Diplomacy and International Politics

On March 31,  the Project on Europe and the Transatlantic Relationship and the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies hosted a discussion with Wolfgang Ischinger, former Chairman of the Munich Security Conference, Joseph S. Nye Jr., Harvard University Distinguished Service Professor, and Daniela Schwarzer, Executive Director for Europe and Eurasia at the Open Society Foundations, on how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as well as the brutality of its action has caused an unexpected reversal of Germany’s long time security policy and led to strong reactions in the rest of Europe, NATO, and the posture of the Biden administration. The seminar examined the dimensions and consequences of these developments for the future of the EU and the West. Karl Kaiser, Senior Fellow at the Project on Europe, moderated.

The Future of Diplomacy Project hosted a conversation with Julie Bishop, Fisher Family Fellow and former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Australia, about China and Australia’s relationship, the increasing geopolitical role of the Quad, and how U.S. foreign policy should respond to China's rise on May 19, 2021. Research Director, Torrey Taussig moderated this discussion.

On November 12, 2020, the Future of Diplomacy Project hosted a discussion with Dame Karen Pierce, Ambassador of the United Kingdom to the United States about the major foreign policy challenges facing the UK and the US after the 2020 election, including climate, free trade and international leadership in a seminar moderated by Faculty Chair, Nicholas Burns.

On October 16,  the Future of Diplomacy Project hosted a discussion with two of America's most impressive political journalists, Peter Baker and Susan Glasser, about their book, the definitive biography of legendary White House chief of staff and secretary of state James A. Baker III: the man who ran Washington when Washington ran the world. Faculty Chair, Nicholas Burns, moderated the discussion. 

NATO is neither “brain dead” nor in crisis.  Rather, the alliance is at a turning point much like others it has faced before in its seventy-year history.  Change is central to the story of how NATO has endured. 

Hong Kong is unique. While the writer Han Suyin’s description—“a borrowed place, on borrowed time” —seemed redundant upon the return of the territory to China on July 1, 1997, the former British colony appears to be perpetually exposed to uncertainty over its future. Despite long months of sociopolitical crisis and violence, Hong Kong has once again shown that it has lost none of its personality. Amidst the climate of upheaval and faced with a Chinese regime determined to obstruct any hopes of democracy, the people of Hong Kong have managed to attract international and media attention, marking them out from any other Chinese territory—including those that enjoy special status: Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Macao, and even Xinjiang, where nearly a million people from the minority Uyghur ethnic group are confined to “re-education” camps. No other Chinese region has been able to attract such attention.

President Trump’s Iran policy, even if it does not lead to war, is one of the worst examples of self-inflicted harm and collateral damage to the international community in the history of US foreign policy.