The foundation of Dr. Parsons’ argument lay in creating a firm definition of imperialism. Throughout the centuries imperialism has become representative of a number of ideas, understood in varied ways by differing cultures. From ancient Rome to British India, from economic empires and political ideologies to Soviet republics and African colonies some would have us believe that empire as an idea has remained constant and unwavering. Dr. Parsons’ arguments are based directly in contrast with this idea; they require first and foremost, an acceptance of the differences between empire and other forms of forceful coercion. In defining empire narrowly as the formal direct rule of one group over another, Parsons prepared the rest of his argument to stand up against possible criticisms via examples of cultural assimilation and economic hegemony.

With this definition firmly set Dr. Parsons expressed his stance that empire could never be morally or fiscally justifiable. In contrast with our appreciation for some of these past great “civilizers” and military regimes, Parsons painted a picture of inequality, servitude and exploitation. Here I believe Dr. Parsons would likely be engaged by all of the standard traditional arguments over the betterment of native societies and moral superiority of these past conquering nations. Dr. Parsons might find his ideas less argued however in the area of his stance against the fiscal sustainability of empire.

Once, when governors had less ability to control the daily activities of the governed, Dr. Parsons claims imperial goals might have been more reasonable. When a nation was required to delegate authority to local officials, the potential assimilation of the conquered people made resistance less an issue. In the modern empire occupiers have met a host of challenges brought by subjugation and the increased ability of subjects to communicate with one another and the outside world. In many ways the idea of moral superiority has contributed to the failure of modern empire.

The concept of an international moral order might seem new and brilliant when applied to our struggles in the Middle East, but the idea is far from fresh. Historically many with imperial aims have attempted to justify otherwise unacceptable behaviors with moral rhetoric on the benefits of lifting folk from savagery. Though few would appreciate the comparisons and some might even be offended by them, Dr. Parsons listed the actions of Rome, the Conquistadors and Hitler in justifying imperial aims. No nations have seemed impervious to this sense of nationalism gone wrong, when one takes pride in one’s own nation it unfortunately seems not a far stretch to view it as superior to all others.

On the conclusion of Dr. Parsons’ presentation, questions from the audience ranged in nature from full support to utter disagreement. Those disagreements which occurred however seemed largely irreconcilable differences over the understanding of modern empires histories.

Abdullah highlighted both the challenges and the triumphs that the US and Afghan governments have experienced since 9/11. He spoke of improved roads and infrastructure in much of the country. He also emphasized the increased freedom of speech and power of the media in Afghanistan. He pointed out achievements that have been made in education in rural areas, and the increased awareness of women’s rights. However he also highlighted how instability and insecurity in the country still pose a constant threat to future political and economic development.

Dr. Abdullah spoke of the difficulty of establishing a stable democratic government in the country due to the corruption of leaders such as President Hamid Karzai and his “cronies”. He stated that there is a growing gap between the people and the government because of a lack of transparency, because of corruption, and because of the need for rule of law. He told the audience that this gap has fueled the growth of the Taliban. He told of how, when speaking to farmers in Marja, many of them told him that they had decided to support the Taliban because it seemed like a better alternative to the corrupt officials in Kabul.

Dr. Abdullah Abdullah himself ran against President Karzai in the August 2009 presidential election.  He stated, “I took the campaign to the people, listened to them, learned from them, and framed the message of my campaign from them.” However, Abdullah stated that he was cheated out of a fair election by the lack of transparency that allowed Karzai to win the vote.

Despite this, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah cautioned the audience that the US should not conclude that democracy will not work in Afghanistan. He stated that a future leader’s success must be defined by winning and gaining the trust of the Afghan people. In September, Afghanistan will hold parliamentary elections. Dr. Abdullah recognized that this will be a test of the country’s ability to establish a transparent, democratic electoral system. He stated, “We have time to make serious corrective efforts. If we don’t the same painful experience may be repeated.” In the effort to ensure the success of these elections, Ambassador Neumann stated that foreign observation of the process must be made. Abdullah added that the Elections Complaint Commission, which is charged with ensuring the transparency and integrity of the elections, must be truly independent from the current administration.

Dr. Abdullah Abdullah also provided insightful comments on the US’s past and future involvement in Afghanistan. He spoke of the damage that a specific date for troop withdrawal had done to the US’s reputation with the Afghan people. He reminded the audience that once Afghanistan was no longer a US priority at the end of the Cold War, America abandoned the country, and it was out of this environment of sudden neglect that the extremist enemies of the US formed. He cautioned that withdrawing suddenly from the current engagement could have similar effects.

After his presentation Professor Wasserstrom allotted time to take questions from the audience. After many insightful questions from the audience, there was a reception where Professor Wasserstrom signed copies of his book, and socialized with our distinguished guests.

Following his informative presentation, Dr. Ana Christina Cabaco da Silva, President of the “Instituto do Vinho da Maderia” presented a special sample of Maderia wines along with artisanal artifacts related to the unique culture of the “Pearl of the Atlantic”, a fitting title for this Portuguese island. These beautiful, handmade artisanal linen artifacts were tastefully displayed throughout His Excellency’s residency. The unique selection of wines included a bottle of Leacock Seco from 1825, a 1925 D’Oliveira Verdelho, a 50 year old Tinta Negra Mole, and a Charleston Sercial. Guests were able to sample the wine from 1825, before the Maderia vineyards were destroyed, and compared the flavor to the newly imported vines from 1925. These delectable wines were accompanied by complementing appetizers prepared to bring out the rich flavors of the wines.

Guests were free to wander about the beautiful house to take in the magnificent linens, socialize with the distinguished hosts, sample the many rich wines, and enjoy the warm evening on the beautiful terrace in the garden.

As one might have expected after browsing through Dr. Collier’s book, his words focused heavily on the economic and socio-cultural repercussions of our use of natural assets.  Interestingly much of the material presented would likely be hard to swallow for those dedicated to either environmental or economic studies.  So often these schools of thought seem almost destined to clash but by Dr. Collier’s interpretation the clash of these ideas not only detracts from the value of each school of thought but also endangers both our present and our future.

The Oxford professor explained very clearly how critical it was that ethical debate (second nature to environmentalist) take some role in the field of economics while at the same time expressing how environmental theory is relatively worthless without a grasp of economics.  Part of Dr. Collier’s foundation for his argument lay in the reality that it would be unreasonable to assume that humanity would ever cease using natural resources and that thus preservation purely for the sake of preservation was a flawed and ultimately unjust goal.  He argued that the problem lay in economist’s failure to truly understand and express the “value” of natural resources.

So much of economic theory is stretched out of shape when applied to natural resources.  Typically through the process of creating an asset one is granted ownership of said asset, this principle of ownership is what justifies much of economic thought.  Unfortunately in the case of natural assets application of this principle is flawed, as the assets are not created by anyone they must be recognized as belonging to the many.  The best we can hope for in applying economics to assets of this sort is to spread the rights to this property evenly.

Unfortunately this is not the only problem faced by applications of economic theory to natural assets, there also lays the difficulty of the rights of the future over the rights of the present.  Economists’ views of the future are strange to say the least argued Dr. Collier, here concepts like the “util” and utilitarianism struggle and ultimately fail to properly address the issue.  Where a strict environmentalist might require that nature be preserved, an economist would require only that the “value” of these assets must be passed down rather than the assets themselves.

While in the wealthiest nations of the world preservation holds a strong sway, in the poorest nations of the world the ability to use and develop from these natural resources is often the only road to potential progress.  Due to the importance of natural assets in these nations it is even more critical that the value of these assets be preserved.  Presenting examples of misappropriated natural assets in several African nations and the failure of local governments to preserve resources for the future, Dr. Collier spoke on the importance of just government and an informed citizenry in relation to environmental issues.

After expressing the theories supported in his book, Dr. Collier accepted questions from those in attendance, further illuminating the ideas on which his economic and environmental theories were based.  Attendees fielded questions ranging from the dangers of misinformation and the impact of corruption in governance.  Realizing the difficulties present in creating an informed populace, Dr. Collier responded effectively to the questions presented even in cases where there was ultimately little in the way of definite answers.  The conflict over plundered natural resources is not one likely to disappear overnight, but certainly is a conflict worth fighting.

Heidi Shoup, President of the World Affairs Council – DC, introduced the event and gave a brief overview of the World Affairs Council system, which began as the Foreign Policy Association, founded in 1923. Today, there are over 91 councils in the United States, and taken collectively, the World Affairs Council is the largest non-profit organization in the US dedicated to the mission of promoting an understanding of foreign policy and international affairs. In line with this mission, the World Affairs Council – DC took advantage of this rare opportunity to hear from a fascinating leader whose name is well-known on the world stage.

The discussion was moderated by former US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Ambassador Herman J. Cohen, who devoted 38 years to the foreign service, and participated in track-two diplomacy that ultimately contributed to the normalization of relations between the US and Libya. In his remarks, Ambassador Cohen pointed out that Libyan Brother Leader Gaddafi is the third longest-serving head of state in the world, giving him 40 years’ worth of wisdom and knowledge.

In his address, Colonel Gaddafi first thanked the organizers and stated his support for the World Affairs Councils’ mission of helping the world to understand many international issues and find solutions. Colonel Gaddafi addressed the two main topics of US-Libyan relations and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in his remarks. He first emphasized Libya’s role as an Arab state, and his vision for Arab states in general. The Brother Leader pointed out that Libya presides over the Arab League and seeks a political and economic Arab union, which he expressed as very important for peace in the Middle East and in the world. He also promoted the idea of a permanent seat on the UN Security Council for Arab states, and a common market and currency to be shared among them, seeking an effective form of capitalism and sustainable development.

On the topic of Libyan – US relations, Colonel Gaddafi repeatedly emphasized that current relations are excellent and that there are no outstanding problems between the two countries. US oil and gas sector companies, he stated, are back to work in meeting US demands for Libyan oil. The Brother Leader expressed general support for President Obama, a ‘son of Africa’ whose friendship is important for promotion of the common interests of Arabs, Libyans, and Americans, and specifically praised Obama’s initiatives toward creating a nuclear weapons-free world. Colonel Gaddafi highlighted that unlike certain European countries in their relationships with African nations, the US has no history of colonial relations with Libya. He expressed high satisfaction with the current level of US-Libyan relations and set the goal of improving Arab-American relations in general.

In addressing the Israel-Palestinian conflict, Colonel Gaddafi drew the connection of similarities between the current Palestinian diaspora and the former Jewish diaspora, stating that the United States should side with the Palestinians, as an ‘oppressed people’ whose right of return is inalienable. He also stated that the American position toward Palestinians has been a cause for hatred toward the US among Arabs. The Brother Leader pointed to the solution proposed in his White Book, known as “Isratine,” a one-state solution based on a ‘non-discriminatory’ model similar to Lebanon, which is an Arab state whose people are a mix of religions. He also called for Israel to denuclearize, as it is a “threat to peace in the Middle East.” Colonel Gaddafi pointed out that a state drawn on the lines of race- and ethnicity-based discrimination would be outdated and harmful, and would also endanger the Jewish people. He argued that the safety of both Jews and Palestinians is at stake in resolving this question, and that the current situation constitutes a “Zionist form of colonialism.”

The Brother Leader was also gracious enough to field numerous questions from the live audience and from councils participating in the webcast. Among the issues brought up in these questions were the impact of President Obama’s election on perceptions of the US in the Muslim world, the implications of sending more troops to Afghanistan for Muslim perceptions of the US, the future potential for creation of a United States of Africa, reasons why Libya was not invited to the recent nuclear summit here in Washington, DC, the future of economic progress in US-Libyan business and investment, Libya as an example for the denuclearization of other states pursuing WMD programs, and the role of women in Libyan society. Through the thorough answers to these questions, participants gained a clear understanding of the Brother Leader’s stance on these and other issues.

On Tuesday, April 13, 2010, members and guests of the World Affairs Council – Washington, DC gathered at the Charles Sumner School to listen to global environmentalist and author, and one of Britain’s top science writers, Fred Pearce, as he demystified the topic of population growth, which he addresses in his latest work, The Coming Population Crash and Our Planet’s Surprising Future. Pearce jumped at the chance to deliver what he termed a “good news story,” which he noted, as an environmentalist in the twenty-first century, he does not often have a chance to do. Rejecting Malthusian theories, which claim that the world is doomed because of exponential population growth, Mr. Pearce clarified that in our times, exponential population growth is a myth; the growth rate is in fact falling because women are having fewer babies.

Pointing to smaller families as a growing global trend, Pearce argued that reproductive and human rights are now coming into play in determining population numbers where they have not in the past. The world average reproductive rate is 2.6 children for every woman, a number that Pearce noted as startlingly low, and very close to the 2.3 replacement rate for the world population. Pearce noted, women are “voting with their wombs” for smaller families, and speculated that this is due in part to the incompleteness of the feminist revolution; he highlighted the United States as an example of a country that provides considerable outside support for working women who choose to have babies, but clarified that many countries in the world do not yet have these support networks built in, so that when women face the choice between having a family and working, they are increasingly choosing the latter.

“Why don’t we hear about this ‘reproductive revolution’?” Pearce asked. Although the population growth rate itself is down, he explained, the population is technically still growing, adding 70 million people to the world each year. Pearce argues the momentum of growth will swing the other way sometime in the next thirty years, which is why we should pay attention to the global trend of smaller families.

The author also addressed the issues of climate change and the crunch on resources as related to population growth, purporting that our primary problem is not more people, but rather overconsumption. Pearce made the startling observation that the carbon emissions from one American are equivalent to those of four Chinese, or 20 Indians, or 250 Ethiopians. He closed the evening by discussing issues of migration and aging, taking an optimistic outlook that we will become “older, wiser and greener.”

On Saturday, April 10, 2010, thirty greater DC area high school teachers participated in a day-long seminar on Turkey, a topic that is often difficult to integrate into standardized curricula. The day was filled with six fantastic speakers, who illuminated various aspects of the country, including Turkey-US relations, Turkish history, Ottoman-style Islamic Art, Turkey, NATO and the EU, and Turkish culture. The program also included an important section on curriculum development, giving teachers the chance to flex their creative muscles in an interactive activity requiring them to generate lesson plans, and offered suggestions of ways to bring Turkey into the classroom.

The morning portion of the seminar included lectures by Berkan Pazarci, Counselor at the Embassy of Turkey, and Kemal Kirisci, a Fellow at the Transatlantic Alliance of the German Marshall Fund, and Katie Ziglar, the Director of External Development at the Freer/Sackler Gallery. Pazarci emphasized Turkey’s increasingly balanced and symmetrical relationship with the United States, which is based on mutual interest. He addressed issues such as Turkey’s take on the war on terrorism, the country’s aspirations to become a global actor, the influence of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee’s controversial vote to condemn the mass killings of Armenians in the early 20^th century as genocide, and more. Kirisci’s talk focused on modern Turkish history, including Turkey’s transition from empire to republic, its modernization and Westernization, its bid for EU membership, and also highlighted the theme of Turkish identity. Ms. Ziglar shared her expertise on Islamic Art in the Ottoman style, discussing Istanbul as the meeting point of Asia and Europe and the many influences on Ottoman art, especially trade with China, the religion of Islam, and the early use of vibrant colors such as cobalt blue and red in ceramics.

After a delicious lunch of Turkish cuisine provided by Rosemary Thyme Bistro, the seminar continued through the afternoon with a lecture by Joshua Walker, also a Fellow at the Transatlantic Alliance of the German Marshall Fund, and presentations by Susan Douglass from the Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim – Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, and Bonnie Joy Kaslan from the Turkish Cultural Foundation. In his lecture, Mr. Walker focused on the transition of the character of Turkey’s power and role in the region and how this has influenced its relationship with the West. He pointed out the value that Turkey has held for the United States in light of the war on terror, citing former President Bush’s remark that the Turks are the “good Muslims,” on the right side, thus demonstrating that the war on terrorism is not a war on Islam. Walker shared an insightful analysis of Turkish participation in multilateral organizations, suggesting that Turkey joined NATO because it wanted to become a member of the West, and that it sees the issue of EU membership as crucial to its identity, rather than exclusively as an economic partnership. Furthermore, he emphasized Turkey’s unique understanding of the region as a strategic tool, arguing that it should unite East and West, and push for market liberalization, rather than democracy, as the stabilizing force in the Middle East. In his policy suggestions for the United States, Walker called for US acceptance of the Turks for who they are, the development of a coherent Turkey strategy, better US-Turkey trade relations, an exchange of history and culture between the two countries, and the importance of imparting knowledge of Turkey to future generations.

Transitioning into a more interactive afternoon, Susan Douglass presented on Ottoman Influences on Europe and the West, and catered expertly to her target audience of educators by providing them with many materials and ideas to use in their classrooms. She started by examining the view of the world as transmitted through textbooks, noting that Turkey is typically portrayed merely as an afterthought of the Middle East, is not considered part of Europe, and often only addressed in the context of Europe’s “Great Game.” Douglass pointed to materials such as ceramics, information on commerce and commodities, book illustrations, color lithographs, poetry, literature, folklore, and traditional Turkish shadow puppets, as potential opportunities to engage students learning about Turkey. Small groups of participating educators brainstormed lesson plans and methods of using these materials to help their students access larger themes about Turkey, and then exchanged their ideas, highlighting the benefits and challenges of using the various materials. In the final presentation of the day, Bonnie Joy Kaslan introduced the educators to a teaching manual on Turkey entitled, “Who Are the Turks?” as a tool to help them address the challenges of teaching about the Turks as a people who cannot be pigeonholed, put in a box, or easily explained. She emphasized that the manual included migratory maps, lesson plans, readings and activities and also provided other materials that highlighted the Ottoman Empire’s history, culture, language, and more. Kaslan also encouraged the participants to travel to Turkey and use their own firsthand experience creatively as tools in the classroom.

Overall, participants in Turkey: Where East Meets West gained a vivid portrait of the country from various historical, cultural, and political perspectives, and consolidated their newly acquired knowledge by preparing to impart it to their students.