Asia & the Pacific

A pioneer in the field of CVE (Countering Violent Extremism), Farah Pandith spent over a decade developing strategies to prevent and defend against the spread of extremist ideology, a policy area that has been under the microscope since President Trump declared his intention to “unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism which we will eradicate completely from the face of the earth,” during his inaugural address on January 20^th.

At a Future of Diplomacy Project seminar on February 13, Pandith spoke about the evolution of CVE policy and the importance of soft power in combating the spread of extremist ideology. She identified three distinct phases in the development of US counter-terrorism strategy after September 11.

Dr. Ian Bremmer, expert in political risk and founder of the Eurasia Group, gave a seminar sponsored by the the Future of Diplomacy Project on Thursday, November 9 at the Harvard Kennedy School, titled “Managing Risk in an Unstable World."

The Right Honourable Douglas Alexander offered his views on European security in a discussion moderated by FDP Executive Director Cathryn Cluver.

Putin and his government seek respect, stability from next U.S. administration, panel says.

In the global revulsion at the recent terror attacks in four Muslim countries, the United States and its allies have a new opportunity to build a unified command against the Islamic State and other extremists. FDP Senior Fellow David Ignatius examines the diplomatic relationships needed to create an effective counterterrorism strategy.

The Future of Diplomacy Project kickstarted 2015 with an array of impressive world-class speakers for its annual Europe Week, featuring former President of Finland, Tarja Halonen; former Secretary-General of NATO and Prime Minister of Denmark, Anders Fogh Rasmussen; and former Trade Commissioner of the European Union, Karel de Gucht. Their public seminars offered Harvard Kennedy School students and faculty an opportunity to grapple with the geopolitical issues at play in Europe concerning NATO, the EU, trade, and the "Nordic way."

Realist scholars have long debated the question of how much power states need to feel secure. Offensive realists claim that states should constantly seek to increase their power. Defensive realists argue that accumulating too much power can be self-defeating. Proponents of hegemonic stability theory contend that the accumulation of capabilities in one state can exert a stabilizing effect on the system. The three schools describe different points along the power con­tinuum. When a state is weak, accumulating power increases its security. This is approximately the situation described by offensive realists. A state that con­tinues to accumulate capabilities will eventually triggers a balancing reaction that puts its security at risk. This scenario accords with defensive realist as­sumptions. Finally, when the state becomes too powerful to balance, its oppo­nents bandwagon with it, and the state’s security begins to increase again. This is the situation described by hegemonic stability theory. These three stages delineate a modified parabolic relationship between power and secu­rity. As a state moves along the power continuum, its security increases up to a point, then decreases, and finally increases again. This modified parabolic re­lationship allows scholars to synthesize previous realist theories into a single framework.

"On the Armenian question, AKP has demonstrated some willingness to reconsider the issue, and has taken steps in the direction of change. Over the past several years, especially under the leadership of President Abdullah Gul, AKP has engaged in a gradual rapprochement with Armenia, culminating in the October 2009 signing of a protocol to establish diplomatic relations by the foreign ministers of Turkey and Armenia. While this step does not constitute a change in the official narrative, the two states have agreed in principle to the creation of a subcommittee to look into the 'historical dimension', which could lead to change in the future."

Today, territorial ownership of states is essentially fixed, in marked contrast to earlier periods in history. This change has affected states in two very different ways. In regions in which most states are socio-politically strong, fixed territorial ownership is a blessing. It enhances peace, stability, and cooperation between states. In regions in which most states are socio-politically weak, however, fixed territorial ownership is largely a curse. It perpetuates and exacerbates states' weakness, and contributes to internal conflicts that often spill overacross international borders.