Check out our blog for WorldDenver stories, news, re-caps from speaker events, updates and more!
<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   4   5   ...   Next >  Last >> 
  • 05 May 2017 12:58 PM | Marianne Hughes (Administrator)

    By Daniel Zuchegno

    Speaker: Ambassador Celso Amorim

    Mr. Amorim is a Brazilian diplomat who served twice as Brazil's Minister of External Relations, from 1993 to 1994 and from 2003 to 2010. He was also the Minister of Defense from August 2011 to December 2014. Between 1987 and 1989, Celso Amorim served as the Secretary for International Affairs for the Ministry of Science and Technology. He helped to create UNITAlD, of which he is currently Chair, and is part of two United Nations Secretary-General panels: High-Level Panel on access to medicines and High-Level Panel on Global Response to Health Crises. He was also in charge of drafting the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

    He served twice as the Permanent Representative of Brazil to the United Nations in Geneva and the World Trade Organization (1991-1993 and 1999-2001). Mr. Amorim was the Permanent Representative of Brazil to the United Nations in New York from 1995 to 1999 and the Ambassador of Brazil to the United Kingdom in 2002. He is also a Permanent Member of the International Affairs unit at the University of Sao Paulo.

    The event was cosponsored by the Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver

    At the event, Ambassador Amorim spoke of the Brazil’s role and influence in global affairs and the future of Brazil’s presence on the global political stage.

    History shows that to be respected and accepted as a global leader, a nation must be an economic power, commanding a large share of global output and trade.  The nation must also have a stable political climate domestically, be a military power, and have a global mindset or willingness to be an active participant of the global community.  Brazil is the fifth largest country in the world in both territory and population. It is a country without significant linguistic, cultural, racial, ethnic, religious or regional internal conflict. Since 1985 and the end of the twenty-one-year military dictatorship, Brazil has become a stable democracy, the world’s fourth largest, with regular, fair and free elections based on universal suffrage.  Its economy is the eighth largest in the world with one of most advanced industrial bases in the developing world having an impressive stock of  natural resources, Brazil is one of the world’s major exporters of agricultural produce and minerals and  is largely self-sufficient in energy becoming a net exporter of oil. Brazil is a world leader in alternative, renewable-energy technology, especially in the production of ethanol. The future of the Amazon rainforest, which is 75% Brazilian, is central to international environmental concerns.

    Brazil has an outstanding record as an essentially non-military country having one of the longest periods of peace with its neighbors..  Brazils regional influence can be seen in its active pursuit of  a policy of  engagement, both economic and political, with its neighbors - especially in South America, to a lesser extent in central America (including relatively little involvement with Mexico) and the Caribbean. Its relationship with the United States is generally good, but remains complicated; Brazil, for example, has resisted the US agenda for the economic integration of the western hemisphere. 

    Brazil is a member of the Organisation of American States (OAS), founded in 1948; and the country’s presidents have attended all five Summits of the Americas held since 1994.  It is  committed to the formation in 2011 of a Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (with thirty-two members - that is to say, all the states in the hemisphere except the United States and Canada). 

    Despite the country’s strong ties with the developing world and its extraordinary growth in its imports and exports, Brazil had been unable to acquire the decisive status it had long desired due in part to its failure to complement diplomacy with a commanding lead in its military power. In recent history, no great power has acquired a determined voice in international affairs without a major investment in military manpower and hardware.  Despite its moderate military strength, Brazil has participated in 33 U.N. missions since 1948, contributing around 27,000 troops to peacekeeping activities throughout the world in such diversified locations including Suez, Mozambique, and East Timor. Since 2004, Brazil has led the U.N. Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) with the largest contingent of forces in the country, and in 2011, the Brazilian Navy took command of the Maritime Task Force at the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).

    Ambassador Amorim argued that under president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Brazilian government international relations was prompted by three policy dimensions: an economic diplomacy, political reform, and a social agenda. This internal triad of policies under Lula had significant international impacts, since they were an answer to the need for an agenda that sought  to deal with the asymmetries brought about by a globalization policy based only on free trade and foreign direct investment ascribed to Washington and Europe. Such actions as the stimulus to internal markets and savings, domestic internal production and the reforms of domestic industrial capacities were seen by the Brazilian government as being impeded by the global development policies of the world’s dominant industrial nations.

    The combination of domestic social, energy, urban and agrarian productive policies showed a political will of the Lula  government to exercise a strong  hand  in the  global defense  of Brazilian economic interests. Brazil embarked on an intense international agenda, transcending a subordinated approach to globalization in favor of a more active leadership role leading to actions that could affect the course of regional and world events.

    As a global trader, Brazil wished to keep its relations with different areas of the world, giving priority to Mercosur and South  American  integration. As soon as Brazilian diplomacy started to contest some guidelines of US hegemonic power and stress its autonomy, a certain amount of leverage was created.  Subsequently, Brazil was able to call attention to the social-economic demands and infrastructure projects being pursued both internally and regionally with its neighboring nations.

    Brazil’s diplomacy dilemma was to face the unavoidable and tough dialogue among opposites,by strengthening its stance in the world and in South America. Friendly, but defiant, Brazilian diplomacy created its alliance with developing countries that were affected by the global trade and political policies of  the G20 nations. In broader terms, in the first years of the Lula administration,  Brazil strengthened—and in some cases established—strategic partnerships with China, India, Russia, and South Africa. As a result, the nation created new channels of cooperation among developing nations, such as the IBSA Dialogue Forum—a mechanism for cooperation and political consultation involving India, Brazil and South Africa.  Another channel was the establishment of a summit process involving Arab countries and South America and, separately, African countries and South America.  

    Brazil’s multi-lateral coalitions, bi-lateral strategic partnerships and South-South alliances have enabled the country and its partners to fill a power vacuum in the international field in an effective and rapid manner. Brazil’s international presence prevented what was an essentially unbalanced trade negotiation process—based on the “Washington Consensus”—from becoming reality.  By sticking to its principles rather than giving into the prescribed globalization model, Brazil was able to protect and continue its internal policy development options.

    Although  Brazil’s emergence in the global economic and political arena has been rapid and impressive it remains to be seen whether it will be able to continue on this path or see its influence slowly decline as other nations begin to emerge. Several commentators have argued that Brazil’s rise in influence in global affairs has not been due to the rising importance of the Brazilian economy or its influence in global trade but due almost exclusively to the skill, integrity, and stature of its very capable diplomats such as Ambassador Celso Amorim. Ambassador Amorim’s presence and discourse at the World Denver event only serve to fuel that impression.

  • 10 Apr 2017 1:01 PM | Marianne Hughes (Administrator)

    By Dan Zuchegno

    Early in the event, the panelists pointed out that ISIS and Sunni jihadism have a long history and have been present in various forms before Al Qaeda. Each panelist referred to the complex set of historical religious and political relationships that render a simple approach to ISIS inappropriate.  Attempting to paint a broad picture of these relationships, we can look into the political and religious geography of the area.  In Iraq, although the majority of the Iraqi population is Shiite or Shia, Saddam Hussein was a devout Sunni.  Over time, Hussein and the Baath party obtained political power in Iraq and Hussein ruled the nation from 1979 till 2003 when the US attacked Iraq and overthrew Hussein. The fall of Hussein led to the establishment of a Shiite majority government in Baghdad and the beginning of recriminations against the Sunni minority,


    In nearby Saudi Arabia, the Wahhabi movement led to a “model” society of Sharia observance and moral virtue.  Although Saudi Arabia is largely Sunni, the government does not share the radical ideology of violence prescribed by ISIS and does not publicly condone the actions of ISIS.  Jordan, like Saudi Arabia, also has a Sunni majority that does not share ISIS’ radical views. Unlike the government of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah of Jordan has shown to be more willing to join the fight against ISIS. King Abdullah’s involvement, however, represents a fine political tightrope as many Jordanians wonder why their monarch has joined the American-led coalition against jihadists from the Sunni dominated Islamic State (ISIS).


    In Syria, the political and religious factions are more interwoven.  President Bashar al-Assad is Alawite, a form of Islam that dates back to the 9th and 10th century, which has suffered from periodic persecution by the Syrian Sunni majority. The rise to power and continued execution of control by the Al Assad family is the result of a complex set of historical alliances between leaders of the Sunni Baath party and the Alawite minority. The civil war in Syria, beginning almost seven years ago, has led to an ever more complex series of rivalries in the country with minority religious groups tending to support the Assad government, while the overwhelming majority of opposition fighters are Sunni Muslims, not necessarily ISIS.


    A discussion of ISIS must recognize the connection between ISIS and its control over territory, in particular, a strong connection to specific areas in Syria and Iraq.  The conflict in Syria has made for a patchwork of control over vast areas of Syria. The chaos in Syria and the lack of a strong central government in Baghdad have combined to provide an opportunity for ISIS to claim control over vast areas of territory in both nations and an opportunity to proclaim a home for its newly created Sunni caliphate. The reality of ISIS is that the Islamic State is Islamic, very Islamic, following a medieval tradition of fundamental Islamic teachings which have been absent for hundreds of years. Although much of what ISIS looks like appears nonsensical, it can be seen as a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and creating a formal caliphate to enforce traditional Islamic mandates of the prophet Mohammed.  Giving support to the growth and presence of ISIS and laying the foundation to the question, what ISIS really wants, Anjem Choudary comments, that, “Before the caliphate, “maybe 85 percent of the Sharia was absent from our lives… These laws are in abeyance until we have khilafa”—a caliphate.


    The final discussion of the evening addressed two interrelated questions; what are the similarities and differences between Al Qaeda, and why have so many westerners abandoned their homes and families to migrate to ISIS?  It was agreed that unlike Al Qaeda which was a clandestine operation resulting in substantial intelligence being expended by the west to search out and find members of the organization, ISIS is a twenty first century social media organization which uses Twitter, Facebook, and other global social media. Through the continual communication and dissemination of its ideology, ISIS has become a “caliphate of the imagination”, spurring individuals from the west to take action, to play a part in the creation of a utopia based on the strict adherence to the ISIS form of Sunni Islam. It seems that the ideology has given many recruits a sense of purpose, a belonging that fills the void for many who believe that their lives and society have failed them. 


    All the panelist agreed that ISIS ideology is a serious threat to the world and argued that it is a threat that cannot be defeated on one front and is a struggle the US cannot win alone or quickly given the complexity and magnitude of the issues in question. Everyone reiterated that this fundamental ideology was driven in part by widespread bad governance, shifting social mores, and the humiliation of living in lands valued only for their oil.  Ambassador Hill added that without acknowledgment of these factors, no explanation of the rise of the Islamic State could be complete and that the best approach to addressing this myriad of issues is a multi-faceted approach that does not rely on military intervention but instead addresses some the foundational issues of religion, development, and justice upon which the ideology is based. This long term multi-pronged attack must be based on defense, diplomacy, economic development, and aid.


    A conclusion for the evening can be found in Ambassador Hill’s statement that the US must stay engaged with all the parties involved in the issue arguing that the US must lead the resistance to ISIS collaboratively being careful not to try and impose our will on others.


    I thank all the panelists for their many valued writings as well as their comments during the World Denver event that made this discussion of the topic possible.  Daniel Zuchegno


    For more information on ISIS and the region, the following links provide a broad spectrum of information.


  • 10 Apr 2017 12:37 PM | Marianne Hughes (Administrator)

    By Dan Zuchegno

    Discussions of the existence of a special relationship between the US and the UK has its origins in 1946 in Fulton, Missouri.  In a speech given by Winston Churchill at Westminster College, Mr. Churchill addresses not only the role of newly created transnational institutions such as the United Nations but the role of free people to strive to maintain freedoms for everyone,

     “…All this means that the people of any country have the right, and should have the power by constitutional action, by free unfettered elections, with secret ballot, to choose or change the character or form of government under which they dwell; that freedom of speech and thought should reign; that courts of justice, independent of the executive, unbiased by any party, should administer laws which have received the broad assent of large majorities or are consecrated by time and custom. Here are the title deeds of freedom which should lie in every cottage home. Here is the message of the British and American peoples to mankind. Let us preach what we practice - let us practice - what we preach.”

    “I have now stated the two great dangers which menace the homes of the people: War and Tyranny. I have not yet spoken of poverty and privation which are in many cases the prevailing anxiety. But if the dangers of war and tyranny are removed, there is no doubt that science and co-operation can bring in the next few years to the world, certainly in the next few decades newly taught in the sharpening school of war, an expansion of material well-being beyond anything that has yet occurred in human experience.”

    “Now, while still pursuing the method of realizing our overall strategic concept, I come to the crux of what I have traveled here to say. Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organization will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States.”

    Later in his Missouri speech,  Mr. Churchill muses: "Let no man underrate the abiding power of the British Empire and Commonwealth." Yet less than a year later, the US Secretary of State Edward Stettinius wrote to President Roosevelt and said: "Never underestimate the difficulty an Englishman faces in adjusting to a secondary role after so long seeing leadership as a national right."

    What makes this special relationship dynamic is the subsequent interaction between the two nations. Whether it be a disagreement of how to partition Palestine in the post WWII period, or failure of the UK to inform the US of their military intentions at the Suez Canal, or the UK refusing US requests to send troops to Vietnam during the early stages of the Vietnam War, or any number of other disagreements, each nation will always have distinct and at times disparate views.  Regardless of the existence of often times divergent policy choices, the panelists agreed that there is a much stronger alignment of political, social, and economic views that will continue to dominate the relationship between the two countries.

    It was pointed out by the panelists that despite the strong cultural bonds between the two nations, we must continually work  to maintain and expand our relationship.  The panelist’s pointed out that the UK-US relationship has pragmatic implications as the resources of each nation must be used to promote the common values of freedom and the role of government to protect and maintain the liberties Churchill described . 

    It is this recognition of the pragmatic foundation of the UK-US relationship that was on display in a passionate discussion by the panelists in the WorldDenver event.  From the opening  discussion, the panelists reiterated the existence of a very strong and deep relationship between the US and the UK.  The consensus was that the unique relationship between the two nations wasn’t based in a historical narrative of our founding citizens. It wasn’t due to our connections on language or heritage. The relationship was based, as Churchill stated, on an overriding  consensus in our belief of individual freedom and the role of each nation in maintaining this freedom.

    The panelists unanimously stated that this special relationship had several practical foundations. The key foundations or elements of this relationship were described as;

    - Our long standing sharing of intelligence, the “5i’s”.  The Five Eyes alliance initiated in 1946  through a series of  bilateral agreements is a global surveillance arrangement of nations comprised of the United States National Security Agency (NSA), the United Kingdom’s Government Communications Headquarters(GCHQ), Canada’s Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC), the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD), and New Zealand’s Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB). The Five Eyes alliance  share intelligence, military technology,  and military strategy and mission.

    -A strong sense of political cooperation and respect. Both nations share core values in the specification of the role and limitation of government and a commitment to protect civil liberties for everyone. This cooperation is based on mutual trust and understanding among the two governments.

    -All of the panelists agreed that a further pillar of this relationship can be attributed to several very interrelated issues, a commitment to education and a strong economic and business relationship between industries and companies in a variety of sectors.

    It was stated repeatedly, that both nations value and promote education and recognize the value of education in building a strong economy and capable leaders in global business and commerce.  It was  pointed out that the UK is the single largest investor in the US and many US firms hire large numbers of UK citizens and vice versa. 

    The issue that many in the audience wanted addressed was the impact that Brexit was going to have on both the US and the UK. It was pointed out that although the UK is leaving the EU it is not leaving Europe. The Brexit vote was  not anti-Europe but more of a populist vote for self-determination of UK concerns. The panelists agreed on two fronts, (1) the future birthed from this vote is to be determined as the UK must renegotiate trade and economic relationships with the rest of Europe and the US and (2)  these negotiations will provide  an opportunity to again place the UK in a key position in the world, holding not only a special relationship with the US but a special relationship with the rest of Europe.

    For more information you can look into the following links. -The Sinews of Peace by Winston S. Churchill, 1946 in Fulton Missouri.

  • 03 Mar 2017 10:33 AM | Eddie Kamber

    By, Casey Sacks

    My Russian Experience 

    Last year when I met Nadezhda, Nadie, she lived in my house for about a month during a Russian Business Leaders (RBL) program. We had a wonderful time together, cooking meals, spending time with friends and family, and talking about world affairs and politics. She spent her days in Colorado an internship program. And after work and on the weekends we got to spend time together. 

    Fast forward to 2017. As a part of her RBL project Nadie invited me to Russia. We share a common professional interest in higher education and using education as a driver for economic development. She is working on a project in Russia to help universities better serve businesses by customizing training to meet employment needs, something I specialize in. As a result of our shared interest, her project in Russia emerged as a conference jointly attended by business and university leaders to talk about how they could more effectively partner. 

    As part of my visit, Nadie developed an excellent conference. She had faculty and deans for four major universities in Russia and dozens of businesses come to the table to learn from each other. Businesses I'm very familiar with, like Microsoft and Mars, said similar things to Russian universities about their workforce needs as what I would expect them to say here in the United States about similar employment issues. I had the opportunity to be a morning keynote and then spent time in workshops with my Russian colleagues. 

    Later, Nadie arranged meetings with university leadership at their home college campuses. That allowed me to see the Russian university system in action and also helped her build connections for her business interests. The priority I consistently heard leadership speak to was about becoming ranked on the list of 100 best universities in the world. While some US colleges do chase rankings, I work with community colleges and we most definitely do not chase rankings. Our interests are largely about access, learning, completion, and job placement. Rankings aren't something that enter my talks with colleagues and it was a shift for me to consider what the priorities must be for the Russian Universities with increased rankings as a primary goal (perceived prestige, spending, publications, and English speaking faculty).   

    My time in Russia drew to an end quickly. But while I was there I got to present at a world class conference, present at my Embassy, meet colleagues at half a dozen universities to discuss mutual interests in serving industry more effectively by creating students who were prepared for work. I also got to help students at Education USA to understand and consider community colleges as affordable and accessible options for their own international education experiences. While the professional development I gained from this month was incredible, the most valuable and cherished part of my experience was talking to Russian people. Spending time with Nadie. eating and drinking tea, spending time with friends and family, and talking about world affairs and politics are the things that I will continue to cherish the most back here in the United States. 

  • 28 Feb 2017 2:31 PM | Eddie Kamber

    By, Daniel Zuchegno

    United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Series: Clean Water and Sanitation


    The World Denver event on February 22 concentrated on goal 6: Clean Water and Sanitation of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal Series.

    Panel:             Eleanor Allen, CEO of Water For People

                            Paula MacIlwaine, Deputy CEO of American Water Works Association

                            Katy Sill, Water and Sanitation Advisor in the USAID Water Office

                            Dr. Marshall Davert,  president of MWH

    The panel was moderated by Allegra da Silva advanced Water Reuse Engineer at MWH Global.

    Each of the panelists described  their efforts in the broader spectrum of  global water and sanitation challenges touching on two major themes of water and sanitation issues. Each of  the panelists presentations  helped to illuminate these issues surrounding development goal number 6.

    The issues:

    One,  global facts associated with a lack of drinking water and proper sanitation and the impacts of  not having clean and viable sanitation.

    Two, how do we achieve these goals  and ongoing efforts to achieve them.

    The panelists mentioned that despite substantial strides being made in the area of water and sanitation, approximately 83% and 70% of countries reported falling significantly behind the trends required to meet their defined national access targets for sanitation and drinking-water, respectively.

    • 2.6 billion people have gained access to improved drinking water sources since 1990, but 663 million people are still without.
    • At least 1.8 billion people globally use a source of drinking water that is fecally contaminated.
    • Between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of the global population using an improved drinking water source has increased from 76 per cent to 91 per cent
    • Water scarcity affects more than 40 per cent of the global population and is projected to rise.
    • 2.4 billion people lack access to basic sanitation services, such as toilets or latrines
    • More than 80 per cent of wastewater resulting from human activities is discharged into rivers or sea without any pollution removal.
    • Approximately 70 per cent of all water abstracted from rivers, lakes and aquifers is used for irrigation.

    The panelist mentioned that sustainable targets have been to cut the deficits in half then reduce them by half again.  These iterative targets for drinking water  have been met in 147 countries but were slightly less successful for sanitation goals.  Rather than continue on this path the new development goals are to ensure availability of sustainable management of water to everyone by 2030, a very ambitious but attainable goal.

    What are the impacts of not meeting development goal number 6?

    Each of the panelists mentioned that clean water and sanitation have impacts throughout an economy.  By managing water sustainably, society can better manage production of food and energy and contribute to jobs and economic growth.  It is rightly argued that proper water and sanitation is a key foundation for achieving many other development goals, including improved health and gender equality. Additionally, we can preserve our water ecosystems and their biodiversity,

    Just looking into the health impacts, each day, nearly 1,000 children die due to preventable water and sanitation-related diarrhoeal diseases.  More than 2million people die every year from diarrhoeal diseases.  Poor hygiene and unsafe water are responsible for nearly 90 per cent of these deaths.  The lack of access to clean water and sanitation also has detrimental effects specifically on young girls and women. In most societies, women and girls are delegated to fetch and carry water to homes. The time it takes to go to a local well and carry water back to the point of use often precludes girls from attending school and getting an education.  The lack of restrooms, latrines and sanitation in schools also precludes young girls from being able to attend school and receive a formal education.  This  covert form of gender discrimination slows economic growth and development in an economy and ascribes women to a second class of citizenship.

    The second aspect of the program concentrated on what can and is being done to achieve  millennium goal number 6.  From a cost perspective it is estimated by The World Health Organization that the total annual cost of meeting the sanitation target is just over $9.5 billion. If the full cost of tertiary wastewater treatment for waste streams in urban areas is added, the total rises to $100 billion. Clean water capital costs are estimated to be around $35billion annually. The panel reminded those in attendance that the maintenance and upkeep of a water system must also be determined and met  in order to achieve a sustainable water and sanitation system.  Given these costs, it is estimated that achieving the water and sanitation MDG target  could generate economic benefits, ranging from US$ 3 to US$ 34 per US$ 1 invested, depending on the region. A more than acceptable return for any project.  A return that begs the question as to why more isn’t being done given the human and social costs associated with less action.

    In summarizing the issues of water and sanitation projects globally, the panel emphasized that smaller projects are often times more manageable and sustainable than larger mega projects that exist today in many major urban areas. The panelists agreed that  in terms of the governance of services, a well-run utility demonstrates four key characteristics:

    • ·         They are managerially and financially autonomous.
    • ·         They are accountable to their stakeholders.
    • ·         They are efficient.
    • ·        They are customer-oriented.

    Following are several links that provide additional detail of global efforts in the area of water and sanitation.

    United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Series: Clean Water and Sanitation


  • 14 Feb 2017 4:31 PM | Eddie Kamber

    Post Created by: Zachary Adams 

    Visitor: U.N. Secretary General (as of January 2017) António Manuel de Oliveira Guterres
    Country of Origin: Portugal
    Program Year: 1978
    Travel Itinerary: Washington, DC; Denver, CO; San Francisco, CA; Grand Canyon, AZ; New Orleans, LA; Orlando, FL; New York, NY; Boston, MA

    On January 1st, 2017 former Portuguese Prime Minister (1995-2002) Antonio Guterres officially began his role as the 9th Secretary-General of the United Nations. We at Meridian International Center were delighted to hear this, as Mr. Guterres participated in an IVLP that Meridian facilitated in 1978. This blog entry will provide insight into his program and introduce his professional background and objectives in travelling to the United States at that time. For those interested in more information about his current agenda, you can read about it here.

    Let us make 2017 a year for peace.” – @Antonioguterres, January 1st, 2017

    When he was selected to participate in the IVLP, Mr. Guterres was a leading Member of Parliament within the Portuguese Assembleia da República (Assembly of the Republic). He was also acting as both the National Secretary for Research of the Socialist Party of Portugal and the President of the Parliamentary Commission for Economy, Finance, and Planning. His responsibilities in both positions likely contributed to his interest in having “discussions with politicians, academics, and bankers in the area of economic problems and Portuguese-American relations.” These exchanges would take place with a variety of actors over a month-long period in cities including Washington, DC, San Francisco, and New York.

    Travel itinerary (Read Washington, DC – Boston, MA)Travel itinerary (Read Washington, DC – Boston, MA)

    Mr. Guterres began his IVLP experience in Washington, where he met representatives of several public and private sector organizations, including the Treasury Department, the State Department and the World Bank. The next day he travelled to San Francisco to meet with educators and bankers about the state of economic relations between the U.S. and Portugal. Shortly thereafter, he had the opportunity to visit the Grand Canyon in Arizona before travelling on to New Orleans, where he examined the role of local government and federal/state relations in the United States.

    After a stopover in Florida, Mr. Guterres traveled to New York for professional meetings on topics such as the relationship between the U.S. federal government and the central banking system. He visited Niagara Falls briefly before finishing his IVLP in Boston, where he met with faculty from the Harvard Business School and several departments at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. At these two major research universities, Mr. Guterres examined programs of study and explored perspectives on U.S.-Portuguese relations.

    From there, the rest is history.

  • 17 Jan 2017 2:25 PM | Eddie Kamber

    Ilana Kurtzig

    On December 14, WorldDenver welcomed a panel of foreign affairs superstars to speak to member and guests about Middle East Policy in the upcoming Trump Administration. Barbara Slavin, career journalist and acting director of the Future of Iran Initiative at the Atlantic Council, moderated the panel. The panel members were Ambassador Chris Hill, now Dean of the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver and Ambassador Ryan Crocker.


    The conversation was insightful and, at times, heated as panelists discussed the history of U.S. policy in the Middle East, the questions surrounding Trump’s strategy (i.e. does he have a strategy?), and lessons learned from decades of work in diplomacy. One of the big questions for the panel was whether the new administration would tackle old problems or begin to take on new problems. Syria, Russia, Middle East politics; these are the worn problems. Taiwan and China? Those are newer, and to the panelists, it is a mystery why Mr. Trump would chose to revisit the China/Taiwan issue at this juncture. Two of the main reasons to tread lightly at the moment, said Crocker, are 1) the unintended consequences of getting involved can be severe, and 2) that disengagement proves over and over again to create spaces for unsavory groups to flourish. Hezbollah replacing the Palestinian Liberation Organization, ISIS from Al Qaeda in Iran were two examples. The succession of failed systems and a series of "isms" have continued to fill vacuums left by engagement and disengagement tactics from the U.S., said Crocker.


    So, where does the U.S. want to go, asked Slavin. "We need a strategy in Syria," answered Hill, "and we want to see a policy review that requires more than 140 characters," he continued, referring to Mr. Trump's penchant for making policy statements through Twitter. The U.S. already moved in Iraq and flipped power from Sunni to Shia leaving the country in company only with Iran in terms of its leadership - thus creating a problem demonstrated by the Iraqi question: Why are we living under Shia rule when no one else is? Crocker agreed that a policy is a wise move, but warned that ridding the world of ISIS means nothing if we make no considerations for what the aftermath would and could be.


    The panelists agreed that all of these questions need to be viewed with an eye on Russia as diplomatic decisions by the new administration begin. Mr. Trump has nominated administration members who have strong ties to Russia. With a strong National Security Adviser (and National Security Team, for that matter), Secretary of State and a series of strategies, the direction of Middle East policy in the new administration might become clearer. At the moment, we're all waiting for that strength to appear and solidify.

  • 03 Nov 2016 12:49 PM | Marianne Hughes (Administrator)

    Ilana Kurtzig

    On July 15 of this year, rogue elements of the Turkish military attempted to take control of the government of Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan. That same evening, they failed. On October 5th, Dr. Henri Barkey of the Woodrow Wilson Center came to Denver to give WorldDenver members and guests insight into why the coup attempt took place and the repercussions for Turkey, the Middle East and Turkey's relationship with the United States.

    Turkey has been divided for years, Barkey began. These divisions he said can be directly linked to two conditions present in Turkey: 1) the secular-religious divide, and 2) the Turkish-Kurdish divide. Both of these divisions said Barkey are the result of changes instituted by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk when he secularized the nation under a dictatorial military system. Ataturk left intolerance of people of faith, and spread the idea that all living in Turkey must be ethnic Turks. This latter stance is the root of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict which continues today.

    For many years, people did not take seriously the importance of these divides said Barkey. For this reason, the country has been simmering.  More recently, president Erdogan, who came to power in the early 2000s, moved to consolidate his power, moving away from a more liberal position. In order to do this he formed an alliance with Fethullah Gulen (the very person his government is now holding responsible for the coup attempt, and the person Erdogan is pushing the US to extradite).

    Since the coup attempt, which Barkey said was carried out rather poorly and was certainly not "textbook coup," Erdogan has continued to further consolidate power. He has arrested and jailed military generals, colonels and other personnel, reducing the size of the military by 150,000 in two months' time. He declared an emergency government thus allowing himself to take action without due process. He has fired school teachers and journalists effectively removing opposition and the ability for children to be educated in the fashion the country has become accustomed. Currently, said Barkey at least 90% of the newspapers are now government controlled. One result of this is the rise in conspiracy theories, said Barkey. One of the more widely spread theories, he said, is that the US government was behind the coup attempt. There is no substantial evidence, however, that Gulen or the US government is responsible.

    Despite this, said Barkey, there will be repercussions not only in Turkey, but also for Turkey's foreign relations. Domestically, Erdogan continues to consolidate power and has replaced almost all of his cabinet and ministers with "yes men." According to Barkey, Erdogan might move to change the constitution to gain more power. Unfortunately for him, said Barkey, there is no one to take his place once he leaves power so there is opportunity for religious factions or some other group to take control. As far as foreign relations are concerned, Turkey is now problematic for all countries in its region. The Kurdish fighters are the only ones willing and able to take on ISIS and the US is allied with Syrian Kurds which will further strain US-Turkish relations in the near future. Turkey and the US still have a strong relationship, said Barkey. Only time will tell how it evolves.

    About Henri Barkey: 

    Dr. Henri J. Barkey is the Director of the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. He is the former Bernard L. and Bertha F. Cohen Professor at Lehigh University. Barkey is also a former public policy scholar at the Wilson Center. His most recent works include Turkey's Syria Predicament (Survival, 2014) and Iraq, Its Neighbors and the United States, co-edited with Phebe Marr and Scott Lasensky (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace, 2011). He served as a member of the U.S. State Department Policy Planning Staff working primarily on issues related to the Middle East, the Eastern Mediterranean, and intelligence from 1998 to 2000.

  • 03 Nov 2016 12:36 PM | Marianne Hughes (Administrator)

    Ilana Kurtzig

    With Election Day looming in one of the more controversial races in recent times, it makes sense for Americans to really take a look at what makes a good US President. Fortunately for WorldDenver members, Talmage Boston has done most of the work for us, researching the various traits of presidents that have given them an edge in leadership and decision making during crucial moments in our history. On October 12, he shared those ten traits with us and asked the audience members to consider each when thinking about his or her vote on November 8.

    Boston began by asserting that the same traits that made a good president 200 years ago still apply today. Using concrete examples from presidential actions or inactions, Boston put forth the following vital traits:

    1. Be the conscience in chief
    2. Remain above the fray and build consensus
    3. Know one's limitations and how to complement or supplement them
    4. Persevere over setbacks
    5. Play hardball when necessary
    6. Stay calm in a crisis
    7. Be mindful of good timing when pursuing initiatives
    8. Be a great communicator and follow through
    9. Put the welfare of the nation above one's own political interest
    10. Stay abreast of public sentiment and find ways to shape it to align with one's vision

    Boston cited Thomas Jefferson's ability to build consensus between the Federalists and the Republicans, and his general ability to work across the aisle to bring together those with conflicting ideas. He used James Madison as an example of someone who knows his limitations, citing his work with Washington and others to complement his brilliance with their creativity. Franklin Roosevelt maintained confidence despite his physical disability and Lyndon Johnson remained patient during the civil rights movement to ensure that efforts to obtain equal rights were buoyed by current national sentiment and not lost among competing movements.

    In relation to number nine, putting the nation above self, Boston used George H.W. Bush as an example. Specifically he cited Bush's now-famous "read my lips, no new taxes" statement. According to Boston, Bush had to go back on his word to avoid a potential recession and to fund the Gulf War. "He broke his promise for the the good of the people," said Boston.

    Boston's examples ran the length of our presidential history and showed how our leaders have worked together to overcome difference when needed, and how a great leader can move a country forward in a way that is meaningful to not only to the country presently, but that can prove meaningful for generations to come.

    So, which of the current candidates do you think best exhibits these traits?

    About Talmage Boston:

    As a civil litigator for almost four decades, a historian, and an author, Boston recognized that a history book constitutes the author’s thorough direct examination of his subject. Knowing ultimate credibility can only be derived following cross-examination, over a three-year period, Boston interrogated those who have performed the heavy lifting of research and analysis about our commanders-in-chief in his new book, Cross-Examining History (Bright Sky Press, 2016). 

  • 03 Nov 2016 12:18 PM | Marianne Hughes (Administrator)

    Colorado Supreme Court Justice and long-time World Denver member and volunteer Richard L. Gabriel recently visited Bulgaria, at the invitation, and with the generous support, of the Bulgarian Judges Association and the America for Bulgaria Foundation.  The principal purpose for Justice Gabriel’s visit was to address the annual meeting of the Bulgarian Judges Association in Plovdiv, Bulgaria.  The Association, which is comprised of over 900 judges from Bulgarian district courts, city courts, and supreme courts, works tirelessly to achieve a better, independent, and fair justice system and to that end, has actively supported judicial reforms necessary to achieve these goals.

                The topic of Justice Gabriel’s address was the judicial performance evaluation process in Colorado.  After describing Colorado’s merit selection system for selecting judges, Justice Gabriel explained the detailed, nonpartisan method by which Colorado state judges are evaluated and stand for retention by Colorado citizens.  After sharing a power point presentation on these issues, Justice Gabriel fielded questions from the audience.  The questions ranged from specific questions regarding Colorado’s judicial evaluation process to questions regarding how judges in Colorado educate citizens about the judiciary in order to ensure trust and confidence in the judiciary.

                The other official business of Justice Gabriel’s visit was a visit with the Honorable Lozan Panov, President of the Supreme Court of Cassation, at his office in Sofia, Bulgaria.  Justice Panov and Justice Gabriel enjoyed a lengthy discussion in which the two shared how their respective judicial systems operated, including discussing areas in which reforms would be useful.

                Fortunately, although Justice Gabriel’s trip was not lengthy, he did have the opportunity to explore both Plovdiv and Sofia, with the most generous assistance of Mr. Lenko Lenkov, Program Director, Civil Society and Democratic Institutions, for the America for Bulgaria Foundation.  Mr. Lenkov, whose knowledge of his country’s history is remarkable, showed Justice Gabriel some of Plovdiv and Sofia’s notable landmarks, explained a great deal of Bulgaria’s history, and also shared some of the many magnificent projects on which the America for Bulgaria Foundation has worked and is working, including the restoration of the small basilica in Plovdiv, the ongoing restoration of the Bishop’s (or Large) Basilica there, and the Foundation’s ongoing support for arts and culture, including its support of architecture and dance week in Plovdiv.  Other highlights of Justice Gabriel’s included dinner and visit to a local jazz club with Judge Atanas Atanasov, Judge of the Sofia City Court and President of the Bulgarian Judges Association, and several of his colleagues (a very kind gesture, given that Justice Gabriel is himself a professional musician), and lunch with Ms. Nancy Schiller, President and Vice Chair, and Ms. Desislava Taliokova, Executive Director, of the America for Bulgaria Foundation.

                Justice Gabriel is immensely grateful to all of his hosts in Bulgaria, and he looks forward to returning there soon to continue this wonderful partnership aimed at ensuring the fairness and impartiality of the judiciary both in the United States and Bulgaria.

<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   4   5   ...   Next >  Last >> 
Privacy Policy  | WorldDenver | PO Box 40396 | Denver, CO  | 80204   
Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software