Transitions in Northeast Asia, the Global Economy, and Japan-U.S. Relations

Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:00:00 -0500

Event Information

November 28, 2012
9:00 AM - 3:30 PM EST

Keidanren Conference Hall

Tokyo, Japan

Northeast Asia has seen significant leadership changes in recent months, with the election of Park Geun-hye as president of South Korea, Xi Jinping as leader of China’s ruling Communist Party, and Shinzo Abe as prime minister of Japan. As leaders of world-leading economies, these key players will no doubt bring about dynamic change in the region’s politics and economy, while balancing relations with the United States and its own newly re-elected president.

On November 28, 2012, the Center for Northeast Asian Studies (CNAPS) at Brookings, the Japan Center for Economic Research, and Nikkei held a one-day conference on “Managing Transitions in Northeast Asia, the Global Economy, and Japan-U.S. Relations.” Three panels, featuring Brookings scholars as well leading experts from across Asia, provided their views on issues of profound importance to the Northeast Asian region including leadership transitions, global economy and trade, global governance, and U.S.-Japan relations in the 21st Century.

An American President in the Age of Globalization

Strobe Talbott — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 00:00:00 -0500

The announcement by the Norwegian Nobel Committee in October 2009 that Barack Obama had won the Peace Prize came as a surprise to just about everyone, including the recipient. The president, barely nine months into his new job, knew that the award was an encouragement of his aspirations, not recognition of his accomplishments. He said as much in accepting the prize at the Oslo ceremony two months later.

Over the ensuing three years, Obama negotiated a new strategic arms treaty with Russia, made progress in stamping out the high command of Al Qaeda, and coped deftly with “black swan” events like the Arab Awakening. But on two challenges of existential importance, he has come up short: strengthening the global nuclear non-proliferation regime and leading an international effort to slow the process of climate change. Obama had given priority to both goals in his 2008 campaign and first inaugural address but was thwarted on both, largely because of partisan opposition in Washington.

Obama had hoped to use momentum generated by the 2010 ratification of the “New Start” arms treaty to persuade the Senate to do something it should have done 11 years earlier: ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, CTBT, a pact that would, if it had entered into force, be the culmination of a 50-year American initiative. Instead, the dynamic on Capitol Hill was the opposite of momentum: Republicans who had reluctantly approved New Start opposed CTBT, largely so as to deny Obama another victory.

On climate change, the House of Representatives passed a bill to reduce carbon emissions in 2009; but the Senate, then controlled by Democrats, never voted on the House bill or a Senate version because they could not break a Republican filibuster. Some GOP stalwarts – notably including Richard Lugar of Indiana, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine – had long acknowledged the threat posed by climate change. But they were outnumbered by colleagues who saw the alarm as a hoax designed to enlarge government’s role. That view was reinforced by polls at the time showing a decline in the number of Americans who accepted the overwhelming scientific evidence that the peril was real and growing worse by the year.

Republican hostility to a sitting Democratic president during Obama’s first term has been more intense, sustained and unified than anything we’ve seen in modern times. During Obama’s inauguration, senior Republicans met privately to develop a strategy to ensure failure in virtually everything he hoped to do. Shortly before the Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives in 2010, the Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, stated outright that his top political priority was to deny President Obama a second term.

This breathtaking rejection of the principle of compromise – call it the audacity of irresponsibility – reflects the extreme polarization of American politics, which in turn reflects the dark underside of what’s most uplifting about the Obama phenomenon. The same attributes of the 44th president that have made him a prodigy in the eyes of many Americans – and much of the rest of the world – have also made him a target of unprecedented mistrust and hatred.

Campaigning in 2008, Obama drew appreciative laugher from friendly audiences when he referred to himself as “a skinny black guy with a funny name.” His victory was as much a credit to the evolution of the country as it was to him. But there was still a race barrier for him to overcome, and it remained four years later.

Obama is not just an African-American – he’s half-African, and he spent part of his childhood in Indonesia to boot. His middle name isn’t funny to Americans who associate it with the late unlamented dictator of Iraq. For some, the name screams “not one of us” – a red flag to nativists, birthers and the 17 percent of Americans who believe their president is Muslim.

During the 2008 campaign, he identified himself as a “citizen of the world.” Obama is not the first president to make that claim. Jack Kennedy and Ronald Reagan did, too. But Obama is the first to do so before he was elected. Moreover, he did it on foreign soil, at the Tiergarten in Berlin in July 2008. The venue was part of his message: He was campaigning for the leadership of his own nation by demonstrating his appeal to and identification with people of other nations, regions and cultures.

In the early 1980s, when Obama was in his 20s, he worked as a community organizer in Chicago. On several occasions during his campaign he cited that experience as a lesson useful to organizing the community of nations in an increasingly interdependent world.

In short, Obama supports global governance, even though he carefully avoids that phrase since it makes many Americans think of black helicopters and is even more toxic than “citizen of the world.“

For all these reasons, Barack Hussein Obama has – by virtue of his identity, his biographical narrative, and his worldview – the ideal credential to lead the US in the age of globalization. For many Americans, his ascension to the White House has been a dream come true. For others, however, it continues to be a nightmare, a confirmation of their deepest fears about Obama and globalization itself.

So what now? Will Obama succeed in his second term where he was frustrated in his first? The answer depends on how hard he tries and how willing the Republicans in Congress are to work with him.

On global warming, Obama’s hand may be strengthened. His tenure in office no longer depends on voters in the coal-producing precincts of Ohio and Pennsylvania. Also, as of this past summer, opinion surveys show an upward trend in public concern about climate because of what people experience firsthand: freak droughts in the Corn Belt, falling water tables in the Southwest, catastrophic fires in the Rockies and a tropical storm devastating the Northeast in late October. Ironically, Sandy provided an election-eve pair of boons for Obama: Michael Bloomberg, an Independent and New York City’s mayor, endorsed the president; and Chris Christie, Republican governor of New Jersey, praised Obama for his handling of the disaster.

Another test of Obama’s courage of his convictions is whether he makes an all-out effort to ratify the CTBT.

The overarching question about Obama’s second term is whether he can reassure his domestic constituency and his global one that America is governable. Traveling around the world, I’ve been struck by the level of interest in – and anxiety about – this year’s U.S. elections. The suspense wasn’t just about who would win, but whether winners and losers in the races for the White House and Congress can break the multiple impasses that have so crippled national governance in recent years.

Much will depend on whether the federal government can avoid hurtling over the edge of the so-called fiscal cliff. If so, it will augur well not just for the U.S. economy but for the world’s. It will also help restore American leadership of global governance, by that or any other name. While that won’t get Obama another Nobel Prize, it will make him, and the Norwegians, feel better about the one he collected three years ago.

Authors

Strobe Talbott

Publication: Yale Global Online

Image Source: © Damir Sagolj / Reuters

A Life in War and Peace: A Statesman’s Forum with Former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan

Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:30:00 -0400

Event Information

October 18, 2012
3:30 PM - 5:00 PM EDT

Falk Auditorium
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

On October 18, Foreign Policy at Brookings hosted former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan in a discussion of his life and work on behalf of world stability and human rights. The event marked the recent release of his memoir, Interventions: A Life in War and Peace (Penguin Press, 2012). Co-recipient of the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize, Annan served two terms as U.N. secretary general beginning in 1997, the first sub-Saharan African to hold that position in the U.N.’s history. In his memoir, Annan reflects on his successes and the challenges he faced during his 40 years at the United Nations, and makes a strong case for the U.N.'s continued relevance in the decades ahead.

Annan held a number of positions at the U.N., including as assistant secretary general for peacekeeping operations during the Rwandan and Bosnia genocides. As secretary general, Annan shepherded a new international doctrine known as the “Responsibility to Protect,” which places a moral obligation on states to protect their citizens while also pressing major powers to ensure that the use of force in any conflict is legitimate. Having stepped down as U.N. secretary general in 2006, Annan was named the U.N.-Arab League envoy for Syria earlier this year, taking on the difficult task of ending that violent conflict.

Brookings President Strobe Talbott introduced Mr. Annan and moderated a discussion focusing on Mr. Annan’s work at the United Nations and his ongoing efforts to establish peace and protect human life and dignity. After the program, Mr. Annan took audience questions.

Video

Audio

A Life in War and Peace: A Statesman’s Forum with Former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan

Transcript

Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

kofi annan final transcript

A Conversation with Former World Bank President Robert Zoellick

Fri, 03 Aug 2012 18:00:00 -0400

Event Information

August 3, 2012
6:00 PM - 7:30 PM EDT

Online Only
Live Webcast

On August 3, Global Economy and Development at Brookings and the Aspen Strategy Group hosted former World Bank President Robert Zoellick for a conversation about global development, the fight against extreme poverty, and his time at the helm of the World Bank. With much of the world still recovering from the global financial crisis, efforts to reduce poverty have become even more challenging. Mr. Zoellick is uniquely placed to provide insight on global attitudes toward international aid and development goals. Mr. Zoellick recently stepped down as president of the World Bank after serving in that office for the past five years. He also has held several senior positions in the U.S. government, including deputy secretary of state and U.S. trade representative under President George W. Bush.

Brookings President Strobe Talbott provided introductory remarks and moderated the discussion with Mr. Zoellick, which included questions from the audience.

This event is part of the Brookings Blum Roundtable, an off-the-record annual forum for global leaders, entrepreneurs and practioners to discuss innovative ideas and advance groundbreaking initiatives to alleviate global poverty. The theme of this year’s roundtable is “Innovation and Technology for Development”.

U.S. Manufacturing: Policies for a New Economic Reality

Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:00:00 -0400

Event Information

July 12, 2012
9:00 AM - 12:15 PM EDT

Falk Auditorium
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

First Annual John White, Jr. Forum on Public Policy

Manufacturing has played a vital role in the United States’ economic and social development since the nation’s founding. And while the manufacturing sector has seen more than 5 million lost American jobs over the past decade, it is nonetheless experiencing a notable renaissance. As the country continues to combat economic pressures not seen since the Great Depression, manufacturers, labor and legislators are identifying policies to strengthen manufacturing and reenergize this highly important sector to the U.S. economy.

On July 12, the Governance Studies program at Brookings hosted a half-day conference focused on fortifying manufacturing to improve the United States’ future economic performance, social mobility and edge in innovation. Questions explored include: what does good manufacturing policy look like in a new economic reality? What are management and labor doing to strengthen the sector? What are the best ways to address the challenges facing U.S. manufacturing? And how does manufacturing play a role in the United States’ standing as the world’s leader in innovation? The conference marked the first annual John White, Jr. Forum on Public Policy, which convenes leaders from academia, business and government to discuss and identify solutions to the United States’ most pressing challenges.

Video

Transcript

Event Materials

It's the Climate, Stupid!

Strobe Talbott and John-Michael Arnold — Fri, 25 May 2012 00:00:00 -0400

Follow @BICampaign2012
Editor's Note: For Campaign 2012, Bruce Jones, Thomas Wright and Jane Esberg wrote a policy brief proposing ideas for the next president on America’s role in the world. The following paper is a response to Jones, Wright and Esberg’s piece from Strobe Talbott and John-Michael Arnold. Homi Kharas also prepared a response arguing that stark ideological differences between Republicans and Democrats mean the 2012 presidential election could have far-reaching impacts on America’s role in the world.

Bruce Jones, Jane Esberg, and Thomas Wright’s comprehensive and judicious review of foreign policy as a campaign issue in 2012 leads us to reflect on several broad points that the authors either probe or touch upon.

Eight and a half months before Election Day, 2012 is already a vivid reminder of how presidential campaigns often impede far-sighted U.S. foreign policy and harm the country’s image and effectiveness abroad. Any American who travels widely is likely to hear complaints, commiseration, or stupefaction over the way people go about electing, reelecting, or firing their chief executive here. The most important function of American democracy is far from the most dignified and edifying. Foreign friends are aghast at how expensive campaigns are. Newspapers on every continent have played up estimates that it now costs upwards of $1 billion to win—or, for that matter, to lose—the White House. They note how conducive electioneering is to the polarization of the body politic and the dumbing down of serious issues, and how difficult it is for other governments to get business done with the United States during a political season that seems to go on forever.

Most people around the world hope that their country will not be mentioned in the campaign debates or in candidates’ stump speeches—and for good reason: if a nation is singled out, it is likely to be a target of disdain or anger. Think of 2004, when Francophobia was all the rage, or the China-bashing that accompanies pretty much every election year. The only regular exceptions are Israel and Great Britain. Americans should be aware of the damage that the way they conduct the most consequential manifestation of their political life is doing to their standing as the inventor of modern democracy.

Then there’s the more immediate—and, one must hope, aberrational—extent to which U.S. diplomacy and international leadership have been hobbled by the extreme partisanship that began even before Barack Obama was inaugurated. The polarization of American politics and the resulting paralysis of national governance have been worse during the past three-plus years than at any time going back to the late nineteenth century. The scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners, make-no-compromises mood in Washington has kept the federal government from serving well its own citizens and the world as a whole in at least three fields.

The first is geoeconomics, which is increasingly a synonym for—or at least a key component of—geopolitics. The U.S. government’s inability to address adequately, even rationally, its own fiscal crisis threatens the global recovery as well as the American one.

The second is in international security. The United States has, for the past thirteen years, been mired in the embarrassing, even shameful position of refusing to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, thereby making itself the most conspicuous holdout in the consummation of a process that was sponsored by American statecraft since the 1950s. President Obama came into office determined to secure Senate approval of the treaty in his first term, but that hope was dashed in the politically bloody aftermath of the health care wars.

On both economic and security policy, the United States is suffering from an acute case of “2013itis”: almost no matter what the issue, and no matter whom you ask about the prospects for progress, the answer is “We’ll get to that next year.”

And then there’s climate change, the most urgent, most consequential, most dangerous issue of these times. Climate change is also the ultimate example of the nexus between U.S. domestic and foreign policy. As long as the United States is tied up in knots at home, it can’t lead the world.

American voters today have an unprecedentedly onerous distinction: they are both the first generation to realize that they live in the era of global warming and also the last generation with a chance to do something about it. The human enterprise must cut its emissions of greenhouse gases by 50 percent in the coming decades, a period when population is projected to grow by 50 percent. That means in the next five years people have got to begin bending the curve of emissions that drives global warming—otherwise it will probably be too late to head off an irreversibly catastrophic tipping point somewhere around midcentury.

In meeting this daunting challenge, the United States—which has pumped almost a third of total global carbon emissions into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution—is uniquely able to catalyze international consensus and action. Whether that is called a window of opportunity or a window of obligation, it is closing.

During his campaign for the presidency four years ago and in the afterglow of being elected, Obama seemed ideal for the role and responsibility of catalyst. His identity and biography were like a parable of the United States as an artifact of globalization at its best. In his statements on the campaign trail in 2008, in his victory speech in Grant Park, and in his inaugural address, he gave priority to rescuing what he called a “planet in peril,” and he vowed to put new emphasis on cooperative solutions to global threats, particularly climate change. In 2009 he undertook a rescue mission to prevent a debacle at the Copenhagen conference on climate change. Back home, he was still pushing hard for cap-and-trade legislation only to see it eventually collapse in the Senate. Since then, the climate issue has been the most conspicuous symptom of 2013itis. The looming question of the 2012 campaign is whether that disease, as its nickname suggests, can be cured after the election. Will a reelected Obama succeed in his second term where he failed in his first? Or will a President Mitt Romney, if he survives the lingering resistance to his nomination within the GOP and goes on to triumph in November, muster the political will to make up for all these lost years?

It won’t be easy. Both men have demonstrated an awareness of the challenge and its urgency in the past. During Romney’s governorship, Massachusetts imposed mandatory carbon emission limits on power plants. But that was six years ago. Now, in a concession to the skeptics who hold sway in his party, Mitt Romney’s position is that “we don’t know what’s causing climate change.”

As for how 2012 will end, no one yet knows who will win the election and how the Earth’s fever chart will look, but they can be sure of this: not only will the United States score zero progress on the climate/energy issue, but there will be backsliding in terms of the public debate and education surrounding it. That’s in part because outright deniers of the science and opponents of corrective action have the upper hand in that debate, but also it’s because of the widespread antipathy in the American electorate to any new taxes, notably including a carbon tax by that or any other name. One must hope that both those factors recede in 2013 and that it’s not too late for the United States to make the transition from being a huge part of the problem to becoming a significant—and leading—part of the solution.

Downloads

Download Paper

Authors

Strobe Talbott
John-Michael Arnold

Campaign 2012: America’s Role in the World

Fri, 25 May 2012 11:00:00 -0400

Event Information

May 25, 2012
11:00 AM - 12:30 PM EDT

Falk Auditorium
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

Follow @BICampaign2012

Despite America’s longstanding status as the world’s only superpower, rapid globalization and new global security threats have raised questions about America’s role in the international order. The U.S. must contend with the rise of strong economic actors like China and Brazil, while volatile regions like the Middle East and the Korean peninsula remain dependent on America’s international security presence. The next president will have to manage these dual realities while protecting American interests at home and abroad.

On May 25, the Campaign 2012 project at Brookings held a discussion on America’s role in the world, the sixth in a series of forums that identify and address the 12 most critical issues facing the next president. Deputy White House Editor Edward-Isaac Dovere of POLITICO moderated a panel discussion with Brookings experts Bruce Jones, Strobe Talbott and Homi Kharas, who presented recommendations to the next president.

After the program, panelists took questions from the audience.

You can follow the conversation on this event on Twitter using the hashtag #AmericasRole or on our @BICampaign2012 Twitter feed.

Download papers from the event:

Reviving American Leadership: The Next President Should Continue on the Path Obama Has Set, by Bruce Jones, Thomas Wright, and Jane Esberg
It's the Climate, Stupid!, by Strobe Talbott and John-Michael Arnold
Less Agreement Than Meets the Eye, by Homi Kharas

Campaign 2012: Twelve Independent Ideas for Improving American Public Policy is an indispensable guide to the key questions facing White House hopefuls in 2012.

Video

Audio

Campaign 2012: America’s Role in the World

Transcript

Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20120525_campaign2012_americas_role

Participants

Panelists

Benjamin Wittes

Edward-Isaac Dovere

Deputy White House Editor

Bruce Jones

Homi Kharas

Strobe Talbott

Visions of Europe in an Election Year

Wed, 23 May 2012 13:30:00 -0400

Event Information

May 23, 2012
1:30 PM - 6:00 PM EDT

Falk Auditorium
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

With many national economies slipping back into recession and voters in Greece, France and the United Kingdom rejecting austerity measures in recent elections, the European political and economic landscape has shifted again. Europe now seems headed towards a revised social contract and a new round of negotiations to respond to the continuing financial crisis. The United States, while experiencing a mild recovery, also strives to find the right balance between fiscal consolidation and growth preservation—a mission made more challenging with the upcoming November elections. A new loss of confidence in Europe may well imperil the U.S. economy’s fragile recovery. Will similar anti-austerity political currents cross the Atlantic and bring "change" to the United States? Despite the crisis, transatlantic cooperation has increased during the Obama administration, but U.S.-EU relations will be subjected to critical examination during the election year.

On May 23, the same day European leaders will gather for an extraordinary summit in Brussels, the Center on the United States at Brookings (CUSE) and the Heinrich Böll Foundation hosted a discussion featuring experts and top officials from both sides of the Atlantic for the 2012 CUSE Annual Conference. Panelists explored critical issues shaping the future of transatlantic relations in a year of elections and political transitions, from the euro crisis and the future of NATO to relations with Russia, Turkey and the Middle East.

After each panel, participants took audience questions.

The event is available in full on C-SPAN »

Video

Transcript

Event Materials

Participants

Panelists

Strobe Talbott

Philip H. Gordon

Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs

Justin Vaisse

Sylvie Kauffman

Editorial Director

Martin Klingst

Washington Bureau Chief

John Peet

Europe Editor

Jonathan Laurence

Ellen Tauscher

Vice Chair, Scowcroft Center on International Security

Kurt Volker

Preventing Genocide and Mass Atrocities: Building on the Legacy of Richard Holbrooke

Tue, 22 May 2012 10:00:00 -0400

Event Information

May 22, 2012
10:00 AM - 12:00 PM EDT

Falk Auditorium
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

A strong international commitment to the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities was a central theme of the late Ambassador Richard Holbrooke’s life and work. Last month, the Obama administration created an Atrocities Prevention Board, citing the prevention of mass atrocities and genocide as both a core national security interest and moral responsibility of the United States. On May 22, the Brookings Institution, in collaboration with the Central European University School of Public Policy and International Affairs, hosted a discussion on U.S. and international efforts to prevent genocide and mass atrocities, building on Ambassador Holbrooke’s legacy.

The first panel, moderated by Brookings President Strobe Talbott, focused on what can be learned from Ambassador Holbrooke’s work, especially in terms of atrocity prevention. Panelists included Robert Orr, U.N. assistant secretary general for policy coordination and strategic planning; Kati Marton, author and journalist; and Vali Nasr, dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and senior fellow in Foreign Policy at Brookings. The second panel, moderated by Senior Fellow Bruce Jones, director of the Managing Global Order project at Brookings, addressed future challenges and policy choices in genocide and mass atrocity prevention. Panelists included John Shattuck, president and rector, Central European University; and Renata Uitz, professor of law, Central European University.

After each session, the panel took audience questions.