Cornell Club of Washington DC hosts "The World Financial Crisis: Where Are We Now and Where Are We Going?"
March 19, 2013 // 6:00pm — 9:00pm
A panel discussion sponsored by the Cornell Club of Washington, the Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies and the Woodrow Wilson Center.
March 18, 2013 // 4:00pm — 5:30pm
At the end of the 1940s Joseph Stalin was forced to negotiate a new treaty of alliance with the victorious Chinese Communists. Mao Zedong won significant concessions from Stalin. The Soviet dictator was compelled to alter completely his policy for Korea.
March 12, 2013 // 3:30pm — 5:00pm
Geir Lundestad's latest book explores the rapidly growing literature on the rise and fall of the United States. Lundestad argues that after 1945 the US has definitely been the most dominant power the world has seen and that it has successfully met the challenges from, first, the Soviet Union and, then, Japan, and the European Union. Now, however, the United States is in decline: its vast military power is being challenged by asymmetrical wars, its economic growth is slow and its debt is rising rapidly, the political system is proving unable to meet these challenges in a satisfactory way. While the US is still likely to remain the world's leading power for the foreseeable future, it is being challenged by China, particularly economically, and also by several other regional Great Powers.
March 11, 2013 // 4:00pm — 5:30pm
Robert Townsend will speak on the findings of his recent book, History's Babel, which looks back to the early decades of the historical enterprise to show how efforts to professionalize pushed history specialists (in archives, historical societies, and teaching) away from each other. This seminar presentation will offer a wide-ranging discussion of the many different professions of history and what they mean for the discipline.
March 04, 2013 // 4:00pm — 5:30pm
One reading of modern Turkish history focuses on the country's perpetual race to catch up with Europe. In the often forgotten world of interwar Istanbul, Muslims were the powerful hosts and Europeans the unwanted migrants.
February 25, 2013 // 4:00pm — 5:30pm
Arab academics and activists call the uprisings that started in early 2011 across the Arab world “revolutions.” Yet the “Arab Revolution” is both similar and dissimilar to the French, Russian, and other great revolutions that molded the history of the Western world, as described by Crane Brinton in his classic, The Anatomy of Revolution.
February 12, 2013 // 3:30pm — 5:00pm
In any given week, from North Korea to Iran and across the Middle East, from China to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Myanmar, through Africa and India to Russia, Belarus, Central Asia and Cuba, 165 million people—equivalent to more than half the U.S. population—tune into the radio and television programs of U.S. International Broadcasting (USIB) by satellite, Internet and in some cases cooperating local radio stations. After more than half a century, Congressionally-funded U.S. broadcasting remains the leading edge of American soft power—the principal means by which the United States speaks directly to less free and impoverished nations.
February 11, 2013 // 4:00pm — 5:30pm
After the American and French Revolutions, new-style written constitutions gradually came to be viewed as an essential symbol of a modern state. Britain fought against these two revolutions and has famously retained its un-codified constitution.
February 04, 2013 // 4:00pm — 5:30pm
The Cold War effectively began in 1945, as soon as Americans and Russians encountered each other in the heart of Europe. But nobody, not least Stalin, wanted the Cold War.
From Challengers to Partners? Relations Between Human Rights NGOs and their Home Governments from the 1970s on
January 30, 2013 // 12:00pm — 12:45pm
The concept of human rights acquired global significance during the 1970s, spurred by the activities of a growing number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) responding to state repression in Chile, South Africa, the Warsaw Pact states, and elsewhere. Key interlocutors for NGOs like Amnesty International and Helsinki Watch were their home governments, whom they influenced through a combination of public campaigning and private lobbying. Crucially, it seems that during this period human rights NGOs experienced a trajectory from ‘outsider’ to ‘insider’ status. Does this mean that they paid a costly price for their newfound influence, namely abandoning their original ‘apolitical’ appeal and becoming less impartial and independent? Or should we understand this to be their success in transforming the character of international politics?