Nicholas Dungan's Posts (14)

Sort by

Available at nicholasdungan.blogspot.com and below for your convenience

 

HERE IS THE TEXT OF MY NEW ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN L'ENA HORS LES MURS OCTOBER 2012

[REPRINTED BY PERMISSION © L'ENA HORS LES MURS]

New Challenges in the French-American Relationship

Nicholas Dungan
Senior Fellow in the Transatlantic Relations Program, Atlantic Council, Washington DC
Senior Advisor, Institut de Relations Internationales et Stratégiques, Paris
Past president and chief executive, French-American Foundation, New York
The “new” challenges in the French-American relationship result as much from the changed nature of that relationship as from the challenges themselves. In the second half of the 20th century, France and the United States deserved — and received — recognition as largely successful countries. Since the beginning of this 21st century, their success has greatly dimmed.
The French-American relationship frames two facets: the direct bilateral relationship between France and the US and the deployment of that relationship when the two act together on the world stage. The new challenge that France and the United States must address in their bilateral relationship concerns the need to restore their competitiveness. The new challenge that the two countries face in their global role consists in retaining their relevance.
The compulsion to compete
In the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Survey for 2012-13, France dropped to number 21 among 144 countries in the measure of total competitiveness, where it ranked fifteenth only two years ago. The United States dropped from fourth two years ago to seventh in the current survey, released in September 2012.
Competitiveness constitutes a topic of strategic national importance reaching all sectors of society. For France and the United States to enhance their 21st-century competitiveness, they need to include representatives from government — local, regional and national; legislative, judiciary and executive and military — from industry and business, finance and the law, academia and the policy community, not-for-profit and civil-society organizations, media and other thought leaders and influencers.
Competitiveness resonates well in the French-American relationship, for many of France’s strengths represent areas of American shortcomings, in addition to which the two countries share certain common problems. In terms of industry sectors, both France and the US must maintain cutting-edge, high-technology, largely domestic defense and security industries. France has globally leading companies in areas where America has failed to invest or re-invest: nuclear energy, water and environmental services, infrastructure and transport. The United States, on the other hand, excels in information technology, the global industry in which France holds the weakest position.
With respect to policy issues, America can claim excellence in entrepreneurship, in university and post-graduate education and in collaboration among academia, business and government in fundamental research. France out-classes the US in primary and secondary education, especially science and mathematics, and in the delivery of universal healthcare. They share an enormous problem which ranks high among the “most problematic factors for doing business” for both countries in the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Survey: the complexity of their tax systems, different in each but harmful in both.
As regards competitiveness concepts, France is an organized country, planned and thought-through, while the US seeks order, if at all, ex post facto. This leads to greater efficiency in France than in the US, not only in the functioning of government institutions, but for example in healthcare, where, although the quality of individual treatment differs little per se, France delivers longer life expectancies than America at half the US cost, measured both per capita and as a percentage of national output. At the same time, in terms of the functioning of institutions, in the US, not-for-profit and other civil society organizations contribute hugely compared to their relative role in France.
Assisting each other to achieve increased competitiveness will benefit France and the United States not merely in their national performance but also in their knowledge of each other. The professionals in the French-American relationship — senior ministers and diplomats, military officers, terrorism specialists, trade representatives — are often well acquainted. Yet despite a handful of exchange and leadership programs, the vast majority of elected officials, senior civil servants, policy makers, business leaders, academics, media commentators and other influencers simply do not know each other as well as the postwar generations did. Pursuing a joint goal of competitiveness therefore makes sense also from the standpoint of building the French-American relationship for future generations.
Standing for something
France and the United States are condemned to be important. The two great Enlightenment democracies are expected to embody and to promulgate universal values and big ideas. They are among the few countries in the world to be complete, with economies spanning a full range of agriculture, industry and services as well as possessing international power in the form of broad-based diplomatic representation and a full-spectrum military capability. Without question, France remains the indispensable country in Europe and the United States remains the indispensable country in the world. This obliges them to move beyond the crisis management that has become a wearying habit and once again invest in addressing vital, long-term, global policy issues. This generation of leaders must show itself to be unafraid of taking on the Herculean labors borne by the postwar generation which bequeathed us so much.
Today’s global challenges could hardly be more clear: Europe, international institutions, development and the environment. The European Union must evolve into a series of concentric circles, pursuing deepening and enlargement simultaneously, with an inner core of countries and societies approaching an ever closer union, a ring around that of the free-trade area the UK has always wanted and a larger transatlantic community of like-minded peoples incorporated into the Council of Europe, which today is comprised of 47 countries and 800 million citizens and welcomes as observers Canada, Mexico and Japan as well as the United States, well over a billion people with shared humanist western values.
France and the US occupy privileged positions in the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the United Nations, the G8, the G20 and scores of other organizations. We need to reform global governance both to reflect the rise of the rest and to respect the uniquely valuable contributions from traditional global powers. We cannot clutch yesterday’s privileges; we must shape tomorrow’s realities.
Global development not only fulfils the humanitarian goal of lifting our fellow women and men above poverty and subsistence, it also completes in a modern manner the work of decolonization, of providing opportunity without patronizing, of offering access to the benefits of globalization without westernizing. Intelligent development serves the interests of France and the United States, and the West as a whole, by promoting opportunity and inclusiveness. If we do not empower them, we risk their alienation, resistance and repugnance of the values we believe we defend — or worse.
The environment and the need for science to confront the threats and, perhaps, exploit the opportunities arising from climate change, equally require French and American leadership. After the abject failure of negotiation at Copenhagen, not only must we admit that these problems will fester and enfeeble our species, our habitat and our planet if not addressed, we must recognize that there exist no other forums to confront such problems than among the national authorities of our still Westphalian international organizations. And if such duties thus fall into the domain of sovereign states, without France and America nothing can be done, whereas with them acting together nothing can be discarded.
In the final analysis, whether in cultivating competitiveness in the bilateral relationship or in reasserting relevance in their joint action in the world, the stark choice arises again and again between the desire to be exceptional and the duty to be exemplary. France and America each, because of their singular and superior standing in history, cede too readily to the temptation of imagining that exceptionalism contributes to their interests. The new challenge for France and the United States consists in deserving — and receiving — recognition as successful countries in the 21st century by virtue of their exemplary, not their exceptional, character and achievements.

------------

Extract from l'ENA Hors les murs, October 2012, No. 425, pp. 33-34, reprinted by permission, © L'ENA Hors les murs

Read more…

HERE IS THE LINK my issue brief 'France: Back to the Future' published today by the Atlantic Council

http://www.acus.org/publication/france-back-future

and the media advisory below

jpeg

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 15, 2012

 

CONTACT

Taleen Ananian

202.778.4993, press@acus.org

France: Back to the Future

WASHINGTON - In his latest Atlantic Council Issue Brief, Council Nonresident Senior Fellow Nicholas Dungan writes on the current state of politics in France, providing unique analysis of the Hollande Administration, US-France bilateral relations, the future of French foreign policy.

His main conclusions are:

  • Hollande and his government will act like socialists at home and Gaullists abroad. This may make French policy more traditional and predictable compared to Sarkozy but it doesn't address France's problems.
     
  • France's main domestic challenge as competitiveness. To achieve greater competitiveness, Hollande will have to liberalize and dismantle much of the rigid entitlement system, including reform of the labor market.
     
  • The only way to reduce the overweight public sector in France is to grow the private sector. To do this, France must become a market in which French people want to stay, and foreigners want to come, to build businesses — not a socialist agenda but the only path to competitiveness, and to success for Hollande, as opposed to a high-tax anti-business stance.
     
  • French foreign policy as basically steady even with a tone of greater Gaullist national independence yet we think France's big external challenge is not to safeguard its independence but to articulate a vision for the EU in the 21st century, obviously with its European partners.
     
  • US and French policy-makers and indeed most leaders from both countries don't know each other well enough, certainly not as well as the postwar generations did, and this is accentuated by a new administration in France and even more if there's a new one in the US.
     
  • American conservatives need to know the French socialists aren’t demagogues, and the French left needs to know the American right aren't gunslingers.
     
  • The best way for French and US leaders to achieve better mutual understanding is to pursue a joint competitiveness project over several years (the US needs a competitive overhaul too) and it turns out French and US competitive strengths and weaknesses are similar and complementary.

Click here to download the full brief in PDF format.

###

The Atlantic Council is a nonpartisan organization that promotes constructive US leadership and engagement in international affairs based on the central role of the Atlantic community in meeting today’s global challenges. For more information, please visit www.acus.org.

 

Atlantic Council • 1101 15th Street, NW, 11th Floor • Washington, DC 20005

www.acus.org • @AtlanticCouncil

Read more…

My book Gallatin: America's Swiss Founding Father served as source material for this new study of how highly educated foreigners contributed to the US financial system in the early years of the republic, especially Hamilton and Gallatin

I requested the book be bought by the New York Society Library and I am now reading it, having received it today

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674066922

Read more…

« Stratégies d'influence »

TOMORROW MORNING I WILL DELIVER A GUEST LECTURE at Baruch College of the City University of New York to a graduate class on the topic 'Strategies of Influence'. The course professor is my friend and colleague Stephen K Dishart who in additional to his professional activities http://www.dishartccmc.com/ on which we work together also teaches in the Weissman School of Arts & Sciences at CUNY

Read more…

INTERVIEW WITH FRANCE CULTURE

INTERVIEW WITH FRANCE CULTURE which I just taped will be aired during the 12.30 lunchtime news, Paris time, tomorrow, Tuesday 4 September, hosted by Antoine Mercier. Subjects include the Democratic convention, the outlook for the US election campaign and the strengths and weaknesses of both presidential candidates www.radiofrance.fr @Radio-France www.franceculture.fr @france_culture To listen live www.franceculture.fr/player

Read more…

CONTINUING FRENCH LANGUAGE COMMENTARY of the US presidential election campaign I am quoted in this comprehensive analysis by Joe Mezher in the leading French-language daily in Lebanon, L'Orient Le Jour of Beirut:

http://www.lorientlejour.com/category/%C3%80+La+Une/article/776154/Romney_doit_mieux_faire_pour_battre_Obama.html

À La Une
Présidentielle américaine
Romney doit mieux faire pour battre Obama
Par Joe MEZHER | lundi, septembre 3, 2012


Le candidat républicain à la Maison-Blanche souffre d’un lourd handicap d’identité et de leadership, qu’il devra impérativement surmonter s’il veut être élu le 6 novembre prochain face à son adversaire démocrate, le chef de l’État sortant.

Au terme de primaires fortement médiatisées et gagnées de haute lutte, Mitt Romney a été adoubé à la convention républicaine de Tampa (État de Floride) en tant que candidat de son parti à la Maison-Blanche. Quels sont ses avantages face au président démocrate sortant Barack Obama (candidat d’office de son parti)? Quelle influence auront les néoconservateurs et le Tea Party sur la suite de sa campagne? Le bilan des années George W. Bush plombera-t-il son élection? Les démocrates l’espèrent du moins, alors que les républicains eux-mêmes le redoutent. Quels seront donc les défis que devra relever Romney afin de s’assurer d’être le prochain occupant du bureau Ovale?
Les experts et analystes interrogés sur la question sont unanimes: Romney souffre d’une image médiatique peu reluisante auprès de l’opinion publique ainsi que d’un manque de confiance au sein même de son propre parti, qu’il devra impérativement améliorer et surmonter s’il veut être élu en novembre prochain.
Pour Nicholas Dungan (senior fellow à l’Atlantic council – Washington DC et senior advisor à l’Institut des relations internationales et stratégiques – IRIS, basé à Paris), les deux principaux défis de Romney sont de pouvoir montrer qu’il est doté d’une personnalité chaleureuse et qu’il a élaboré un programme cohérent. «Dire qu’il a géré une entreprise qui a gagné beaucoup d’argent ne suffira pas jusqu’en novembre», estime M. Dungan.
«Pour l’instant, sur le fond, Mitt Romney se trouve dans l’ombre de Paul Ryan (son colistier) dont les idées politiques sont claires, même si elles sont également détestables aux yeux de certains, dit l’expert. La médiatisation des primaires républicaines joue autant contre Romney que pour lui, car après tous ces mois devant le public américain celui-ci n’arrive toujours pas à savoir qui est Mitt Romney. La convention républicaine devait donc servir à éclaircir le public sur le personnage», déclare encore M. Dungan, ajoutant: «Mais si Romney en sort aussi peu saisissable et aussi peu séduisant, la convention aura aussi joué contre lui.»
De son côté, François de Chantal (maître de conférence à l’université de Bourgogne et codirecteur de la revue Politique américaine) assure que la médiatisation des primaires républicaines vient surtout des démocrates. Selon lui, ces derniers ont profité de l’été, «une période cruciale pendant la campagne électorale car les identités des candidats se fixent», pour intensifier la bataille et véhiculer leur propre message en dépeignant une caricature de Romney. «Ils ont pris l’initiative, présentant Romney comme le candidat des riches, jouant sur son peu de charisme et pointant le fait qu’il n’a pas l’étoffe d’un dirigeant, dit-il. L’enjeu pour les républicains au cours de la convention de Tampa était précisément de redéfinir l’image médiatique de leur candidat. Ils ont cherché à humaniser Romney pour que le public ait de lui une meilleure opinion», affirme l’analyste.
Pour sa part, Roberto De Primis (spécialiste de politique américaine et fondateur de la plate-forme Internet www.usa2012.eu) estime que rien ne va comme il le faudrait chez les républicains. «Voyez l’ouragan Isaac qui a menacé la tenue de la convention. Il a fallu reporter le début de celle-ci d’un jour. Je sais que je grossis le trait, mais souvent ce genre de symbole peut donner une idée des difficultés encourues, dit-il. Qu’il soit bien clair que les sondages deviennent toujours serrés autour des conventions», ajoute-t-il, commentant les enquêtes d’opinion qui donnent les candidats au
coude-à-coude.
«C’est un moment-clé (...). Ces grands-messes servent à médiatiser à outrance le parti, ses membres, ses étoiles montantes (...). Une couverture totale est ainsi assurée par tous les médias. Les républicains ouvrant le bal, il est normal qu’ils reviennent dans les sondages», affirme l’analyste, qui insiste encore une fois sur les problèmes et divisions dont pâtissent les républicains.
Parlant du candidat lui-même, l’expert déclare: «Romney demeure insaisissable et même indéchiffrable. Il est porteur de tant de paradoxes, tellement diplomate, peu tranché sur certains dossiers qu’il en devient difficilement aimable. Il a de multiples facettes: homme d’affaires, homme politique, il joue aussi énormément sur les valeurs de la famille et le montre à outrance. À la base modéré, il s’est transformé en ultraconservateur pour prendre le dessus sur ses adversaires lors des primaires.»
Par ailleurs, figé dans une posture de communiquant terne et distant, bien qu’il ait un sourire hollywoodien, Romney doit à tout prix changer d’image et plaire à l’électorat, mais il est loin d’y être, ajoute M. De Primis. Et puis, Romney c’est aussi une incompréhension face à certaines attitudes. Il est mormon et sa religion interdit, entre autres, les jeux de hasard. Or parmi ses partisans on retrouve Sheldon Adelson, magnat des casinos de Las Vegas qui a créé un comité de soutien et a versé 10 millions de dollars à sa campagne. Comment un mormon s’allie-t-il à un patron de casino? L’argent est certes fondamental dans la campagne, mais c’est une marque de divergence face aux valeurs mêmes de sa religion, et la question pourrait être soulevée à tout moment.

L’influence du Tea Party
L’analyste poursuit: «L’influence du Tea Party existe bel et bien au sein du camp républicain. Le choix de Paul Ryan comme colistier par Mitt Romney en est l’exemple, puisqu’il est l’une des figures montantes du Tea Party. Ce choix est aussi une tentative de positionner les problèmes budgétaires et économiques au centre du débat électoral. Quoi de plus normal, quand on sait que Ryan est le président de l’influente commission des Finances à la Chambre des représentants.»
D’autres dossiers, comme l’immigration, vont également transparaître avant le 6 novembre, déclare aussi M. De Primis. «L’immigration est en train d’écrire le prochain chapitre de l’histoire des États-Unis et de leur peuplement. On assiste à un net déclin de l’Amérique blanche, anglo-saxonne et protestante (taux de natalité fortement en baisse)», assure-t-il.
Pour sa part, M. de Chantal confirme que Romney a un problème de relation avec le Parti républicain. «Il manque de soutiens et sa candidature ne fait pas l’unanimité. Maintenant, l’essentiel pour lui est de réunir le parti autour de sa personne. Dans cette perspective, le choix de Paul Ryan comme colistier est déterminant. Considéré comme leur héros par les républicains, Ryan était l’option judicieuse pour convaincre et rallier la base du parti car il représente aux yeux de tous l’avenir», assure l’expert.
En outre, selon lui, Ryan incarne parfaitement le conservatisme fiscal qui est au cœur du Tea Party. Toutefois, poursuit-il, Romney est dans une position encore délicate et il va devoir continuer à donner des gages pour s’assurer des soutiens. Autre problème pour le candidat, assure l’analyste: son appartenance religieuse. Il est mormon. Pour les chrétiens fondamentalistes du parti, c’est un sacrilège.
«C’est le Parti républicain qui, depuis une génération, s’érige en parti des idées et celles-ci sont devenues de plus en plus radicales », poursuit pour sa part Nicholas Dungan. D’après lui, pour gagner cette élection, Romney doit s’emparer à la fois de la droite assez extrême qu’est le Tea Party et des centristes. «Choisir Ryan comme colistier devrait plaire aux néoconservateurs et ainsi permettre à Romney de lever beaucoup d’argent, venu de certains hommes d’affaires qui le soutiennent au moyen des super-PACs (Political Action Committees). Mais c’est courir le risque de rebuter les centristes en novembre», juge l’analyste.

Le poids de Bush
Il ajoute aussi que Romney pourra, à titre personnel, se distancer de l’administration Bush. «Mais pour le Parti républicain, c’est plus difficile», insiste-il.
Concernant George W. Bush, «vous remarquerez qu’on ne parle plus de lui et qu’il était le grand absent de cette grand-messe». «Le Parti républicain n’est plus à l’image des années Bush et Romney était, sans nul doute, soulagé de ne pas avoir l’impopulaire ex-président à ses côtés à la convention; alors qu’un Ronald Reagan eut été mieux perçu, mais il n’est malheureusement plus des nôtres», affirme en outre Roberto De Primis, ajoutant que le bilan des années Bush ne devrait pas nécessairement handicaper Romney.
Parallèlement, «les démocrates font volontiers l’association avec George W. Bush pour couler Romney», affirme de son côté M. de Chantal. Toutefois, ajoute l’analyste, «la préoccupation première de l’opinion porte sur l’économie, la reprise de l’emploi, surtout, et Romney parie précisément sur ces préoccupations pour éviter d’être associé à Bush. Il se présente comme le candidat de la situation, tablant sur son passé d’homme d’affaires. Mais il n’en reste pas moins que le bilan de Bush pourrait, effectivement, le handicaper».
«Je me permets de relativiser la force des républicains, déclare aussi l’expert. Depuis l’avènement d’Obama, les républicains sont dans une position délicate. Ils manquent de personnes capables d’assumer un véritable leadership. Cela se sentait déjà depuis le départ de Ronald Reagan. Il existe bien sûr une kyrielle d’individus, à l’instar d’une Sarah Palin où d’un Paul Ryan, mais qui ne sont finalement que des seconds couteaux. Ils n’ont pas la stature de futurs dirigeants, n’ont aucun projet. Pour les républicains, cela constitue un réel problème pour l’avenir», estime M. de Chantal.
Et concernant le dossier de la politique étrangère, M. De Primis rappelle que «tout comme Obama en 2008, Romney n’a pas d’expérience internationale». «Le candidat républicain tient à démontrer qu’il est capable de redorer le blason américain à l’étranger, alors qu’Obama s’est trompé d’allié et de stratégie géopolitique. Toutefois, Romney manque de ligne directrice. Il agit en réponse aux actions du président en exercice, sans démontrer le moindre leadership. Ce même leadership dont Obama jouissait en 2008 et qui avait fait pencher la balance en sa faveur», dit-il, poursuivant: «Il faut observer comment Romney a tenté de ne plus avoir qu’un seul discours en ne critiquant Obama que sur l’emploi, l’économie et sa politique nationale. Il a ainsi effectué un déplacement à l’étranger afin de démontrer sa stature internationale, se rendant en Grande-Bretagne, en Pologne et en Israël. À cet égard, cette tournée de Romney à l’étranger a été profondément manichéenne. En d’autres termes, les fervents partisans de la politique de George W. Bush seraient amoureux des positions de Romney : une vision du monde entre ami et ennemi.»
En conclusion, Roberto De Primis déclare: «Sarcastiquement parlant, j’aurais tendance à dire que les électeurs américains choisiront le moins incertain des deux. Et à l’heure actuelle, c’est bien Obama!»
Read more…

Europe's September Phoenix

ON THIS DAY, the first of September, in 1939, the Second World War began. In the following essay, Fran Burwell, director of the Transatlantic Relations Program at the Atlantic Council, and I reflect on the significance for Europe of this anniversary:

http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/europes-september-phoenix

Europe's September Phoenix

Frances G. Burwell & Nicholas Dungan| September 01, 2012

As European leaders return to work after their summer holidays, they will find many of the same problems they left behind: the sovereign debt crisis, a vulnerable banking system and an unreconciled division over austerity vs growth. Amid the doom and gloom, however, it is worth pausing to celebrate how far Europe has come. 

On this day, September 1, in 1939, Nazi armies invaded Poland and began the Second World War. Out of that September disaster and the devastation of the war arose an effort to create a new Europe. At the University of Zurich in September 1946, Winston Churchill declared, “We must build a kind of United States of Europe” (though he did not mean for the British Empire to be part of it) and called for a Council of Europe, which was founded in Strasbourg in 1949. Five years after the end of the war, on what is now Europe Day — May 9, 1950 — Robert Schuman, the French foreign minister, proposed the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) among France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries. 

The ECSC was solidified by the Treaty of Rome, in 1958, into the European Economic Community. In the 1970s, Britain, Denmark and Ireland joined; in the 1980s, Greece, Portugal and Spain. After the end of the Cold War, the addition of ten Central European countries into what then became the European Union ended the great division of Europe and secured the transition to peace and democracy. 

Today, with 27 member states, the European Union incarnates “Europe whole and free.” The EU includes half a billion people, produces a fifth of global output, and ranks as the largest economy in the world. The euro constitutes the world’s second reserve currency, after the US dollar, and more than 300 million people use the euro every day. From the Atlantic to the Baltic, from the Arctic to the Mediterranean, schoolchildren learn that Europe is their larger homeland, providing, in the words of the EU motto, “Unity in diversity.” In far less than a century, the European phoenix has arisen from the ashes of war in the biggest political and humanitarian success story in the history of humankind. 

But today, Europe has become a victim of its own virtues. War between the European states is certainly unthinkable, but progress often seems unattainable. The eurozone crisis is only the most visible sign of Europe’s current dilemma: the stakes are so high and the issues so complex that consensus appears almost impossible. 

As a result, crisis management has become the modus operandi of the EU. This is a waste and a shame. The eurozone crisis has dragged on longer and cost much more as European leaders have negotiated partial solutions. At the core of their discord stand competing versions of Europe’s future. From the earliest proposals for a united Europe, it has never been clear whether the “ever closer union” described in the Treaty of Rome meant a union of states, or institutions, or peoples. The EU today displays a mix of all three, with different member states accepting pooled sovereignty to varying degrees.  Moreover, Europe has expanded to near the limits of its natural borders. 

The time has come to build the Europe of the 21st century. This September, the eurozone crisis also brings an opportunity to launch a new European phoenix.  This should involve deeper integration for those who seek ”ever closer union.” They must become not only a “single market,” but a “single economy” and eventually, a single democratic political system. This new design would also offer a looser affiliation for those choosing to stay in an outer EU ring, which could include Turkey on its way in and Britain on its way out. Finally, the EU should strengthen links with a third and still larger group — represented by the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe — that can propagate European values still more widely. These two organizations, with more than 50 member states and over a billion citizens can act as the foundation-stones of a true transatlantic community. 

On September 1, 1939, Europe fell into the abyss. That catastrophe led directly to the success of the European Union. Today, the EU can choose to stand still and be buffeted by the economic winds without a clear sense of direction. Or it can launch a new phase of European integration, building a core group and surrounding circles of members who are better equipped to meet the challenges and realities of the future. Just as it did more than a half century ago, Europe today must push forward with the boldness, flexibility and statesmanship shown by Europe’s founding fathers.

Fran Burwell is a Vice President and Director, and Nicholas Dungan is a Senior Fellow, of the Transatlantic Relations Program at the Atlantic Council.

 

Read more…

TIme to start thinking

Now available at nicholasdungan.blogspot.com —
Text of my review of Edward Luce's Time to start thinking: America in the age of descent, which appeared in the Royal Institute of International Affairs publication International Affairs

Read more…