DOCSLIB.ORG

“Illiberal International Order” Date: April 24(Tue) – April 25(Wed), 2018 Place: the Grand Hyatt Seoul

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
“Illiberal International Order” Date: April 24(Tue) – April 25(Wed), 2018 Place: the Grand Hyatt Seoul Asan Plenum 2018 “Illiberal International Order” Date: April 24(Tue) – April 25(Wed), 2018 Place: The Grand Hyatt Seoul Day 1: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 Time Panel Title Panelist Affiliation 08:00 – 09:30 Registration Opening Ceremony Welcoming Remarks Hahm Chaibong The Asan Institute for Policy Studies Grand Ballroom I+II Keynote Address Edwin J. Feulner The Heritage Foundation 09:30 – 10:25 10:25 – 10:30 Break Hahm Chaibong The Asan Institute for Policy Studies The Rise and Fall of Plenary Funabashi Yoichi Asia Pacific Initiative Session I LIO Karel De Gucht Free University of Brussels Grand Ballroom I+II 10:30 – 12:00 Charles A. Kupchan Council on Foreign Relations (English/Korean) James B. Steinberg Syracuse University 12:00 – 13:00 Lunch Choi Kang The Asan Institute for Policy Studies Bruce W. Bennett RAND Corporation ROK-U.S. Alliance Center for Strategic and International Victor Cha Studies Grand Ballroom I+II Kim Sung-han Korea University (English/Korean) Daniel R. Russel Asia Society Policy Institute Soeya Yoshihide Keio University Elise Hu National Public Radio Edwin J. Feulner The Heritage Foundation Session 1 Populism v. LIO: U.S. Kim Jiyoon The Asan Institute for Policy Studies Christopher Nelson The Nelson Report 13:00 – 14:30 Grand Ballroom III Seo Jungkun Kyung Hee University Bruce Stokes Pew Research Center Anna Fifield The Washington Post School of Advanced International Studies, Kent Calder Johns Hopkins University One Belt One Road Institut Français des Relations Alice Ekman Internationales Namsan Room I Han Sukhee Yonsei University Scott Snyder Council on Foreign Relations Zhu Feng Nanjing University 14:30 – 14:45 Break Chung Jae-Ho Seoul National University The U.S.-China Dino Patti Djalal Foreign Policy Community of Indonesia Plenary Session II Strategic Competition Aaron Friedberg Princeton University François Godement European Council on Foreign Relations 14:45 – 16:15 Grand Ballroom I+II (English/Korean) Hugh White Australian National University Paul Wolfowitz American Enterprise Institute 16:15 – 16:30 Break Center for Strategic and International Bonnie S. Glaser Studies China, Russia and LIO Kim Taehwan Korea National Diplomatic Academy Alexander Lukin MGIMO University Grand Ballroom I+II William Overholt Harvard University (English/Korean) Vasil Sikharulidze Atlantic Council of Georgia Zhu Feng Nanjing University Martin Fackler The New York Times Center for Strategic and International Session 2 Michael J. Green U.S.-Japan Alliance Studies 16:30 – 18:00 Nishino Junya Keio University Grand Ballroom III Park Cheol Hee Seoul National University T.J. Pempel University of California, Berkeley Yamaguchi Noboru International University of Japan David Sanger The New York Times Cyber Security Kate Brannen Just Security Neal Pollard PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Namsan Room I Michael Sulmeyer Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center Richard Weitz Hudson Institute 18:30 – 21:00 The 10th Anniversary of the Asan Institute Reception & Dinner (Speakers & Invited Guests Only) Time Panel Title Panelist Affiliation Gilbert Rozman The Asan Forum Choi Kang The Asan Institute for Policy Studies Sharp Power Hosoya Yuichi Keio University Grand Ballroom III John Park Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center Jane Perlez The New York Times Night Sessions Christopher Walker National Endowment for Democracy 21:00 – 22:30 J. James Kim The Asan Institute for Policy Studies Patrick Cronin Center for a New American Security Values Diplomacy Center for Strategic and International Michael J. Green Studies Namsan Room I Hikotani Takako Columbia University James B. Steinberg Syracuse University Day 2: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 Time Panel Title Panelist Affiliation 08:00 – 09:00 Registration Choi Byung-il Ewha Womans University Fukagawa Yukiko Waseda University Plenary Geoeconomics Peter Harrell Center for a New American Security Session III Carnegie Endowment for International 09:00 – 10:30 Grand Ballroom I+II Yukon Huang (English/Korean) Peace Walter R. Mead Hudson Institute Benn Steil Council on Foreign Relations 10:30 – 10:45 Break Simon Long The Economist Embassy of Australia to the Republic of James Choi Indo-Pacific and LIO Korea Vikram Doraiswami Embassy of India to the Republic of Korea S. Rajaratnam School of International Grand Ballroom I+II Joseph Chin Yong Liow (English/Korean) Studies, Nanyang Technological University Mark Lippert Boeing International You Ji University of Macau Session 3 Ali Aslan TV Presenter & Journalist Populism v. LIO: EU Karel De Gucht Free University of Brussels 10:45 – 12:15 Kim Joon Suk Catholic University of Korea Grand Ballroom III Michael Reiterer EU Delegation to the Republic of Korea Philip Stephens Financial Times Lena Schipper The Economist NATO Daniel Fried Atlantic Council James M. Lindsay Council on Foreign Relations Namsan Room I Vasil Sikharulidze Atlantic Council of Georgia Alexander Vershbow Atlantic Council 12:15 – 13:25 Lunch Book Launch: By More Than Providence, by Michael J. Green, moderated by Choi Kang 12:30 – 13:25 Grand Ballroom I+II (English/Korean) 13:25 – 13:30 Break Evans J.R. Revere Albright Stonebridge Group Northeast Asia and Lee Yong Wook Korea University Carnegie Endowment for International LIO Douglas H. Paal Peace Grand Ballroom I+II Daniel R. Russel Asia Society Policy Institute Session 4 (English/Korean) Soeya Yoshihide Keio University Wang Dong Peking University 13:30 – 15:00 Diederik Vandewalle Dartmouth College Middle East and LIO Jang Ji-Hyang The Asan Institute for Policy Studies Joseph A. Kéchichian King Faisal Center Grand Ballroom III Mesut Ö zcan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Turkey Siavash Saffari Seoul National University Lee Jaehyon The Asan Institute for Policy Studies Ernest Z. Bower BowerGroupAsia Southeast Asia and LIO Adriana Elisabeth Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) Institute of Strategic and International Namsan Room I Mohamed Jawhar Studies Malaysia (Fmr. Chairman) Ravi Velloor The Straits Times 15:00 – 15:15 Break David Sanger The New York Times Plenary The Outlier: North Kim Joon-hyung Handong Global University Session IV Korea Andrei Lankov Kookmin University Gary Samore Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center 15:15 – 16:45 Grand Ballroom I+II (English/Korean) Tanaka Hitoshi Japan Research Institute, Ltd. Zhao Quansheng American University 16:45 – 17:00 Closing Remarks 18:30 – 21:00 Closing Reception and Dinner (Speakers and Invited Guests Only) .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 108–289 Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2004
    S. HRG. 108–289 FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H.R. 2800/S. 1426 AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR END- ING SEPTEMBER 30, 2004, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Agency for International Development Department of State Nondepartmental Witnesses Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 85–923 PDF WASHINGTON : 2004 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois MIKE DEWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES W. MORHARD, Staff Director LISA SUTHERLAND, Deputy Staff Director TERRENCE E.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S.-South Korea Relations
    U.S.-South Korea Relations Mark E. Manyin, Coordinator Specialist in Asian Affairs Emma Chanlett-Avery Specialist in Asian Affairs Mary Beth D. Nikitin Specialist in Nonproliferation Brock R. Williams Analyst in International Trade and Finance Jonathan R. Corrado Research Associate May 23, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41481 U.S.-South Korea Relations Summary Overview South Korea (officially the Republic of Korea, or ROK) is one of the United States’ most important strategic and economic partners in Asia. Congressional interest in South Korea is driven by both security and trade interests. Since the early 1950s, the U.S.-ROK Mutual Defense Treaty commits the United States to help South Korea defend itself. Approximately 28,500 U.S. troops are based in the ROK, which is included under the U.S. “nuclear umbrella.” Washington and Seoul cooperate in addressing the challenges posed by North Korea. The two countries’ economies are joined by the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA). South Korea is the United States’ seventh-largest trading partner and the United States is South Korea’s second- largest trading partner. Between 2009 and the end of 2016, relations between the two countries arguably reached their most robust state in decades. Political changes in both countries in 2017, however, have generated uncertainty about the state of the relationship. Coordination of North Korea Policy Dealing with North Korea is the dominant strategic concern of the relationship. The Trump Administration appears to have raised North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs to a top U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Threading the Needle Proposals for U.S
    “Few actions could have a more important impact on U.S.-China relations than returning to the spirit of the U.S.-China Joint Communique of August 17, 1982, signed by our countries’ leaders. This EastWest Institute policy study is a bold and pathbreaking effort to demystify the issue of arms sales to Taiwan, including the important conclusion that neither nation is adhering to its commitment, though both can offer reasons for their actions and views. That is the first step that should lead to honest dialogue and practical steps the United States and China could take to improve this essential relationship.” – George Shultz, former U.S. Secretary of State “This EastWest Institute report represents a significant and bold reframing of an important and long- standing issue. The authors advance the unconventional idea that it is possible to adhere to existing U.S. law and policy, respect China’s legitimate concerns, and stand up appropriately for Taiwan—all at the same time. I believe EWI has, in fact, ‘threaded the needle’ on an exceedingly challenging policy problem and identified a highly promising solution-set in the sensible center: a modest voluntary capping of annual U.S. arms deliveries to Taiwan relative to historical levels concurrent to a modest, but not inconsequential Chinese reduction of its force posture vis-à-vis Taiwan. This study merits serious high-level attention.” – General (ret.) James L. Jones, former U.S. National Security Advisor “I commend co-authors Piin-Fen Kok and David Firestein for taking on, with such skill and methodological rigor, a difficult issue at the core of U.S-China relations: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Northeast Asia and the Korea-US Alliance
    Joint Report released in June 2021 Special Conference on The Future of Northeast Asia and the Korea-U.S. Alliance CO-CHAIRS Joseph Nye, John Hamre, Victor Cha Park In-kook, Yoon Young-kwan, Kim Sung-han Table of Contents Executive Summary ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 07 This Joint Report is an outcome of the activities carried out by the CHEY-CSIS Commission on Northeast Asia and the Korean Peninsula (hereinafter referred as the Commission). The Policy Recommendations ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 Commission consists of a high-level delegation of former government officials and scholars from the U.S. and ROK. It identifies the unprecedented geostrategic uncertainties and Geopolitics in Northeast Asia ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13 challenges generated by shifts in the balance of power, intensifying Sino-American competition, technological innovation, debilitating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and growing North Korea ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 income disparities. Against this backdrop, the Commission aims to explore the geopolitical implications in the Northeast Asian region and the Korean Peninsula, including the ROK- ROK-U.S. Alliance ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • The Asan Plenum 2018, “Illiberal International Order”
    Embargoed for release at 0600 Monday, April 16, 2018 The Asan Plenum 2018, “Illiberal International Order” 82-2-3701-7377 [email protected] SEOUL, April 9, 2018 – The Asan Institute for Policy Studies (http://en.asaninst.org/) will host the Asan Plenum 2018 on April 24 (Tue.) – 25 (Wed.) at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Hannam-dong, Seoul. The title of this year’s Plenum is “Illiberal International Order.” Edwin Fuelner, Founder of The Heritage Foundation, will deliver the keynote address. The Plenum will bring together over 100 distinguished experts, policymakers, scholars, and members of the media including: • Paul Wolfowitz, Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense and President of the World Bank • James Steinberg, Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State • Karel De Gucht, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs for Belgium • Funabashi Yoichi, Editor-in-Chief, Asahi Shimbun • Daniel Russel, Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs • Victor Cha, Senior Adviser and Korea Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) • Wang Dong, Professor, Peking University School of International Studies • Hugh White, Professor, Australia National University This year’s Plenum addresses the myriad challenges threatening the liberal international order (LIO) today. In the U.S. and Britain, the rise of populism has called into question the West’s commitment to uphold the rules-based global order. Nondemocratic regimes in China and Russia are rewriting these rules and undermining the institutions that have sustained them. Outliers, such as North Korea and Iran, are stoking regional tensions, while transnational issues including terrorism, cyber security, and geoeconomics continue to test the viability and endurance of the LIO.
    [Show full text]
  • The Looming Taiwan Fighter Gap
    This Page Intentionally Left Blank The Looming Taiwan Fighter Gap US-Taiwan Business Council October 1, 2012 This report was published in October 2012 by the US-Taiwan Business Council. The Council is a non-profit, member-based organization dedicated to developing the trade and business relationship between the United States and Taiwan. Members consist of public and private companies with business interests in Taiwan. This report serves as one way for the Council to offer analysis and information in support of our members’ business activities in the Taiwan market. The publication of this report is part of the overall activities and programs of the Council, as endorsed by its Board of Directors. However, the views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of individual members of the Board of Directors or Executive Committee. 2012 US-Taiwan Business Council The US-Taiwan Business Council has the sole and exclusive rights to the copyrighted material contained in this report. Use of any material contained in this report for any purpose that is not expressly authorized by the US-Taiwan Business Council, or duplicating any or part of the material for any purpose whatsoever, without the prior written consent of the US-Taiwan Business Council, is strictly prohibited and unlawful. 1700 North Moore Street, Suite 1703 Arlington, Virginia 22209 Phone: (703) 465-2930 Fax: (703) 465-2937 [email protected] www.us-taiwan.org Edited by Lotta Danielsson Printed in the United States The Looming Taiwan Fighter Gap TABLE OF CONTENTS
    [Show full text]
  • U.S.-South Korea Relations
    U.S.-South Korea Relations Mark E. Manyin, Coordinator Specialist in Asian Affairs Emma Chanlett-Avery Specialist in Asian Affairs Mary Beth D. Nikitin Specialist in Nonproliferation Ian E. Rinehart Analyst in Asian Affairs Brock R. Williams Analyst in International Trade and Finance June 11, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41481 c11173008 . U.S.-South Korea Relations Summary Overview South Korea (known officially as the Republic of Korea, or ROK) is one of the United States’ most important strategic and economic partners in Asia, and since 2009 relations between the two countries arguably have been at their most robust state in decades. Members of Congress tend to be interested in South Korea-related issues for a number of reasons. First, the United States and South Korea have been treaty allies since the early 1950s. The United States is committed to helping South Korea defend itself, particularly against any aggression from North Korea. Approximately 28,500 U.S. troops are based in the ROK and South Korea is included under the U.S. “nuclear umbrella.” Second, Washington and Seoul cooperate in addressing the challenges posed by North Korea. Third, the two countries’ economies are closely entwined and are joined by the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA). South Korea is the United States’ sixth- largest trading partner and the United States is South Korea’s second-largest trading partner. South Korea has taken the first steps toward possible entry into the U.S.-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement negotiations. Strategic Cooperation and the U.S.-ROK Alliance Dealing with North Korea is the dominant strategic concern of the U.S.-South Korean relationship.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Exploration, Global Health, and Cybersecurity
    Korea Economic Institute of America ACADEMIC PAPER SERIES May 17, 2017 New Frontiers of Cooperation in U.S.-Korea Relations: Opportunities for Economic Engagement By Sean Connell Abstract In October 2015, the U.S. and Korean governments announced Key Words: U.S.-Korea Relations, Science and Technology “New Frontiers of Cooperation” for the bilateral agenda Policy, Korea Economic Policy, Innovation Policy, New Frontiers of Cooperation. following the summit meeting between U.S. President Barack Obama and Korean President Park Geun-hye. These areas Introduction include countering biological threats and advancing the global On October 16, 2015, U.S. President Barack Obama and Korean health security agenda; combating climate change; investing President Park Geun-hye held their third summit meeting, which in a sustainable environment; increasing cyber collaboration; focused primarily on traditional areas of cooperation, including exploring space cooperation; and expanding science and strengthening the U.S.-Korea security alliance, deepening trade technology collaboration. and economic relations, and increasing collaboration at the The “new frontier” areas present good potential for expanding global level to pursue common goals and challenges. This summit U.S.-Korea economic engagement, and a pathway of natural also introduced to the bilateral agenda the “New Frontiers of progression for the bilateral economic relationship. Beyond their Cooperation.”¹ Then-U.S. Ambassador to Korea Mark Lippert importance from a national security and global cooperation described the issues falling under this category (hereafter the perspective, each is the focus of emergent industry sectors in “new frontiers”) as those which are “increasingly salient in both countries with strong expectations for growth.
    [Show full text]
  • 50 Shades’ Panelists Address Grey Areas by Madison Miller Wood Said
    Consistency is key in communication What steps should Baylor take to better inform the student body? see OPINION, page 2 baylorlariat com The Baylor Lariat WE’RE THERE WHEN YOU CAN’T BE From Lariat TV News: Check out the clothes, appliances, furniture and knick-knacks available each week at Waco’s flea market. Thursday | March 5, 2015 ‘50 Shades’ panelists address grey areas By Madison Miller Wood said. and images of women in the mass Reporter This discussion focused mainly media. Her research also looks at on the sexuality explorations “Fifty body image satisfaction, which is At the box office, the world- Shades of Grey” takes its readers one of the main reasons she is con- wide phenomenon “Fifty Shades through. cerned about the popularity of this of Grey” made $85 million, while “This movie has brought to the book. the book stayed on the top of the forefront some concepts that have “If you read these types of mes- New York Times Bestseller list for really desensitized the stigma asso- sages on a daily basis, they can 78 weeks. But how has this global ciated with the exploration of hu- have a huge impact on your life,” hit impacted relationships? man sexuality,” Wood said. Moody-Ramirez said. “That’s why In a series of dialogues titled The recent movie and book se- we have to be concerned.” “This Matters,” panelists Dr. Jona- ries are about a couple who prac- In addition to her research on than Tran, associate professor of tice hyper-sexuality and are forced body images, her studies show that religion; Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2005
    S. HRG. 108–792 FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 4818/S. 2812 AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR END- ING SEPTEMBER 30, 2005, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Department of State Nondepartmental Witnesses United States Agency for International Development Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 92–146 PDF WASHINGTON : 2005 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois MIKE DEWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES W. MORHARD, Staff Director LISA SUTHERLAND, Deputy Staff Director TERRENCE E.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Did President Obama Not Recognize the Armenian Genocide?
    Ad Americam. Journal of American Studies 22 (2021): ISSN: 1896-9461, https://doi.org/10.12797/AdAmericam.22.2021.22.07 Licensing information: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Julien Zarifian CY Cergy Paris University, Cergy, France Institut Universitaire de France, Paris, France [email protected] Why did President Obama not recognize the Armenian Genocide? Hints from the Obama administration memoirs – and other sources This paper discusses the reasons and processes that led the Obama administration to not recognize the Armenian Genocide. Although Barack Obama had promised he would do so during his presidential campaign of 2008, he never did once in office, despite many of his administration members, including Vice-President Joe Biden and Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, having strong records in support of such a recognition. To investigate this hitherto poorly explored question, this paper uses primarily — although not exclusively — memoirs written by Barack Obama and members his administration, some of them addressing the issue directly, others dealing with it indirectly. This study fo- cuses on President Obama’s personal choice, and therefore responsibility, to not recognize the genocide, but also expands on the geopolitical determinants of this non-recognition (related mostly to the geostrategic importance of Turkey) as well as on its diplomatic aspects (involving particularly the argument that US recognition would hamper a hypo- thetical Turkey-Armenia rapprochement). Two episodes of possible presidential recogni- tion of the genocide will be particularly discussed; one in April 2009 (three months after Obama became president of the United States and coinciding with April 24, the anniver- sary of the genocide), and the other in 2015 (corresponding to its centenary).
    [Show full text]
  • Hfx 2O2o Table of Contents
    HFX 2O2O TABLE OF CONTENTS Welcome 05 Builder Award 07 Peace With Women Fellowship 09 2020 Agenda 10 China Handbook for Democracies 12 IPSOS 14 Participants 18 About HFX 40 Halifax Forum Founders 41 In Memoriam 42 Partners and Supporting Organizations 44 Community Partners 49 2 #HFX2020 | HalifaxTheForum.org WELCOME TO HALIFAX INTERNATIONAL SECURITY FORUM 20202014 Halifax International Security Forum 3 "WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE FOR; AND WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE AGAINST. THIS IS HOW HFX2O2O DIFFERS FROM ALL OTHER CONFERENCES OF SIMILAR STATURE." 4 #HFX2020 | HalifaxTheForum.org WELCOME On behalf of the Board of Directors, I am pleased and proud to welcome you to the 12th Halifax International Security Forum or as we are calling it: HFX2020. Halifax International Security Forum prides itself on being a prescient guide to the year ahead. Still, when we met in person in Halifax, Nova Scotia in November 2019 we could not predict the pandemic and accompanying uncertainty that 2020 would bring. As a result of the pandemic, HFX2020—like all meetings scheduled since March—will not meet in person. Instead, my team worked diligently for months to bring you, the HFX community of democratic leaders from around the world, a timely, relevant, and important virtual gathering. The dynamic live panel discussions that HFX has brought to its community for more than a decade are moving on-screen. From studios in Halifax, Ottawa, and Washington, DC, HFX2020 will bring the most important issues of the day to a wider audience than ever before. BOARD OF DIRECTORS Those of you who traveled to Halifax in years past to join the Forum, and those of you who are watching the Forum for the first time, will be among like-minded people committed to enhancing human dignity around the world.
    [Show full text]