̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - foreign policy

Opinion: Russian gas will fund Putin’s war

sc604 — Tue, 08 Mar 2022 14:02:09 +0000

Would Europe cutting off Russian oil and gas imports be enough to convince Putin to stop the war on Ukraine? According to Dr Chi Kong Chyong from the Energy Policy Research Group at Cambridge Judge Business School, the global nature of energy markets means that stopping the flow of Russian oil and gas into Europe may not be the ‘hammer blow’ that Western countries are looking for.

One Hundred Days of Trump

ag236 — Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:30:44 +0000

̽��ֱ��concept of the Hundred Days was first used to describe the period between Napoleon’s return from exile and his final defeat at Waterloo, in 1815. As a marker of the president’s first months in office, a “honeymoon” period when conditions for him to enact much of his agenda are supposed to be most advantageous, it has come to take on a rather different meaning in modern American politics.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was in the Oval Office from 1933 to 1945, was the first president to have a period known as “ ̽��ֱ��Hundred Days.” He used it to usher in a series of legislative reforms that began the implementation of the New Deal, a domestic reform program which totally refashioned America in FDR’s image and made his party, the Democrats, the dominant political force in the country for decades to follow.

In American politics, the Hundred Days are meant to be a period of Rooseveltian success, not Napoleonic failure. It is supposed to mark a period of dramatic change so that America comes to reflect the values and goals of its new president. It is not supposed to end in the president’s own Waterloo. Every president wants to be a Roosevelt, not a Napoleon.

Roosevelt’s Hundred Days have become the stuff of legend, and books on the period—including a smart, superbly written account by a noted Cambridge expert of American history, Professor Tony Badger—incorporate the phrase in their title. This is because the Hundred Days had more of a Napoleonic spirit than FDR himself would have liked to admit, conveying a gut-level instinct for action, ambition, and above all grandeur. ̽��ֱ��Hundred Days are supposed to be consequential, a period in which people realize they are living through an important part of history. They are supposed to be a reach for glory.

With the advent of the New Deal, FDR made good on this promise of a dynamic Hundred Days. Roosevelt worked with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress to pass legislation on a wide number of problems caused by the Great Depression, from the banking crisis to widespread poverty and unemployment to the collapse of agriculture and industry. Within three months, many of the staples of the New Deal were set up. Not all would last, but Roosevelt and congressional Democrats showed that they had a plan and were doing what they could to enact it, quickly.

Few historians accept that the New Deal cured the Depression—the largest government stimulus program in world history, also known as the Second World War, did that instead. Nor did FDR have a coherent ideological vision: he was too experimental and pragmatic for that.

But by showing that he cared, and that he was willing to do whatever it took to help the American people in their time of suffering, he transformed himself into the most popular president in American history. After Roosevelt’s first victory in 1932, Democrats won six of the next eight presidential elections and controlled both houses of Congress for all but four of the next forty-eight years.

̽��ֱ��Hundred Days started something pretty special. It’s no surprise, then, that presidents from both parties who followed in Roosevelt’s wake have sought their own dynamic start. Most haven’t been successful, and many have seen their presidencies nearly ruined from disasters right at the outset.

John F. Kennedy oversaw the humiliating debacle at the Bay of Pigs on April 17, 1961, his 94th day in office, while Ronald Reagan was shot and nearly killed on March 30, 1981, his 69th day. Neither tragedy did much damage to presidents regarded, at the time and ever since, as popular and successful. On the other hand, the president who self-consciously strived hardest to emulate FDR’s rapid achievements, Lyndon B. Johnson, saw the early hopes of his presidency destroyed by the war in Vietnam and the deterioration of race relations at home.

In other words, the Hundred Days marker is a poor gauge of presidential success. Roosevelt set an example of a quick-start, dynamically successful presidency, yet it remains pretty much the only example. President Donald Trump, who, despite Republican majorities in Congress, has accomplished virtually nothing of his agenda so far, may have had a good point when he recently tweeted to complain about being held to “the ridiculous standard of the first 100 days.”

̽��ֱ��problem is, it was Trump himself who set that standard. All through the presidential campaign last year, and then during the transitional period between the election in November and the inauguration in January, Trump not only promised quick action but quick results. ̽��ֱ��wall along the border with Mexico, supposedly adverse trade deals, ISIS—all were going to be solved “immediately” or “on day one.” At a campaign rally in Florida, in October, he said he would begin to repeal and replace Obamacare on his “first day in office. … It’s going to be so easy.”

It hasn’t been so easy, of course, certainly not for President Trump. Only time will tell whether that means his presidency will ultimately end with him as a Roosevelt or a Napoleon. But he’s not off to a good start.

Andrew Preston, Professor of American History, is the author of Sword of the Spirit, Shield of Faith: Religion in American War and Diplomacy (Knopf, 2012)

Professor Andrew Preston examines the origins of the first hundred days as a measure of presidential success in American politics.

In American politics, the Hundred Days are meant to be a period of Rooseveltian success, not Napoleonic failure.

Andrew Preston

Andrew Preston on Trump's 100 days

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Opinion: What will happen when the Pope meets the Patriarch?

Anonymous — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 11:18:54 +0000

̽��ֱ��latest diplomatic coup for Pope Francis I – whose papacy has been marked by an ever-more expansive foreign policy – is the announcement of an interesting development in relations between the Roman Catholic and the Russian Orthodox churches, relations that have been more-or-less non-existent for more than 1000 years.

On February 12, Pope Francis – who will be on his way to visit Mexico – will meet Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill at Havana Airport in Cuba. Kirill is not the formal head of the world’s estimated 200m Orthodox Christians – that is his All-Holiness Bartholomew, the Ecumenical Patriarch, whose seat is in Istanbul, not Moscow.

But the Orthodox churches are effectively independent, national units with Bartholomew enjoying only a sort of “primacy of honour” over them – rather like the archbishop of Canterbury over the world-wide Anglican Communion. ̽��ֱ��Russian Church is easily the largest of the Orthodox churches with more than 80-100m members. Consequently, the Russian Church and its Patriarch have enormous influence in the Orthodox world, arguably even more than Bartholomew himself.

̽��ֱ��Vatican’s relations with Russian Orthodoxy have historically been poor. ̽��ֱ��papacy was at loggerheads with the Tsars over their treatment of Polish Catholics when Poland was ruled by them. And during World War I, the Vatican feared a possible Russian victory over the Ottoman Empire, leading to a reinvigorated Orthodoxy and the creation of a sort of “Vatican on the Bosphorus”.

In 1917 it thought Catholicism could profit from the collapse of Tsardom and the subsequent disestablishment of the Orthodox Church but those hopes were quickly dashed by the Soviets’ “Godless campaigns” which were aimed at all religious groups, not just the Orthodox. ̽��ֱ��end of the Soviet Union in 1991 did not improve relations between the Catholic and Orthodox churches – on the contrary, the Russian Orthodox Church has consistently accused the Vatican of proselytism, of trying to poach its own faithful, a not entirely unjustified accusation.

Bones of contention

So what will Francis and Kirill talk about? They will seek détente, a general improvement in their relations, but this will be difficult given the highly nationalistic mood of Russian Orthodoxy at the moment. As in previous centuries, many Russian Orthodox prelates are deeply suspicious of Western Europe – Catholic, Protestant and secular – which they see as an area of religious and moral decadence.

̽��ֱ��schism between eastern and western Christianity, which originated in the 7th and 8th centuries and centres around the dispute over the nature of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, but also in the Orthodox rejection of the Bishop of Rome’s claims to universal primacy over Christians, is still unresolved despite ecumenical gestures on the part of Rome.

Another issue between Rome and Moscow is the question of Ukraine. Rome is unhappy about Putin’s annexation of the Crimea and his assistance for the pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine which sections of the Orthodox Church have supported with jingoistic fervour. In the western Ukraine, the Greek Catholic Church, which – like the Orthodox – has a married clergy and shares similar liturgical practices, is nevertheless in communion with Rome. No love is lost between the Greek Catholics and the Ukrainian Orthodox.

Will Francis and Kirill talk about this thorny problem? One issue which they will certainly discuss and on which they may reach a measure of agreement is the persecution of Christians in the Middle East, though even here the situation is complicated by Putin’s foreign policy objectives in Syria.

“Old man in a hurry”

Pope Francis is 80 this December and has only one lung. He was elected on a reform ticket and so far has succeeded in sorting out the scandal-ridden Vatican Bank – and Vatican finances in general. He has started the process of reforming the Roman curia (the central government of the Catholic Church in the Vatican) and devolving power to local bishops.

He has other objectives, including re-establishing diplomatic relations with China and thereby achieving some sort of re-unification of the state-controlled Catholic Patriotic Association and those Chinese Catholics who lie outside the CPA and are therefore subject to occasional governmental repression. Vatican diplomacy also played an important role in bringing about the restoration of diplomatic relations between the USA and Cuba last year.

He probably also nurtures hopes of an historic compromise between the Catholic and the Orthodox churches – and his meeting with Kirill may prove to be a step in that direction. It is, however, unlikely to lead to any radical change in the relationship in Francis’ lifetime. This schism runs deep.

John Pollard, Fellow and Director of Studies in History at Trinity Hall, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

This article was originally published on ̽��ֱ��Conversation. Read the original article.

̽��ֱ��opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author(s) and do not represent the views of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

Inset image: Patriarch Kirill (Larry Koester).

John Pollard (Trinity Hall) discusses the relationship between the Roman Catholic and Russian Orthodox churches, and what the meeting between their two leaders may hold.

pml2008

Pope Visits Philadelphia

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-ShareAlike

Syrian aid: lack of evidence for ‘interventions that work’, say researchers

fpjl2 — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 11:44:33 +0000

In the fifth year of the Syrian refugee crisis, donors and humanitarian agencies still remain unsure about which policies and interventions have been most effective, and continue to rely on a largely reactive response, say a group of researchers, aid workers and Syrian medical professionals.

Response approaches to date have often been short-termist, sometimes duplicating work and have very little evidence of effectiveness or impact, they say.

As national leaders and UN delegates gather in London today for the Support Syria Donor Conference, members of the Syrian Public Health Network warn that unless aid is provided on condition of evidence-gathering and transparency so funding can be directed to interventions that work, the health, education and livelihoods of refugees will continue to deteriorate.

They caution that Syrians in neighbouring countries such as Lebanon and Jordan – where services are stretched to breaking point – will suffer the most from ineffective interventions unless governments and NGOs of wealthy nations to do more to link allocation of donor funds to evidence, something that Network members have highlighted in a briefing for the UK's Department for International Development.

“A focus on health and health services is notably absent in the donor conference agenda yet it is a fundamental determinant on the success of education and livelihoods policies,” said Dr Adam Coutts, Cambridge ̽��ֱ�� researcher and member of the Syria Public Health Network.

“What funding there is for refugee healthcare risks disappearing unless governments insist on an evidence basis for aid allocation, similar to that expected in domestic policy-making.

“It is estimated that there are now over 4.3 million Syrian refugees in neighbouring frontline countries, and over half these people are under the age of 18. This level of displacement is unprecedented and given how short funds are, we need to be sure that programmes work,” said Coutts, from Cambridge's Department of Politics and International Studies.

“New ideas and approaches need to be adopted in order to reduce the massive burdens on neighbouring frontline states.”

Researchers say that the health response should do more to address the so-called ‘non-communicable diseases’ which ultimately cause more deaths: slow, silent killers such as diabetes, heart disease and, in particular, mental disorders. This means moving towards the development of universal health care systems in the region and building new public health services.

̽��ֱ��calls for more evidence come on the back of an article published last week in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, in which members of the Syria Public Health Network (SPHN) address the response to mental disorders among displaced Syrians.

Clinics in some camps in Turkey and Lebanon report almost half of occupants suffering from high levels of psychological distress. However, many Syrians in neighbouring countries live outside the camps – up to 80% in Jordan, for example – which means cases are unreported.

In Lebanon, despite political commitment to mental health, there are just 71 psychiatrists, mostly in Beirut.

“ ̽��ֱ��implementation of short-term mental health interventions which often lack culturally relevant or practically feasible assessment tools risk diverting funds away from longer term, evidence based solutions,” said Coutts.

Moreover, a shortage of Syrian mental health professionals – less than 100 prior to the conflict has now fallen to less than 60 – is worsened by some neighbouring countries preventing Syrian doctors of any specialism from practising. Along with Physicians for Human Rights, SPHN members are calling for restrictions to be lifted on practising licenses for displaced Syrian health professionals.

“To date Syrian medical workers in Lebanon and Jordan are a largely untapped workforce who are ready to work and help with the response. However, due to labour laws and the dominance of private health service providers it is very difficult if not impossible for them to work legally,” said SPHN member Dr Aula Abbara.

Emerging evidence from the Syrian crisis, as well as evidence from previous conflicts, is pointing to psychological treatments which show some effectiveness:

Pilot studies with refugees in Turkish camps using ‘telemental’ projects, the delivery of psychiatric care through telecommunications, suggest that such techniques are effective in supporting healthcare professionals on the ground.

̽��ֱ��‘teaching recovery techniques’ method is designed to boost children’s capacity to cope with the psychological aftermath of war. These techniques have been used in communities in the aftermath of major natural disasters and conflicts, and have shown promise.

While SPHN members caution that adequate testing of these interventions is required, they argue that this is precisely the point: more evidence of what works.

Added Coutts: “A more scientific approach is needed so that precious and increasingly scarce financial aid is put to the most effective use possible. At the moment, NGOs and governments are not making sufficient reference to evidence in determining health, education and labour market policies for the largest displacement of people since World War Two.”

̽��ֱ��lack of an evidence base in the donor-funded response to Syrian migrant crisis means funds may be allocated to ineffective interventions, say researchers, who call on funders and policymakers in London for this week’s Syrian Donor Conference to insist on evaluation as a condition of aid.

A focus on health and health services is notably absent in the donor conference agenda yet it is a fundamental determinant on the success of education and livelihoods policies

Adam Coutts

UNHCR Photo Unit

Lebanese Town Opens its Doors to Newly Arrived Syrian Refugees

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-Noncommerical

Mitrokhin’s KGB archive opens to public

sjr81 — Sun, 06 Jul 2014 23:01:00 +0000

From 1972 to 1984, Major Vasiliy Mitrokhin was a senior archivist in the KGB’s foreign intelligence archive – with unlimited access to hundreds of thousands of files from a global network of spies and intelligence gathering operations.

At the same time, having grown disillusioned with the brutal oppression of the Soviet regime, he was taking secret handwritten notes of the material and smuggling them out of the building each evening. In 1992, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, he, his family and his archive were exfiltrated by the UK’s Secret Intelligence Service.

Now, more than twenty years after his defection to the UK, Mitrokhin’s files are being opened by the Churchill Archives Centre, where they sit alongside the personal papers of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher.

Professor Christopher Andrew, the only historian to date allowed access to the archive, and author of two global bestsellers with Mitrokhin, said: “There are only two places in the world where you’ll find material like this. One is the KGB archive – which is not open and very difficult to get into – and the other is here at Churchill College where Mitrokhin’s own typescript notes are today being opened for all the world to see.

“Mitrokhin dreamed of making this material public from 1972 until his death; it’s now happening in 2014. ̽��ֱ��inner workings of the KGB, its foreign intelligence operations and the foreign policy of Soviet-era Russia all lie within this extraordinary collection; the scale and nature of which gives unprecedented insight into the KGB’s activities throughout much of the Cold War.”

Among the 19 boxes and thousands of papers being opened are KGB notes on Pope John Paul II, whose activities in Poland were closely monitored before his election to the Papacy; maps and details of secret Russian arms caches in Western Europe and the USA; and files on Melita Norwood, ‘the spy who came in from the Co-op’.

Norwood, codename Hola, was the KGB’s longest-serving UK agent, who for four decades passed on classified information from her office at the British Non Ferrous Metals Research Association in Euston, North London, where nuclear and other scientific research took place.

“ ̽��ֱ��Mitrokhin files range in time from the immediate aftermath of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution to the eve of the Gorbachev era,” said Andrew. “Initially he smuggled his daily notes out on small scraps of paper hidden in his shoes. After a few months, he began to take them out in his jacket pockets then buried them every weekend at the family dacha in the countryside near Moscow.

“ ̽��ֱ��enormous risks in compiling his secret archive might well have ended with a secret trial and a bullet in the back of the head in an execution cellar. He was a dissident willing to make the most extraordinary sacrifice.”

Vasiliy Mitrokhin was born in 1922. From 1948, he worked in foreign intelligence before being assigned to the foreign intelligence archives in the KGB First Chief Directorate. From 1972 until 1982 he was in charge of the transfer of these archives from the Lubyanka in central Moscow to a new foreign intelligence HQ at Yasenevo.

Following his retirement in 1984, Mitrokhin organised much of this material geographically and, in ten volumes, typed out systematic studies of KGB operations in different parts of the world.

After his exfiltration to London, Mitrokhin continued to work on transcribing and typing his manuscript notes, producing a further 26 typed volumes, which, together with his notes, provided the basis for his publications with Professor Christopher Andrew. Vasiliy Mitrokhin died in January 2004.

Allen Packwood, Director of the Churchill Archives Centre, said: “This collection is a wonderful illustration of the value of archives and the power of archivists. It was Mitrokhin's position as archivist that allowed him his unprecedented access and overview of the KGB files. It was his commitment to preserving and providing access to the truth that led him to make his copies, at huge personal risk. We are therefore proud to house his papers and to honour his wish that they should be made freely available for research."

In accordance with the deposit agreement, the Churchill Archives Centre is opening Mitrokhin’s edited Russian-language versions of his original notes. ̽��ֱ��original manuscript notes and notebooks will remain closed under the terms of the deposit agreement, subject to review.

KGB files from the famous Mitrokhin Archive – described by the FBI as ‘the most complete and extensive intelligence ever received from any source’ – will today open to the public for the first time.

There are only two places in the world where you’ll find material like this. One is the KGB archive – which is not open and very difficult to get into – and the other is here at Churchill College.

Chrisopher Andrew

Churchill Archives Centre

Mitrokhin's handwritten copy of the KGB First Chief Directorate Lexicon

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page. For image rights, please see the credits associated with each individual image.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike

Global politics on the agenda at Hay

bjb42 — Sun, 22 May 2011 12:40:28 +0000

How can global organisations be more representative of rising powers? It's one of the big issues of our times as we witness enormous shifts in the world's power dynamics, but it's not a new one.

Amrita Narlikar heads a new centre at Cambridge which uniquely attempts to look at the impact of rising global powers by placing it in a historical as well as political and economic context. She will talk about one aspect of this work – world trade – at the forthcoming Hay Festival [26 May to 5 June], where she joins 17 others ̽��ֱ�� speakers as part of the Cambridge series.

Dr Narlikar's talk will centre on the World Trade Organisation, but will broach wider questions of multilateral reform. “ ̽��ֱ��WTO is a fantastic example of attempts to accommodate the new powers like Brazil, China and India – the opportunities this presents and the unanticipated problems,” she says.

She adds that the WTO is quite distinctive as it has responded fairly well to the rise of new powers compared to other global institutions, such as the UN Security Council. It has given the new powers a major role in high table negotiations and decision-making. “It is one of the few organisations that has responded. You would expect this to make the balance of power fairer, but lots of unanticipated challenges have resulted,” she argues.

One of the positives is a greater diversity of players, but this has slowed down decision-making. Increasing the number of players coming to the table with different viewpoints has created a situation of recurrent deadlock. Trade rounds are taking longer to finish and, as a result, people are becoming more disengaged from the discussions, says Dr Narlikar.

Another problem is that, although there has been a broadening of the decision-makers at the WTO, the actual process of decision-making has not been reformed. It still relies on reaching a consensus on the issues being discussed. “That worked when the GATT talks were a rich man's club, a small group of countries which agreed with each other. It's very different when there is a diversity of countries at the core, with allies in the developing world. Consensus-based decision-making breaks down,” says Dr Narlikar.

Her talk will argue the need for the decision-making process to adapt to a more pluralistic system. “ ̽��ֱ��current system greatly delays the benefits of increasing diversification and creates a very polarised system which is not good if we value stability,” she says.

̽��ֱ��Centre for Rising Powers, which had its inaugural lecture on 12 May, is different from the other new country-specific research centres which has sprung up in response to the rise of the BRICs, says Dr Narlikar. ̽��ֱ��CRP looks at the rise and fall of powers theoretically and historically and how they negotiate and bargain for a place at the power table. “People are behaving as if this transition period has never happened before, but it is a deep-rooted phenomenon and there is always the risk of systemic upheaval,” says Dr Narlikar. “Further, as power transitions seldom happen in a vacuum, the Centre is just as interested in the established powers and other members of the international system that have to deal with, manage, or withstand the rise of new powers.”

̽��ֱ��CRP is very interdisciplinary – its steering committee includes academics with a background in economics, history and political science as well as practitioners. Dr Narlikar highlights that the Centre is committed to cutting-edge research, but with a view to informing and engaging with policy. Other events planned for the future include a panel discussion with former British ambassadors to Brazil, India and China.

Dr Narlikar's talk is just one of a range of sessions being given by Cambridge academics at the Hay Festival. They cover everything from Renaissance costume to liberal ideas about toleration to the history of astronomy. For full details, click here.

Ahead of her talk at the Hay Festival, Dr Amrita Narlikar, Director of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge's new Centre for Rising Powers, discusses how countries like Brazil and China are changing the shape of global politics.

Consensus-based decision-making worked when trade talks were a rich man's club. It's very different with a diversity of countries at the core. 

Dr Amrita Narlikar

scazon

Flag of the United Nations.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes

Power in the balance

bjb42 — Wed, 11 May 2011 11:08:11 +0000

̽��ֱ��Centre for Rising Powers will bring together academics from different subject areas whose research touches on one of the most important questions in international relations: How different powers rise to the top of international politics, and how to predict the impact they will have when they do so?

Its formal launch will take place this Thursday (12 May), with an inaugural lecture given by Joseph Nye, ̽��ֱ�� Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard ̽��ֱ�� and one of the most influential researchers in the field of foreign policy and international relations.

Professor Nye is a former chairman of the US National Intelligence Council, served as Assistant Secretary of Defence for International Security Affairs under President Bill Clinton and currently co-chairs both America’s main cyber security project and the Advisory board of the USC Centre on Public Diplomacy. His lecture will be on the future of US-China relations.

In keeping with his theme, some of the Centre’s research will concern the big, emerging powers of the present day – in particular the so-called BRIC nations of Brazil, Russia, India and China. All four are expected to figure in the list of leading world economies by the year 2050, raising questions about the challenge they will pose to the liberal, western powers who have effectively dictated the course of international politics since the end of the Cold War.

Uniquely, however, the Centre for Rising Powers will also look beyond the immediate cases of the 21^st century. Researchers will also look at historical cases to understand more about how new powers emerge, how they can be accommodated, and the effect that this has on international stability in different cases. ̽��ֱ��rise and fall of Germany in the 19^th and 20^th centuries, or the emergence of the USA or the Soviet Union as global leaders over the course of the 20^th, could in this sense provide lessons for the future as valuable as those which can be drawn from the study of rising powers today.

̽��ֱ��changes which occur as a result of transitions in the world order are felt far beyond established corridors of power. By altering the course of international politics, these countries also impact on the global response to issues such as climate change, trade, international finance, migration, poverty reduction and international security. Far more than diplomacy alone rests on having a clear understanding of their intentions, their negotiating behaviour, and what the consequences of their leadership on such issues are likely to be.

̽��ֱ��findings which emerge from the Centre’s research will be fed back to international policy-makers. ̽��ֱ��new Centre already has links with various think-tanks, policy institutions and private sector organisations, and seminars, conferences and workshops in which research can be communicated back to these groups will be held by the Centre on a regular basis.

Dr Amrita Narlikar, Director of the Centre for Rising Powers, said: “Power transitions are one of the main sources of deadlock and conflict on the world stage, but they also have the potential to act as sources of renewal and change for the better.”

“As a result, the study of how powers rise and how the process should be handled has a direct impact on international co-operation, peace and stability – and on more general values such as efficiency, fairness and justice in the global order. ̽��ֱ��research that the Centre produces will, in some form or other, be of international policy relevance.”

̽��ֱ��inaugural lecture of the Centre for Rising Powers will be given by Professor Joseph Nye in the Old Library, Pembroke College, on Thursday, 12 May, 2011. For more information about the Centre for Rising Powers, its members and its work, please visit the website: https://www.polis.cam.ac.uk/

A new research hub dedicated to the study of emerging powers and how different nations evolve to become leading political forces on the world stage, is being created at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

Power transitions are one of the main sources of deadlock and conflict on the world stage, but they also have the potential to act as sources of renewal and change for the better.

Dr Amrita Narlikar

Radar Communications from Flickr

United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes