Search

You searched for: Publishing Institution Council on Foreign Relations Remove constraint Publishing Institution: Council on Foreign Relations
Number of results to display per page

Search Results

  • Author: Madeleine Albright
  • Publication Date: 09-1997
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Council on Foreign Relations
  • Abstract: Secretary Albright: Henry, thank you very, very much for that introduction. I have to admit that as I got known to this new post--on which I'm very elevated--(laughter)--I had to call my predecessor, because I thought it was really important to touch base.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy
  • Political Geography: United States
  • Author: Dinah Lee-Kung, Samuel Berger
  • Publication Date: 06-1997
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Council on Foreign Relations
  • Abstract: On Friday And Saturday, June 6 and 7, 1997, the Council on Foreign Relations hosted its second annual National Conference, drawing members from across the United States to discuss the future of U.S. relations with Asia. Continuing a Council tradition of involving a broad spectrum of professionals, the conference underscored the Council's push to engage the full range of regional perspectives in its intellectual work.
  • Political Geography: United States, Asia
  • Publication Date: 06-1997
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Council on Foreign Relations
  • Abstract: Dr. LESLIE GELB (President, Council on Foreign Relations): Welcome to today's program on the United States and China: Strategic Partners or Adversaries? My name is Les Gelb. I'm President of the Council on Foreign Relations. And the Council, along with the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, has put together this panel because we think it's dealing with one of the most important, if not the most important, foreign policy question facing the United States. These Policy Impact Panels, as we call them, are designed to do two things. One, try to establish facts in a very complicated situation, because often we spend a lot of time wondering what the facts are or if they can be established. The second purpose is to lay out the policy alternatives, to give us a sense of what we can do about the problems or the facts.
  • Topic: Security, Foreign Policy
  • Political Geography: United States, China, Asia
  • Author: George Soros, Paul Krugman
  • Publication Date: 05-1997
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Council on Foreign Relations
  • Abstract: Presider: Dr. LESLIE GELB: Welcome to the Council on Foreign Relations. Welcome, members; welcome, our C-SPAN audience; welcome, especially, to our two brilliant speakers tonight, George Soros and Paul Krugman. More about them later.
  • Topic: Globalization, International Political Economy, International Trade and Finance
  • Publication Date: 03-1997
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Council on Foreign Relations
  • Abstract: Ms. ELLEN FUTTER (President, American Museum of Natural History): Welcome to a panel discussion on 21st Century Surprises and Threats at the Council on Foreign Relations. I'm Ellen Futter, president of the American Museum of Natural History and moderator for this panel.
  • Topic: Security, Foreign Policy
  • Political Geography: United States, America
  • Publication Date: 02-1997
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Council on Foreign Relations
  • Abstract: Ms. KAREN SUGHRUE (Vice President, Council On Foreign Relations): Ladies and gentlemen, we'd like to begin. Good evening. I'm Karen Sughrue. I'm vice president at the Council On Foreign Relations. I'd like to welcome you here tonight to the Policy Impact Panel, sponsored by the Council.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy
  • Political Geography: United States
  • Author: Benedicte Callan, Sean Costigan, Kenneth Keller
  • Publication Date: 01-1997
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Council on Foreign Relations
  • Abstract: One of the great strengths of the U.S. economy is its capacity for innovation. Relatively young companies like Microsoft, Genentech, Intel, and Netscape bring verve to the American industrial landscape. The products they introduce transform the way we do business and the way we live. Older companies, like AT T, Ford, and IBM, prove that they can adapt new technologies to stay vital. Old or young, it is the commitment to research and development (R D) that has allowed these companies to come up with novel ideas, products, and processes. The American ability to foster high-technology industries is the envy of both advanced and industrializing countries alike.
  • Topic: Economics, Globalization, Industrial Policy, International Trade and Finance, Science and Technology
  • Political Geography: United States
  • Author: Mickey Kantor
  • Publication Date: 11-1997
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Council on Foreign Relations
  • Abstract: The challenges of the era of interdependence will constitute the greatest foreign policy test of the 21st century. The war over globalization and interdependence is at an end. Only the battles are yet to be fought. Those who cower behind walls of fear and fail to accept responsibility do so at their own peril, and will not turn containment into engagement, or mutual assured destruction into mutual assured prosperity. The approach of the new millennium finds us at the intersection of three epochal events: in politics, the end of the Cold War; in economics, the emergence of a global economy; and in technology, the rise of the Information Age. The intersection of economics, strategic issues, and political concerns is creating the glue which will bind together an updated U.S. foreign policy. Vast opportunities lie before us, and more than a few pitfalls. We face fewer serious military threats but an increasing number of competitors. The rise of competition, the need to create new opportunities, and the confluence of major economic and political changes create a need to intensely focus on U.S. priorities and goals. Despite this urgency, we have yet to fully articulate a foreign policy that matches the era in which we now live, especially the appropriate role of international economics. We need to direct our focus toward the lessons we have learned over the past five years. Seekers of universal truths or simple catch phrases should prepare in advance for disappointment. U.S. leadership in both the public and private sectors must accept the challenges represented by these enormous changes. Our willingness to take responsibility, clearly define our goals, and recognize our limitations but pursue U.S. leadership at every opportunity will dictate the success or failure of promoting a stronger United States and a less dangerous world. The goals and objectives are clear: U.S. leadership must pursue peace, stability, economic progress, basic human rights, and sustainable development. In order to address these goals we need to create foreign-policy tools and institutions that are pragmatic, practical, and resilient reflecting the speed with which events, opportunities, and challenges now confront us as a nation. There is no question that global economics has fundamentally changed the nature of foreign policy. Today, economics and foreign policy are no longer separable, and economic security and national security have become synonymous. We live in an interdependent, globalized world. No longer are we self-contained, nor is it in our interest to be so. We can no longer take for granted our global economic dominance and turn our back on foreign markets. It is self-defeating in the short run and impossible in the long run to ignore the problems which occur across the border or across the world, and we cannot overlook our responsibility as the world's remaining superpower. Driven by technological change, freed of Cold War conflicts and connected by economic and strategic interests, the era of interdependence demands negotiation, engagement, and leadership. Interdependence dictates that our foreign policy and economic future are increasingly connected to international trade. Interdependence dictates that terrorism, weapons proliferation, environmental concerns, the drug trade, and economic opportunity are now cross-border issues. These issues profoundly affect the everyday lives of people around the globe. Cross-border issues directly influence policies, laws, and regulations of the countries in question, raising issues such as the rule of and respect for law, regulation and deregulation, privatization, and other concerns heretofore thought to be strictly internal. This new era requires a redefinition of global leadership. Being the only remaining superpower does not simply mean that we are the strongest military power, nor does it mean only that we are the most economically competitive nation on earth. Both of those statements are true, of course. But holding the position of the world's only remaining superpower in the era of interdependence means that we have the opportunity to take advantage of the vast economic potential which is being created around the globe to the benefit of all Americans, and we have a corresponding obligation to rally other nations to pursue common long-term interests, such as strategic and political stability, economic progress, and sustainable development. There are other examples which support the notion of new multidimensional international relations. Brazil has dramatically increased its international standing and influence using its potential economic strategic position. During the Cold War and prior to the dramatic growth of economic power and industrialization, Brazil's strategic position would have been defined and dictated by its ability or inability to have an influence over strategic and political issues especially those concerning East-West relations. But today, and in the foreseeable future, not only do countries increase their influence based on economic potential and achievement, but economic considerations and relationships tend to bring entities together which in other circumstances could not or would not cooperate. The recent Middle East Economic Conferences and the participation of China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) are obvious examples.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Cold War, Diplomacy, Political Economy
  • Political Geography: United States, China, America, Taiwan, Asia, Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo
  • Author: Michael E. Mandelbaum, Richard C. Holbrooke
  • Publication Date: 12-1996
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Council on Foreign Relations
  • Abstract: Good evening. Welcome to the second or the third of our Great Debates, it depends on how you're counting. The first formal one was about six weeks ago when Madeleine Albright, our new Secretary of State designate, and Jeane Kirkpatrick debated about the United Nations. Before that we had a trial run with Bob Ellsworth, one of Senator Dole's closest friends and advisors, and Tom Donilon, the chief of staff of the State Department.
  • Topic: Security, NATO, United Nations
  • Political Geography: United States, Europe
  • Author: Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Haruhiko Kuroda, Dr. Norbert Walter, Robert C. Pozen, Thomas W. Jones, Alice M. Rivlin, Marshall Carter, Olivia S. Mitchell, Russell J. Cheetham, Yves Guerard, Jan Svejnar, David Hale, Martin S. Feldstein, Robert D. Hormats
  • Publication Date: 11-1996
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Council on Foreign Relations
  • Abstract: Social Security has been described as the crown jewel of American federal government programs. It is widely recognized to be the major reason why the poverty rate among the elderly in the United States has fallen in half since 1959 and is lower today than the poverty rate for any other population group as a whole. Fifteen million older Americans are kept out of poverty by Social Security.
  • Topic: Economics, Government, International Political Economy
  • Political Geography: United States, America