The evening also featured a brief presentation by Christina Holman, a junior at George Mason High School in Falls Church, Virginia, who attended the WAC-DC International Affairs Leadership Academy in July 2011.  As a “student ambassador,” Christina spoke of her dreams to be “a leader in foreign policy” and how the “world community needs a world of communications”, emphasizing the importance of events like this evening.

Following Christina, Dr. Shank accepted the Global Education Leadership Award on behalf of Marymount University.  With remarks displaying sincere humility, Dr. Shank quoted the founder of Marymount University, Mother Butler: “Education itself in its nature is international; it can’t be limited to nations and continents.”  These founding ideals of globalism and multiculturalism are what Dr. Shank is focusing on during his presidency.  Concluding, he promised to continue pro-actively promoting global education, while encouraging Marymount University’s student body to welcome and embrace international cultures.     

As the recipient of the Council’s 2012 International Outstanding Public Service Award, Gen. Alexander took the stage following dinner.  Jim Sheaffer, President of CSC’s North American Public Sector, in his remarks introducing General Alexander, stressed the importance of developing mutual understandings between young people and global affairs as a key to advancing global security.  Throughout his highly engaging keynote address, replete with entertaining but poignant anecdotes, Gen. Alexander’s primarily focused the need to identify and remedy vulnerabilities of cyber defense mechanisms to better ensure national cyber security.  As cyber space is one big network with different cyber actors with different cyber focuses, countries have to cooperate if cyber security is to be achieved, he asserted.  According to Gen. Alexander, building partnerships is the most crucial step to increasing international global security.  Partnerships between government and the industry, as well as national governments, helps to “build defensible architecture”, which makes it harder for cyber criminals to penetrate.  The General called on corporations to share information on cyber intelligence, as well as highlighted the significance of the World Affairs Council-Washington, DC in helping to build these intra-government or more specifically, government-to-business understandings and partnerships.  He further advocated for a more active and preventive defense, which can be achieved through greater inclusion, coordination and cooperation with other government departments and agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, FBI, and Department of Defense, in the cyber security assessment and decision-making process.  Gen. Alexander concluded by expressing his confidence that by  working together with U.S. CyberCommand and the National Security Agency, along with private defense and security industry to create a more transparent cyber-intelligence network, our nation and we as individuals will be more cyber-secure, both domestically and globally.

The event was recorded to be broadcast at a later date on MHz Worldview as an episode of “World Affairs TODAY”.

Mr. Coggan is currently the Buttonwood columnist of The Economist; he also held a twenty-year post at the Financial Times, where he worked as Investment Editor and wrote the “Long View” and “Last Word” columns, as well as founding a complimentary column, “Short View”.  The author of several finance-savvy books, Mr. Coggan’s latest work examines the longstanding issues surrounding money, debt, and dealing with financial crises.  With the current global economy in turmoil once again, Mr. Coggan set out to help the audience understand the origins and implications of the financial crisis.

“What is money, really?” Mr. Coggan asked.  With equal parts humor, wit, and savoir-faire, he proceeded to lead listeners on a whirlwind tour of money, value, and various governmental approaches to balancing the national coffers.   Since the beginnings of paper currency use, Mr. Coggan noted, the government has had three tasks: 1) ensuring that paper money has value, 2) ensuring its external value outside of the country, and 3) ensuring that the government can finance itself at a reasonable rate.  From Zimbabwe to Greece, Mr. Coggan pointed to various instances in history where governments have failed one or several of these criteria.

People rely on money to serve as both a means of exchange and as a means of storing value.  But in the last forty years, several western economies have worked themselves into debts that will not be so easily repaid.  Drawing on the lessons of the financial crises of the 1930s and 1970s, Mr. Coggan predicted that these growing economic woes will necessarily produce significant changes. Indeed, Paper Promises speculates that governments may fall, currency values will be lost, and new financial systems will emerge.  Most notable, perhaps, is Mr. Coggan’s observation of the passing of the United States’ “unipolar moment” in history.  Shifting economic systems will mean a future with China and the Middle East as the new creditors.

“This will be a political issue for the next ten, twenty years,” Mr. Coggan stated.  “We’ve had a huge spree, and the fee is coming due.” The economic struggle, he says, will be one that pits rich against poor, young against old, public sector workers against taxpayers, and one country against another.  At the head of it all are the governments struggling to keep their promises to their citizens.  As it stands, governments make three sorts of paper promises: the value of paper money itself, the paper of debts to be paid, and the promise of benefits to its citizens.  If we don’t grow out of the current crisis, Mr. Coggan warns, these are promises that will have to be broken.

Paper Promises, the latest book from Economist columnist Philip Coggan, is currently available from Penguin Press.

Mr. Reckford brought up interesting points that should be taken into account, such as the fact that this is the first time the Republic of China in Taiwan faces simultaneous legislative and presidential elections. Also, he pointed out the importance of the 1992 consensus as a tool for China-Taiwan relations, to which Mr. Romberg referred as “constructive ambiguity”. In this context, cross-Strait relations have reached a level of normalization where even a direct flight between China and Taiwan was allowed to be installed.

Mr. Romberg noted that politics in Taiwan are evolving to the point where we now see political platforms based around social justice and equality. This is new in an island that was founded on the principle of opposing these very concepts as they were applied in the People’s Republic of China. However, even though their politics are evolving, he noted that people in Taiwan actually have no reason to seek a profound change in their system. While Taiwan is still a security liability for China, the leadership in Beijing also sees no reason to change the situation dramatically.

At the other end of the table, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson made his position clear on the point that a rushed normalization of the United States’ relations with Cuba would be devastating to the country. However, he stated that the manner in which remittances are being used by Cubans to attain a higher standard of living serves as proof that a gradual normalization of relations would actually help them. He argued that the current relationship with Cuba was perpetuated for domestic reasons in the United States. Namely, most administrations needed to count on the Cuban-American vote in the state of Florida in order to secure elections and other items on their agendas. While the Obama administration is the first one that was not in need of Florida’s votes to win the 2009 elections, Col. Wilkerson argued that the continuation of the United States’ embargo on Cuba is still the result of a minority’s work.

As the end of the debate approached, questions were raised about whether Cuba itself or Cuba’s non-democratic regime continues to be a threat to the United States. While Mr. Gonzalez stated that Cuba itself was still a threat because of its non-democratic regime, Col. Wilkerson argued that the real threat was to Cuba itself from the Cuban-American lobby in the United States. A comparison between Cuba and the People’s Republic of China showed the contrasting priorities set out for American foreign policy as it concerns the American public. Both Mr. Gonzalez and Col. Wilkerson agreed that China is indeed a bigger threat than Cuba.

The event was recorded to be broadcasted at a later date on MHz Worldview as an episode of “World Affairs Today”.

With his impeccable English the ambassador addressed the audience about the new relationship building between the United States and Mexico that has morphed into a bilateral, rather than a unilateral, cooperation. He describes this relationship are being intermestic and strategic. He noted that Mexico has grown from a low income to middle-income country in the last 15 years, as a result of extensive efforts to maintain a sustained and regulated banking system. New issues such as water, energy, border infrastructure and immigration, now concern both sides of the border. Hence Ambassador Sarukhan emphasized that both countries need to work together on the same political agenda to keep moving forward.  Turning to recent events, His Excellency noted that public opinion on the narcotics war has been overall negative. On the American side the main concern is about spilled violence and illegal immigration, while on the Mexican side there are negative remarks concerning American drug use and illegal arms trade. Here is where the second characteristic of the bilateral relationship comes into play. The Ambassador described the need for the same “toolbox”, where the policy making relies upon five common drivers: border security, facilitated trade, energy efficiency and security, continued economic well being, and global and regional policy.

Bill Schneider continued the program asking the Ambassador about Mexico’s recent status on being accepting into the Trans-Pacific Partnership. H.E. Sarukhan stated clearly that obtaining the TPP status was the next stepping stone to deepening trade and enhance competitiveness amongst the Pacific maritime countries.  The Ambassador explained that after NAFTA, Mexico was ready to “stop playing checkers and make its first move playing chess”. Turning to the upcoming presidential elections in Mexico, Mr. Schneider expressed his concern that crime would affect the progress of elections and the potential impact on candidates. The Ambassador explained that the three main issues that the Mexican ballot vote will take into account will be improving job quantity, economy stability and most of all, public security.  He gave praise to Calderon’s administration for its offensive efforts to maintain control of the issues regarding the gang-on-gang violence. The Ambassador made it clear that whoever thought that the violence was going to be controlled in three to six years was “smoking too much of what we are seizing”.

The event concluded with the Ambassador quoting Mexican Nobel laureate Ocatvio Paz who once said   “Mexico does not know how to speak out and the United States does not know how to listen”. Due to the ever-changing issues that affect both countries, this has begun to change. Today both countries have and need to keep working together to overcome pending issues and deepen their relationship to enhance economic growth and trade.

After a brief introduction from the WAC-DC president, Heidi Shoup, Dr. Parsi gave the Council members and the audience insights into issues addressed in his latest book, A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran, that uncovers the previously unknown story of the American and Iranian negotiations during Obama’s early years as President, the miscalculations behind the two nations’ dealings, and the reasons for their current stalemate.  The book was based on more than 60 interviews with top political players from the Obama administration, Iranian and European governments, and surprisingly from the Turkish and Brazilian governments.

Dr. Parsi began by noting the unprecedented opening that Obama perceived at the beginning of his presidential years, to extend a hand of diplomacy and put an end to the longstanding conflict. There was a strategic necessity to mend the mistakes that were committed by past Administrations, given the fact that Iran is an influential player in the Middle East and, most importantly, possesses an unknown amount of stockpiled uranium fuel. The first move was up to the United States, so Obama began by modifying the language and tone the U.S. used with the objective of creating an atmosphere conducive to discussion. The Iranian government responded with what has become their current motto; “If you change, we will change”. The second opportunity came when Mohamed ElBaradei, who was the General Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, leaked to the US that Iran had run out of resources. This was viewed as an opportunity as the depleted uranium count would be monitored not only by the U.S. but also by the IAEA. Several deals were proposed but went unanswered from the Iranian government who were concerned about losing their main strategic defense position.

Dr. Parsi proceeded to recount interesting events that continued throughout Obama’s presidency which led to the involvement of the Brazilian and Turkish governments, a broken deal, a leaked letter, the vote for sanctions on Iran from the Security Council, and finally to where we are today, – in a deadlock and a near war situation. The author quoted a senior member of the Obama Administration who admitted that the U.S. strategy was a gamble, and its diplomatic approach to Iran was based on a “single roll of the dice”. It was a huge risk and a gamble that the Obama Administration had to take in the first months in office. Unfortunately, the initiative backfired during the 2010 Iranian elections conflict where chances for diplomacy could not find solid ground.

Concluding his presentation, Dr. Parsi seemed optimistic that U.S. diplomatic resources had not been fully exhausted yet. He called for sustainable, patient, transparent and consistent diplomacy to reduce tensions, step-by-step, as has been done successfully with other countries in the past such as Vietnam and Northern Ireland.

Ms. Thompson began the debate stating that World affairs have certainly changed from the time the embargo on Cuba was instated. Fifty years after the embargo was imposed, the United States’ problems with Cuba hardly take up any space in the regular political agenda, as other issues such as the situations in Iraq and Iran appear further up in the Obama administration’s priorities. In this day and age, the United States already has robust relations with communist countries such as Vietnam, while many capitalist countries such as Germany and Canada trade openly with Cuba. Although Raul Castro holds day-to-day power in modern day Cuba, it is understood that Fidel Castro still wields “real” power over the country.

Mr. Mike Gonzalez pointed out how the current Cuban regime continues to harass its population, noting the regime made up to 786 political arrests in 2011. He argued that having the United States normalize relations with the Castro brothers’ regime would legitimize it, leaving Cubans to their own resources as their oppressors become oligarchs with the consent of the American government. In regards to the consequences of keeping such a long-standing embargo, Mr. Gonzalez contended that the United States was “on the good side of history” by not injecting any metaphorical oxygen into the Communist Party of Cuba’s grip over the island. Regarding the longevity of the regime, he stated that it was not any other country’s job to pick Cuba’s leaders. According to him, normalizing the relations with the United States would only help perpetuate the military’s power over the island.

At the other end of the table, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson made his position clear on the point that a rushed normalization of the United States’ relations with Cuba would be devastating to the country. However, he stated that the manner in which remittances are being used by Cubans to attain a higher standard of living serves as proof that a gradual normalization of relations would actually help them. He argued that the current relationship with Cuba was perpetuated for domestic reasons in the United States. Namely, most administrations needed to count on the Cuban-American vote in the state of Florida in order to secure elections and other items on their agendas. While the Obama administration is the first one that was not in need of Florida’s votes to win the 2009 elections, Col. Wilkerson argued that the continuation of the United States’ embargo on Cuba is still the result of a minority’s work.

As the end of the debate approached, questions were raised about whether Cuba itself or Cuba’s non-democratic regime continues to be a threat to the United States. While Mr. Gonzalez stated that Cuba itself was still a threat because of its non-democratic regime, Col. Wilkerson argued that the real threat was to Cuba itself from the Cuban-American lobby in the United States. A comparison between Cuba and the People’s Republic of China showed the contrasting priorities set out for American foreign policy as it concerns the American public. Both Mr. Gonzalez and Col. Wilkerson agreed that China is indeed a bigger threat than Cuba.

The event was recorded to be broadcasted at a later date on MHz Worldview as an episode of “World Affairs Today”.

Ambassador Courtney introduced the speakers and opened the discussion by referring to the recent protests in Russia in response to the alleged fraud and voter intimidation by the government regarding of the recently held parliamentary elections. He then asked Mr. Kara-Murza how he would define the political crisis in Russia. Mr. Kara-Murza answered the question by emphasizing the fact that there is an inaccurate stereotype maintained by the American public that the protests by Russian people were about economic issues.   Not so.  He strongly argued that what the mass public wants in Russia is dignity and self-respect. They realized that it is time to rise up, expressing “enough is enough”. He also said that these protests will trigger the necessary political changes in Russia, and mark the turning point in its political history.

Dr. Diuk discussed Russian influence on “near abroad” countries and the effect of current turmoil to them. She pointed out that the “near abroad” countries, mostly former Soviet republics, feel pressure and are paying close attention to the protests and the outcomes. Even though no one can predict the result of the Russian presidential election in March, Dr. Diuk said, if Vladimir Putin ends up being the next president, he will have to be a totally different person as the Russian public has strongly expressed their demands and overwhelming discontent through the protests.

Mr. Nurick commented on the potential impact to the US-Russia relations. To the question of what it would mean for U.S. diplomacy if Putin is re-elected, he answered that he would suspect more contentious and problematic relations between the two countries. Putin’s rhetoric and propagandizing would make it more difficult to tackle the issues that the two countries have at the moment. He also expressed his concerns regarding the spread of terrorism and insurgency in Russia with 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics ahead. He said there is possibility that the protesters can become violent and tension continue.

Mr. Kara-Murza was hesitant to admit that the Arab spring motivated Russian protesters. He said that the nature of the protest is different from most of the protests in Arab countries, even though in the case of Egypt the protests were triggered by the election fraud. He said currently the protests in Moscow are very peaceful, and the mentality of the people protesting is quite different from those of Arab countries.

The event was taped and will be produced into an episode that will air on “World Affairs TODAY”, to be broadcasted on MHz Worldview at a later date.

Lynn and Tom Abercrombie, self-described high school sweethearts, began their photography adventures in their teens.  Throughout the program, Mrs. Abercrombie recounted the career path of her husband, a renaissance man with guts, guile and innate adaptability that made him well-suited to exploring different cultures and climates, from his first trip to Lebanon and the deserts of the Middle East to his assignment in Antarctica.  Taking in slide after slide of phenomenal photographs, it is clear that the Mr. Abercrombie had immense talent and an impressive resume.  For instance, after converting to Islam, he was the first western photographer at record the hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, and the first photographic correspondent to reach the South Pole.  But beyond the impressive list of assignments, locations and accomplishments, one thing is clearly evident: that in addition to cameras and photography equipment, Lynn and Tom Abercrombie also traveled with an undying passion and sense of wonder for the people and places around them.  Mrs. Abercrombie noted that Tom liked to think of his work as adding planks to the bridges of understanding between countries.  After an evening of stories and photographs, the audience could only heartily agree when Mrs. Abercrombie noted, “I think Tom added more than one plank.”

 Mrs. Abercrombie was available to sign copies of Traveling the World for National Geographic at this event; while guests at the event had the opportunity to purchase the book on site, is also currently available from Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Traveling-National-Geographic-Thomas-Abercrombie/dp/B005MK2ALU

Following an introduction by Heidi Shoup, President of the World Affairs Council – Washington, DC, Ms. Prouty began the evening by recounting a few stories of her covert operations in Baghdad, including being shot at by enemy combatants and carrying out life-threatening missions whilst pregnant. However, she does not regret risking her life for the United States, a country that may not have been her native land but was the land she came to love. Her devotion to the US came out of her experience as a young woman who immigrated to this country both to attend school and to escape from an abusive father. In order to remain in the U.S., Ms. Prouty engaged in a sham marriage (a fact that, she asserts, was disclosed to both the FBI and CIA during her vetting process).

Following anecdotal recollections about her experience as an immigrant, Ms. Prouty described in detail her recruitment and service in the FBI and, later, in the CIA. Her willingness to volunteer for the most dangerous of missions highlighted the depth of her commitment to her adopted country and her devotion to the job and mission at hand. Despite her stellar work record, Ms. Prouty became the center of a political investigation in 2007 and was accused of spying for Hezbollah and committing treason. Citing her sham marriage (which she had acknowledged in the application process) and a single count of unauthorized access to a document from her computer, prosecutors threatened to revoke her U.S. citizenship and deport her to Lebanon, as well as to reveal her status as a former FBI and CIA agent to Lebanese officials, which would have inevitably led to her being tortured and killed by groups in the country if she were deported. Fearing for her life, Ms. Prouty reluctantly pled guilty to both charges and was stripped of her citizenship, but avoided deporation to Lebanon. Subsequently, due to the efforts of the CIA, the U.S. government exonerated Ms. Prouty of all charges of espionage and treason.  However, to date, the U.S. government has not apologized, reinstated her job, or restored her citizenship.

Despite her harrowing experience, Ms. Prouty emphasized both in her talk and the following discussion with the audience that she does not harbor any ill feelings towards the U.S. as a result of her treatment. In fact, as she stated, she had to “lose the battle to win the war”. By cooperating, her case is now under review and she is currently undergoing the steps to regain her citizenship. Ultimately, Ms. Prouty is hopeful that she will be able to return to work and looks forward to once again serving the United States – but if she is successful, she will not be at the liberty to tell us.

The Author Series program was taped and will be produced into an episode that will air on the World Affairs Council – DC’s own television program, “World Affairs TODAY”, to be broadcasted on MHz Worldview network at a later date. For local channel listings, please visit: http://www.mhznetworks.org/how-to-watch-mhz/

 As Prince Turki al-Faisal began, he framed his speech using a sailing metaphor – “tour d’ horizon;” indicating that after carefully considering and viewing “ seas of change,” that while the conditions for Saudi Arabia currently may be stable, the “weather” forecast appears very troubling. Prince Turki referred to Saudi Arabia as the “calm in the eye of a storm,” caught up in the midst of “Arab troubled seas,” commonly known as the Arab Spring, as Middle East governments crumble and rapid changes occur in the social world, as Saudi addresses its own internal issues and confronts long-standing practices and changes that need to be re-examined and adjustments made.

According to Prince Turki,  Syrian President Bashar Assad’s refusal to halt his government’s violence against its own people has made his departure from power inevitable. As the former chief of Saudi intelligence services, Prince Turki said Assad had made his position clear by failing to live up to commitments made under an Arab League initiative to stop the bloodshed and start political dialogue.

The Prince said the Arab League had given Assad a “last chance” to comply with its proposal to resolve the situation and would now be expected to take further steps — citing Libya as a precedent. He also said that Saudi Arabia and its partners in the Gulf first brought Libya to the Arab League in March “and pushed the Arab League to take a decision to move the issue to the United Nations Security Council and bring about the resolution that allowed for intervention in Libya.” “Whether the Arab League will go that route (on Syria), I really can’t say, but it is an option and it has been practiced by the Arab League,” he said.

With regards to Iran’s alleged plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United, Prince Turki claimed that there was “ample and heinous” evidence that Iran was behind it. He said that if Tehran failed to investigate and prosecute Iranians linked to the plot, Saudia Arabia would take its case to the United Nations.  The Prince encouraged a concerted regional and global effort to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapon production capability, and warned of dire consequences for Iran if it continues to engage in regional mischief and pursue its nuclear weapons ambitions.

While the “Arab Troubles” are an example of new troubles for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors, Prince Turki al-Faisal also addressed longstanding problems; mainly that of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. His Royal Highness noted that the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the U.S., while continuing to be strong, is strained because of a strong disagreement on how to resolve this persistent  issue.   Prince Turki emphatically stated his continued support for the recognition of a Palestinian state. He believes that in order for there to be a just, enduring resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian dispute, meaningful, productive negotiations peace must involve both parties sitting at the negotiating table as equals – one sovereign state negotiating with another.  Therefore, he advocated strongly in favor of the Palestinian quest to seek and secure recognition as a sovereign state, and UN membership.

 As the press conference concluded, Prince Turki al-Faisal reassured the audience Saudi Arabia was in “quite good sailing conditions,” as prospects of alternative energy, social progress, and economic growth took the forefront in new policy.  The Prince then responded to questions from the press and TV media for approximately 20 minutes.