Placement Report – Osgood Center for International Studies Washington, DC.

Lidia González de Diego S3819043

MA Geopolitics and connectivity

Permanent address: Telesforo Aranzadi 3, 3ºB, Bilbao (48008) Spain Osgood Center for International Studies – Washington, D.C., USA External supervisor – Dr. Shelton Williams

Placement lecturer – Bastiaan Aardema

Placement Report – Osgood Center for International Studies Washington, DC.

Lidia González de Diego S3840

Placement lecturer: Bastiaan Ardema

Preface

After some internet research, I decided to apply to different positions that I found through Going Global. Although I considered different options, I ended up deciding I wanted to spend the summer in the United States of America.

Truth be told, I would have preferred a paid internship, yet when the I was offered

the job I knew I could not put it down. Not only are internships in Washington, DC highly

competitive, the organization seemed to offer just what I was looking for. Both the United

States of America and the Caribbean have been regions that have fed my passion for the

International Relations field and regions that still trigger my research. So that this

opportunity further set me as an ideal candidate in future job offers looking for an expert

in Central and North American relations. For this reason, I saw Washington, DC, as a

political epicenter for my interests and a great opportunity for growth. Hence, after the

application process and a Skype interview, I agreed to take the internship and move to

Washington, DC on June 1

, 2019.

Table of contents

- Introduction

- Description of the organization, assignment and tasks performed a. The organization

b. The assignment c. Tasks performed

- Description of the placement itself a. Assignment and tasks

b. Results and output - Evaluation

a. Personal learning outcomes and reflection

b. Acquired competences and the applicability of the degree programme to the work in question

c. Reflection on what the student wishes to contribute to the placement organization

d. Impact on my future career - References

- Appendices

1. Addressing American 21st century problems”

2. Report “A conversation with Minister of Defense of Portugal João Gomes Cravinho”

3. Report on “Russian troops in Venezuela”

4. Report on “Gender and power competition”

- Introduction

The Osgood Center for International Studies, hires every summer a small group of interns offering them the opportunity to further expand their knowledge on the American national policy, its foreign policy, and the United States’ role in the world order.

From June through August, interns help plan and administrate other learning projects (i.e. UN model program) coordinated by the non-profit organization. The organization requires some deep research on issues that include the global economic and security order, but allows for participants to take on research on different topics within the International Relations field in order to customize and develop each one’s academic and professional goals inasmuch as possible. The Osgood Center, in exchange, asks for weekly briefings and reports the intern has been working on by desk research and attending seminars, international forums and expert talks.

Throughout a research that relates closely to the intern’s goals, he or she enjoys opportunities to meet and hear from a wide variety of leaders in the national and international arena. Plus, participating in program activities the own interns arrange allowed us to work on oral skills, helps develop administrative tasks and exposes every one of us to contrasting perspectives on world’s forefront issues.

Overall, it has been a breakthrough for me to work for the Osgood Center.

Washington is one of the best educated population in the world, hence, a place to

synthesize everything learned in university and previous academic education (The

Osgood Center for International Studies, 2017). The ideal bridge for an International

Relations intern to explore future career steps. I have been able to re-discover what I am

passionate about and the topics that not so much. I have been able to work in one of the

world’s political foci, where I have been exposed to a different view of the world order,

the so-called West, and a contrasting idea to the statehood system I have known up until

now. Nonetheless, there have been a thing or two I wished I could have worked on, as

some re-discovery of the direction I would like my future career to head.

- Description of the organization, assignment and tasks performed.

a. The organization:

The Osgood Center is a non-profit organization that seeks to advance the understanding of public affairs and contemporary international issues through different experiential learning programs. The self-denominated educational organization, offers short-term foreign policy programs to graduate, college, and high school students from around the globe. Their programs are thought-provoking, experiential, and solution focused. Students come face-to-face with American foreign policy, national, and international leaders that include, but are not limited to, experts from the US State Department, US Defense Department, National Security Council at the White House, US Congress and premier think tanks.

The final aim is to positively affect the lives of participants and prepare young people who strive to understand public policy issues and work to find creative solutions to global problems. Hence, the Osgood Center identifies as its core values: Commitment to quality education; international awareness; financial responsibility and stewardship;

personal growth and professional development; civic engagement; diversity;

collaboration; and, good corporate governance (see The Osgood Center for International Studies, 2017).

The Board is composed from experts on different fields (i.e. professors across different United States’ universities, major NGOs, international organizations such as the World Bank Group, multinationals and think tanks): Sheldon L. Ray, Jr, Jeff Abernathy, Nicholas M. Bassey, Cindy Dyer, Denise Fate, Bart S. Fisher, Jennifer Hara, Sarah Hillware, Charles E. Morrison, Haleh Vaziri, Gregory M. Williams.

The Senior Advisory Board: Bruce Ellsworth, Les Janka, Tim Kenedy, Sally Shelton- Colby, Bonnie Wilson (see The Osgood Center for International Studies, 2017).

b. The assignment

The organization requires interns some deep research on issues that include the national policy, global economic, and security order and foreign affairs of the United States of America. In this sense I have been to round tables, conferences and seminars organized by major think tanks such as Brookings and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) among others. I have researched, attended and discussed topics ranging from the US’

presidential 2020 elections to the Russian sphere of influence the United States of

America attempts at counterbalance (most often than not in Cold War era terms).

But the placement allows for participants to take on research on different topics within the International Relations field in order to customize and develop each one’s academic and professional goals inasmuch as possible. On a more personal choice, I tried to combine these topics with themes regarding gender studies and its relation to geopolitics, US-EU relations and the role of NATO in the twenty-first century, Latin and Central American relations in the Trump era, etc. I got a unique experience to keep on researching, learning, and even personally meeting some of the most influential people in my MA thesis topics (a relation of geopolitics, gender studies, and US-Caribbean relations). To name a few: Mike O’Hanlon – Brookings institution, Kiki McLean – Clinton’s family political campaign manager, Monica de Bolle – Peterson Institute for International Economics, John Wagner – White House correspondent to The Washington Post, Paula J. Dobriansky – US Diplomat.

c. Tasks performed by the organization

The Osgood Center for International Studies is in essence, an educational organization devoted to offer experiential learning programs on foreign policy to young graduates, as well as university and high school students from around the world. There are multiple programs through which Osgood, as the hosting organization, connects interns with different Washington-based institutions to work by experiential learning.

The Osgood Center Washington Experience in particular, is designed for interns to receive a customized experience that meets their own professional, academic, and personal goals. Supervisors take care that interns make the most of their expectations out of their time in the Unites States of America’s capital. These supervisors are experience academics with vast practical experience in the professional world.

In the time together supervisors in the Osgood Center ask for assignments of

different kinds to interns: ranging from attendance to conferences, seminars and round

tables to their own programs as a hosting organization. Complementary work is based on

research of different kinds (desk, interviews, debates etc.), administrative tasks

(conference planning, coordination of incoming students to participate in learning

programs, fixing a schedule and sending out invitations for experts attending the

Osgood’s yearly symposium), and oral communication (participating in daily debates

taking place in conferences/seminars etc., weekly oral presentations to our supervisor,

etc.). As well as supervising these activities, the organization’s goal is to have thought-

provoking programs, hence, it coordinates face-to-face encounters with foreign policy

and international leaders, including experts from the US State Department, US Defense

Department, the National Security Council at the White House, the US Congress, and

premier think tanks.

Different programs the Osgood Center hosts:

- Some past programs: Summer Symposium (August 2019), TXMUN- Houston (February 2019), Continuity and Change in American Leadership Seminar (January 2019).

- Some upcoming programs: 2021 Presidential Inauguration Program, Washington Internship Program.

- Description of the placement itself (assignment, tasks, results, output)

a. Assignment and tasks

The group, composed of about 15 interns (there were different kinds of internships:

some of them came as students and combined part of the work at Osgood with summer seminars at the George Washington University, the rest, about ten of us, worked at Osgood full time). Our workplace was set in a building of the George Washington University, right in Washington’s, DC downtown. However, we spent most of our days away in conferences, expert talks and seminars, plus we had some liberty when it came to desk research. On certain days we needed to be at the Osgood Center, but some other times we could work from wherever suit us best as long as we got the job done, since (most of) the events took place throughout the city.

All the interns are required to assist with the planning, administration, and execution of Osgood Center experiential learning programs. These include the Osgood Institute on the Global Economic and Security Order: Concepts, Conflict, and Cooperation and customized visits by U.S. and international students to learn about public policy in Washington, District of Columbia. To contribute to other higher education program planning and assistance as needed. As well as developing self-directed learning goals and a professional development plan to measure one's own learning progress and achievement to gain academically from an exceptional professional experience.

Interns must attend conferences, seminars, forums and other international-themed events to learn about issues relevant to Osgood Center programming and their own academic goals (ibid.). After these, we had to develop well-structured reports that had to be send by the end of the week to Dr. Williams. Issues and topics throughout events was widely varied, but we were given almost total freedom in choosing the ones we wanted to attend to (always within the IR field). Hence, I learned, listened to and mainly wrote about: EU-US relations, gender issues within geopolitics, Caribbean/Latin American- North American relations and matters of American national and international security.

Dr. Williams read all of our briefings and reports and gave us a brief but straightforward

feedback. And, depending on the topic, it was sometimes raised in our weekly meetings

too (e.g. if it had to with current political affairs, a controversial issue, or simply if one of us brought the topic to the discussion).

It is to be highlighted that we were not able to appreciate the load of work (we were required about 3 to 5 briefings and reports weekly on top of the administrative tasks/oral presentations etc.) being used. Often these were used internally, for our own learning experience, and to guide future programs (e.g. the topics we wanted to cover in the August symposium), but it was and still is hard to see any tangible use of our work through the placement.

Interns participate in program activities that they have arranged. This was an opportunity to meet and hear from a variety of leaders in the national and international arena. During July, we held a model UN for high-schoolers. We needed to prepare well the event with regards to the logistics (with flights, housing, schedules, etc.) and the content of the same. As the team of interns, we were supposed to help younger students with the research and developing of research papers on the different countries. Also, most of these students were Latin American, where my help was indispensable to help them draft due to the significant language barrier.

In a similar way, we were in charge of coordinating expert talks, help with invitations, visas, housing and transportation of symposium participants. We were preparing to host this event on foreign affairs since I first arrived in Washington, DC on June. We, as interns, among other responsibilities had to inform Dr. Williams of any good speaker we encountered throughout the summer and get in touch with experts in any relevant topic we would have enjoyed listening to. Moreover, we needed to prepare a little research beforehand on the topics and personalities speaking during the symposium weeks, to make sure, when the time came to open the floor to questions and debates, it was a vibrant one.

A big part of this experience was both ability and the responsibility to network with some of the cutting-edge organizations and experts on international politics in the globe in Washington, DC. We had an overall flexibility to develop our own learning objectives and choose activities that relate most closely to these goals. For the self-motivated student, this was an exceptional internship experience.

b. Results and output

The tasks carried out during the three summer months resulted in the tangible work

of a UN model program that took place in Virginia during the month of July (that was

mostly composed by high schoolers from Latin America), a symposium with which we

finalized the summer late August: two full weeks of expert talks (from White House

correspondents to major newspapers to diplomats and Trump administration

representatives) and visits to major organizations based in Washington DC (the US

Department of State, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and several think tanks among them). Lastly, a long list of research papers, debates, reports and conference briefings throughout the three months.

The Osgood Center for International Studies, as a non-profit devoted to educational programs, has since its foundation, developed close ties with the George Washington University, thus, the academic output of the organization is high and work within the think-tank world and the academic sphere were central in interns’ jobs.

- Evaluation

a. Personal learning goals and reflection on them:

Most of my expectations had to do with the content of the internship, which was mostly covered. I was looking forward to learn first-hand from renowned experts on American national policy and international security. As it will be further developed, I would also highlight I had some other expectations that had more to do with practical issues of a professional workplace, and had less to do with the academic side of the internship.

Speaking skills were developed through orientation regarding conferences and international-themed events around Washington, DC. From weekly meetings among colleagues and supervisors to Osgood’s events, my oral skills were challenged. Being almost the only one with English as my second languages made me at least shy at first.

As weeks passed by I managed to control that fear, not without Dr. Williams help (who often pushed me a little to talk). Still, public speaking in debates, were most of the audience were senior IR professionals and questions were directly addressed at experts, was especially daunting.

With regards to desk research and evaluation, expanding my knowledge on national United States of America’s policy-making and the government’s general functioning from the inside was one of my personal learning goals, and by far the objective I have most worked on. While insight on national policy was deep and thorough, the United States of America’s foreign policy, especially with that regarding the fields of grand strategy, relations and international security, felt less complete and rather inward-looking.

As mentioned, reporting, editing and briefing different kind of

documents/conferences was one of the central tasks of the internship. Although I

developed sharp academic skills during my Master’s seminars, at times, such academic

writing contrasted with what was asked of me in reports, and it was a challenge to shape

my writing to shorter texts; were importance was given to the content and not so much to the form (professional vocabulary but not necessarily scholarly).

Although translation is a job I have carried out for years in my head, I have never had to do it as an official task. During this internship, I was key translating papers and drafting in both English and Spanish in the UN model program that took place, were students were mostly Spanish speakers with a significant language barrier.

During our weekly meetings with Dr. Williams, our direct supervisor, we were in charge of performing a series of comments and recommendations as would an expert consultant in foreign policy advising its clients. It was also during these meetings that Dr.

Williams gave us oral feedback on past tasks that involved the group as a whole (sometimes we would comment specific issues from papers/seminars/conferences that did not affect all of us, but this only happened when it had to do with unresolved questions and forefront issues; e.g. governor Ricardo Rosselló’s resignation after ten days of pacific protests, even though not all of my colleagues were experts on the matter or had little interest, it was an issue we went about for quite some time).

Organizational skills and planning (of events) was a big part of the internship.

Administrative work, from schedule fixing to coordinating visits, invitations, maintaining correspondence and planning, required a significant amount of time from our weekly work. Deadlines were tight and the load of work was usually big. Despite having much flexibility on many matters such as where to work from some days or what seminars to attend to, we were pressured by weekly deadlines that sometimes had little to do with Dr.

Williams’ will (e.g. pressured by events: needing the positions papers for the model UN).

I was definitely required to sharpen my networking skills and develop ties with other think tanks and organizations based in Washington, DC. Once again, this was a hard task for me to carry out. The shyness to network with more experienced, established professionals made me feel completely out of my comfort zone and it is a fear I do not think I fully succeeded to control.

International security and almost everything that had to do with international affairs,

referred to international as the relationship between the United States of America and

other countries/subjects, and not so much weight on International Relations as a subject

in itself. Apart from that small note, my overall initial expectations were mostly

completed. There was one learning goal I did not succeed to achieve. Because I was not

a hundred percent sure about the kind of research I would be asked for, I adventured to

think I may learn about quantitative research and data analysis. However, all of the

conducted research was qualitative and that personal goal was not possible to fulfill. It

will surely stay on the future personal learning goals list. Moreover, even though not

listed as a learning goal, I was expecting more teammate work. During my placement,

though keeping a distance with the tasks ask for, the kind of work fulfilled was very

similar: lots of individual research and desk work. Because the Osgood Center is an

organization funded upon the principle of experiential learning, it is was not very practical in the sense of grasping professional experience.

b. Acquired competences and the applicability of the degree programme to the work in question

Through this internship, I was able to achieve nearly all the personal learning goals I wished to, which had not been possible without moving to Washington, DC, and working for an organization so closely related to the academia.

The job I had to carry out with the Osgood Center was undoubtedly very similar to the work I carried out throughout the rest of the academic year in the “Geopolitics and connectivity” IR Master programme. As established, the internship had a strong academic aspect to it which was exactly what I was looking for, and there was room of maneuver in adapting the job to each one of our interests. Thus, the main issues I covered had a lot to do with those I covered during my first and second semester seminars and MA thesis:

international security, foreign policy and grand strategy, gender studies and regional particularities, which for me was EU and Mediterranean Europe, the Caribbean and their relationships with the United States of America. At the Osgood Center, we had practical discussions on policy-making matters of issues that I had previously discussed academically throughout my MA.

Owing the close relation between the Master’s tasks with those fulfilled at the Osgood Center, as I have already hinted in the last section, I left with the feeling of not having completely grasped the professional experience I had in a beginning thought I would.

c. Reflection on what the student wishes to contribute to the placement organization

My view could have at times clashed with some of my colleagues’ perspectives, and, even with that of my superiors. With all due respect, I have tried to develop different lines of arguments that sometimes clashed with what I believe is product of the American national interest. We all are inevitably biased by our backgrounds and circumstances, and thus, I often recognized an American bias in the discussions I have been part of. Hence, although difficult to express at times without controversy, I saw calling out these loaded statements an important contribution I could take on.

I have addressed this issue as the “American national interest”, because it was a

pattern I often saw both in discussions among colleagues and in expert talks. This is a

reality that made me rethink my own bias. Working with a team full of Americans with

little to no international experience (with regards to living away; experiencing different

realities as foreigners etc.), had me analyzing my education, experiences, cultural differences and overall background. This experience proved me how organizations are truly shaped by the lived experiences of those who compose them and more than that, how difficult it can be for these realities to come to terms. I would like to think that those who have already been through contrasting realities (i.e. people with multicultural profiles), are less bound to speak categorically, in a way that dismisses any and every particularities of societies, value system, working culture, understanding of facts etc.

Fortunately enough, I encountered some academics from other backgrounds (in the Osgood Center the vast majority was American or had been living in the United States of America for a very long period of time), that called out the same bias I perceived.

Remarkably, during the symposium, there were some speakers that really had an impact on me. It was the first time in three months that a senior professional raised big American criticism unabashedly; Les Janka, from John’s Hopkins University and part of the Osgood Board was surely one of these unabashed speakers.

d. Impact of the placement on my future career.

Even though this surely was a great opportunity and taught me important teachings, if there is one criticism I had to call out, it would be the little follow up we as interns received. There was much more individual work and research than expected, the modus operandi was at times so similar to the research done throughout my Master’s, that it felt like work not that relevant for the organization. Maybe wrongly, I had the impression that there would be more teamwork. It is true that the description of the internship clearly established that it was a great one for those self-motivated people, but still, there were times where I did not exactly know what was I doing so much research and reporting for. Surely for myself and to learn, but how was my work being useful to the Osgood Center?

However, if I already knew I enjoyed research and academia, I discovered that, more specifically, think-tank work is where I would like to head. Seeing first-hand the work of major think tanks I have always looked up to such as Brookings and CSIS was an absolute dream. I also rediscovered the importance of regional focus; though I surely enjoy American politics, I would not wish to work for an organization mostly centered on national affairs.

Hence, there are several options I am currently considering: because I think it hard to

find a think tank job from a young age (though I will surely keep applying), a more

realistic option will most likely be to apply for a PhD grant. I still need to give this idea

some thought; I may wait for a little while to re-enroll in a demanding program like that

and maybe work for a year before that in any IR-related job. In other words, while I see

the PhD as a short term ambition and think tank job as a rather future job, I believe I will

try my luck in some European organization in the immediate future. Contrary to how

open I have always been when it comes to where to go next, my priority right now is to

stay not so far from home, probably look at universities and job offers in any of Spain’s

bigger cities (Madrid or Barcelona) and/or other European major cities. Different time

zones, long flights and harsh weather have all been key in wanting a rest from my unusual

desire to stay close to home. But my interest have not changed, more like I have been able

to reassert my desire to pursue a career in foreign affairs; with special attention to gender

asymmetries in power relations, national and international security, European

Mediterranean, Caribbean, and North American concerns.

3. Appendices of examples of products created by me for the Osgood Center:

Add examples of speakers at the symposium and divide them in thematical order.

Main workload: different reports written throughout the three months. Only 3 attached due to the desire length of this report.

1. Report “Addressing American 21st century problems”

Brookings 10/06/2019

The conference consisted of two different rounds of four speakers, each one of the speakers being an expert of a current issue of importance to the United States of America right now or will pose a challenge in a close future.

The first speaker, Vanessa Williamson as senior professional in governance studies, showed concern about the very idea of democracy and the divergence within states about the voting policy. Such differences determine ‘who makes a valid citizen’ and who does not, posing difficulties on some Americans to exercise their suffrage right. Elaine C.

Kamarck’s broad knowledge on the issue of ‘fair elections’ and presidential campaigns, demonstrated the influence of foreign interference in presidential campaigns. Assuring such a phenomenon is not new and that ‘dirty tricks’ trace back decades, the concern now is the low cost of interference. The basic underlying problem is that ‘capturing’ fake information is too slow. Once there is a leak, the solution is already coming too late. Even if the ‘dirty trick’ seems completely nonsense, these interferences only aim at convincing and/or confusing a small number of voters that suppose a relevant difference in the polls.

The only available defense before ‘dirty tricks’ is ‘citizen read’, Kamarck assures. More

universities should implement classes that teach about news literacy and the interpretation

of these. Margaret L. Taylor, claiming the 2016 presidential elections brought issues

related to foreign interference to the forefront, generally agreed with Kamarck’s

statements. She recognizes the efforts the government is making, the importance of

following the example of Nordic countries on media literacy, and highlighted the

vulnerability of older generations. The challenge, Taylor assures, is making sure that

foreign money interferes during campaigns. Sarah A. Binder’s proposal, circled the idea

of looking for new ways of mass vote opportunities. As an expert on Congress, she

explained diverse forms of doing this through Congress, while empowering the body to

block decisions directly made by the executive power without the approval of any other

governmental Chambers. The immigration expert, John Hudak, explained how Trump

centered his 2016 presidential campaign around the issue, and there is now a clear record

of the way he believes it should be implemented. Because Americans have showed broad

discontent with how immigration has been handled, his 2020 run for presidency is more

complicated. Until the President leaves the executive approach to the problem,

immigration will remain a failure. Unless he manages to get Congress support, claims

during his 2020 run for presidency campaign will be unpopular. Makada Henry-Nickie,

by explaining how Latinos and African Americans continue to bear the imbalance of consume, highlighted on the responsibility to disentangle inequalities such as housing and loan access in order to protect consumers. Not only is there weak financial literacy among citizens, but the public sector too often ignores shifts happening in private sector. Hence, the response should be a coordinated one. Jon Valant’s appeal to school systems and the root of the large gaps in the opportunities of racial kids. Because those gaps have implications such as the ones aforementioned by Henry-Nickie (on consume, access to loans, housing etc.), he insists on the democratic risk that segregation in schools supposes.

Following the same concern with regards to education, Michael Hansen stressed college affordability by offering loan forgiving programs. Because the ones in place at the moment do not take into account some calculations, less privileged sectors of society (e.g.

black people) end up with bigger debts. His proposal is a ‘more generous’ program. Such

a program is aimed at targeting particular high need areas (this would exclude medicine,

law studies etc. that for the most part can easily pay off their debt). Theories are all

inevitably utopian, and as such, every democracy will have its advantages as well as its

drawbacks; hence efforts should be placed at mitigating democratic pitfalls like those

aforementioned. Generally, the proposals introduced by speakers point at following

examples of social democracies like the ones in Northern Europe. The general perception

in the United States about education is that this is an ‘inversion’, thus, does not that view

just stumble initiatives as the one proposed by Hansen? With regards to foreign

intervention and fairness of elections, even if this phenomenon currently poses a risk

globally, in the United States of America the solution seems harder to target. Since the

very system upon which presidential elections are based is a system where candidates

obtain finance by multinationals, how can we assure multinationals’ interests abroad are

not determining when supporting a candidate’s run?

2. Report “A conversation with Minister of Defense of Portugal João Gomes Cravinho”

Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS) 10am 14/06/2019

Through this talk with Portuguese Minister of Defense João Gomes Cravinho, we had the opportunity to deepen on the challenges one of NATO’s founding members is facing first-hand, particularly with regards to its relations with its transatlantic ally, the United States of America. The next few lines will portray some of the Minister’s most relevant statements today.

Even though Europe’s position as an ally has shifted throughout the first decades–

from merely an arena of confrontation with the Soviet Union to an independent subject–

the USA has in Europe a set of friends unlike nowhere else in the world. Brexit will surely be a challenge, and issues following this event will suppose a rearrangement of the EU- UK-USA relationship/alliance. Another of the relevant challenges pointed out is the rapid rise of China. Taking the phenomenon in a merely confrontational way would be a mistake; the country is not only an important source of foreign investment but makes a cooperative ally regarding global governance (e.g. climate change policies). Economic and strategic aspects, though many times intertwined, are important to be clearly differentiated. While there is a need to sort out differences between China and Western powers it is of upmost importance to keep on working on the things agreed upon.

Through an indirect reference to the current Unites States’ government administration, the Minister claimed that Europe’s development of an identity of its own (i.e. the uncertainty that new projects bring such as last week’s news about the European defense troops initiative) should not hinder transatlantic alliance, but NATO should offer ground for common understanding. Lastly, the continent of Africa, with all the challenges it presents in terms of promoting better living standards, is a source of growth and potential to global population in general and the African one in particular.

While issues exposed present critical twenty-first century challenges to Portugal,

the European Union and the United States of America alike, there were two main points

I found missing. Even though both migration and climate change were mentioned, neither

of them was approached as a problem on its own. The role of multilateralism and

cooperation among NATO’s member states was a transversal matter throughout the talk,

yet the pressing issue of migration receives complete different treatment among these

countries. President Trump’s migration policies are closer to the ones at place in countries

such as Hungary, Italy or even the United Kingdom (the EU’s migratory policies were

key in the referendum). In other words, to nationalist movements in general, thus, not to

pro-European states/political parties, hence, is there a point of reconciliation between the

USA and the EU in migration policies? Moreover, in a not-so-far future from now climate

change-led massive migratory movements will occur towards the Northern hemisphere,

would not a coordinated response to these be more effective?

3. Report on “Russian troops in Venezuela”

Atlantic Council 20/06/2019, 9am

Senator of Florida Rick Scott introduced the conflict alluding to the ‘genocide’

happening in Venezuela, Scott repeatedly referred to the “intentional starvation” of children, and stressed the horrific conditions in the Latin American country overall. In a direct reference to the Cold War period, the Senator claimed how it is not since the Cuban missile crisis that the Russian government has so clearly tried to impose their influence on the region. Owing Russia’s involvement in the conflict, president Putin is part of the Venezuelan genocide. Unless the United States takes action, “all the problems that happened in Syria will happen next to our border”, summed up Scott.

Following Senator of Florida’s speech, the conference continued with a group of distinguished panelists. Paula J. Dobriansky, discussed the strategic goals of the European country, highlighting the dominant and primary driving principle of Russian’s foreign policy to “fundamentally marginalize, minimize, if not eradicate US power”. Although it is worth noting that the case of Venezuela signifies a big economic investment for Russia, it is the political/geostrategic investment –Venezuela’s proximity to the US– that drives its involvement in the Caribbean country, claimed the diplomat. Very much in line with Dobriansky, Evelyn Farkas underlined the domestic importance an involvement in Venezuela has for Vladimir Putin. Paraphrasing her words, Russia’s support of the survival of different regimes around the globe is key in order to secure the nonintervention of the international community in Putin’s own autocratic regime. Mark Simakovsky, covered the conflict in the same terms as the previous two speakers, affirming the European power is analyzing the limited power of the United States of America in Venezuela, looking for ways to take advantage of disagreements within the current US administration on how to handle the matter. John Herbst characterized president Putin as a gambler that takes advantage of opportunities that arise. Konstantin Eggert’s view on the Venezuelan conflict downgraded the fatal American perceptions. Contradicting both the Senator and Farkas view, the Lithuanian claimed that the Syrian situation has little to nothing to do with the case at stake; while Russian presence and power in the Syrian territory are determining, these are far from having such power in the Latin American country. Precisely because of the limiting power Russia holds backing the Maduro regime, the Kremlin will refrain from direct confrontations to the US, where Russia has much to lose.

Speakers widely agreed that while military intervention is in none of US’ interests, Juan Guaidó is not seen as a solution by Russia either –who see him as a “US puppet”–

however, panelists seemed unable to offer alternative ways out of the Venezuelan

struggle. Considering EU-US’ close relationship, and EU’s role as a mediator in the

conflict –more particularly, the ‘Iberoamerican’ alliance, which makes of Spain a key

actor mediating between Venezuela and the EU-US alliance– how were external

mediators and/or alliances not proposed, considered, nor mentioned by any of the experts?

Moreover, my concerns by the end of the conference circled the idea of the American

‘duty’ to “give Venezuelans the option to choose” –Farkas’ words, yet very much aligned

with Scott’s, Dobriansky’s, and Simakovsky’s thoughts. Specifically considering the

realist terms employed by speakers throughout the conference (e.g. references to the Cold

War, the division of the world into the US and Russian powers, the understanding of the

world as one were both superpowers have ‘regional spheres of influence’ etc.), how can

it be assured that ‘giving options’ is not an euphemism for a ‘fight for influence’. Only a

thin line divides the two which, intentionally or not, can be easily crossed, which at the

very least, would imply a glimpse of the old Cold War era.

4. Report on “Gender and power competition”

Embassy of Liechtenstein 11/07/2019

As issues of national and international security are key issues in Washington, DC, on an everyday basis, there is not enough attention given to the role of gender in these global dynamics. Hence, the conference aimed at shedding some light on the role of gender in current ‘great power competition’.

The experts recruited for the conference covered some of the main current global powers and its position towards gender and peace and security. Kristen Cordell, assuring the United States of America has been the actor that “invented development”, supports the country’s interest in exporting democratic values. The US’ ultimate goal is for its partners to become self-sufficient. The speaker, other than stating that power discussion has been gender blind, did not engage much with the gender quandary in international dynamics. Patricia Kim, exposed the necessity of cooperating with China. The expert claims that the Asian power, far from aiming at influencing systems abroad, wants to expand economically. China does not pay attention to what type of system it is allying with as long as they are not trying to interfere in its internal affairs. Even though the current Chinese government has stated its support to gender equality, the power will not support anything that can challenge the established political order; be it feminism, labor rights, or any other civil movement perceived as a danger to the established. Deepa Ollapally, as the expert on India, focused on the one side on power dynamics in general and hypothesized over India’s alignment with Russia instead of the United States. On the other side, the academic shed some optimism on the situation of women in the country alluding to the power of social media and the vibrant activism of its population. Catherin Schuler, explained in detail the nature of the ‘patriarchal leadership’, particularly focused on the Russian case. Not only is there political underrepresentation of women in Russia, but the argument is that there are “larger problems” in the European country to disregard the unequal reality. Thus, she concludes, signed treaties supporting gender equality are merely public performance.

Contrary to what I perceived as a promising conference, I found it rather poor on

both content and cohesion within issues. My first criticism is the lack of terminological

accuracy. The conference read “Gender and power competition”, and yet there was no

reference to other than women. The gender spectrum is much more broad, and the very

concept ‘women’ appeals to the sex, not the gender of a person (which differentiates

within feminine-masculine). This was quite surprising regarding the subject of the talk

and the profiles of speakers –Schuler is a professor in women studies. My question, then,

is how does gender interact in international dynamics? And what difference does it pose

to properly differentiate conceptions of gender and sex with regards to international

politics? As a more positive remark, I find it important to highlight the expressed –and

shared– necessity of challenging the narrative surrounding this ‘power competition’ that

often reminisces the Cold War era by focusing on the bigger picture; one that reflects the

international system we want to see. In efforts to challenge established discourses,

feminism becomes a key movement by bringing civil society and the private sector into

a more cooperative and balanced form of global governance.