WhirledView

Santa Fe World Affairs Forum Symposium - April 28-29, 2014

 Talking with the Enemy, Cultivating Friends: Diplomacy Revisited

 A two-day Santa Fe World Affairs Forum Symposium

April 28-29, 2014

At St. John’s College, Santa Fe, New Mexico

cosponsored by the American Foreign Service Association

& St. John’s College

in partnership with the Fulbright Assn. of New Mexico, the Albuquerque Council for International Visitors, Friendship Force, the US Agency for International Development Alumni Association, Women’s Voices, the Public Diplomacy Council, the Public Diplomacy Alumni Association, American Association of University Women Santa Fe Chapter, the International Studies Institute - University of New Mexico, Albuquerque Committee on Foreign Relations, Sister Cities – Albuquerque, Santa Fe Sister Cities Committee  & the Santa Fe Community College

Diplomacy is Back! This Symposium will explain why.

 April 28: 1:45-6:30 pm. Registration and Welcome, Followed by two sessions, with a coffee break in between and concluding with a cocktail reception for speakers and Symposium participants. Topics and speakers are:

 US Foreign Security Strategy after the 9/11 Wars. Presented by Thomas E McNamara, former US Ambassador to Colombia, Ambassador at Large for Counter-Terrorism, Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs, and member of the National Security Council staff.

 Personal Perspectives on US Diplomacy in a Multipolar World. Presented by Gregory Hicks, Deputy Chief of Mission, Tripoli, Libya 2012, CSIS State Department Visiting Fellow, career US Foreign Service Officer with service in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Gambia and in the Office of the US Trade Representative and at the Air War College.

 April 29: 9:15 am -3:45 pm. Registration followed by four sessions with a full course buffet luncheon between the second and third presentations.

 Engaging with people through Public Diplomacy. Presented by Donald M Bishop, former US Foreign Service Officer with tours in East Asia and Country Public Affairs Officer in Bangladesh, Nigeria, and China., Congressional Fellow, Foreign Policy Advisor at the Pentagon (twice) and leader of U.S. Public Diplomacy in Afghanistan at the front end of the civilian surge. Current Public Diplomacy Council President.

How Rhetoric Influences Reality. Presented by James P Farwell, author of Persuasion and Power: the Art of Strategic Communication (Georgetown University Press, 2012) and senior research fellow in strategic studies at the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies, University of Toronto.

Development Cooperation – A Key Partner of Diplomacy and Defense in US Foreign Policy, Presented by James Michel, former US Ambassador to Guatemala, Chair of the Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), USAID Assistant Administrator and Counselor of the Agency.

Wrap-up panel with all presenters and Symposium closing.

There will be ample time for questions and discussion at the conclusion of each presentation and opportunities to chat informally with the speakers during the cocktail reception and lunch.

Fees & Registration:

For attendance on both days.

Members: $75 (SFWAF members and members of symposium partner organizations) 

Non-members: $95

University and College students: $45

For attendance on Monday, April 28.

Members and Non-members alike: $40

For attendance on Tuesday, April 29.

Members and Non-members alike: $55

To reserve a place please e-mail [email protected] and mail your check to the Santa Fe World Affairs Forum, PO Box 31965, Santa Fe, NM 87594. Checks should be made out to The Santa Fe World Affairs Forum. Please note on your check that payment is for the April 2014 symposium. Non-members will also be asked to include contact information. You may pay using your credit card via our Paypal Account.  

If you decide to use Paypal, we recommend that you use Internet Explorer, not Firefox, for access.

You may access Paypal directly by clicking on this link on our webpage: http://sfwaf.org/pay-now/

Your payment guarantees you a place but it is non-refundable after Monday, April 21, 2014 if you are unable to attend.  Please note: Registration closes April 21, 2014.

The Santa Fe World Affairs Forum PO Box 31965 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87594

 e-mail: [email protected], webpage: http://sfwaf.org

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SFWorldAffairsForum

On Dealing with the Hermit Kingdom

By Patricia H Kushlis

Does North Korea’s leadership belong in the madhouse or Alcatraz as so many of our right wing politicians, militarists and some journalists seem to suggest?  Or are they behaving as sanely – at least from their perspective - as their accusers?  Is there something important going on in Pyongyang that is overlooked here that should be considered?

I attended an excellent two-day Santa Fe World Affairs Forum symposium on US-East Asian relations at St. John’s College in Santa Fe, New Mexico early last week:  The North Korean nuclear threat, China’s capabilities and future intentions, reasons for Myanmar’s immense political changes and the overall ramifications of the changing face of Asia for US interests were at the top of the agenda.

Several years ago, then President George W Bush labeled North Korea – as well as Iran – as the Axis of Evil. This reversed Bill Clinton’s softer line that may or may not have been making progress towards some kind of normalization of relations with the Hermit Kingdom.  If such a sea change were to happen, our military presence in North Asia could and should be reduced substantially. This in itself is likely a flashing yellow light for those in the defense industry who profit from a continued state of high military readiness in the region not just those in Pyongyang but also our own in Washington.

No one, however, has ever satisfactorily explained to me the reasons for Pyongyang’s peculiar actions or what might induce its secretive leaders to change course.  In essence, the Hermit Kingdom has been brushed off as the proverbial enigma wrapped in a mystery - without further thought or examination.

Political Science 101

But put away the swords and the blinders for the moment and go back to the basics:  The first axiom of politics is a leader’s (or collective leadership’s) determination to remain in power.  That’s lesson one, political science 101.   In Pyongyang, the transfer of power is dynastic.  The country may call itself socialist, workers or communist but in reality it is governed through an age old form of familial leadership based on an historic Asian dynastic model.  Moreover, over the years, the North Korean dynasty has been propped up by the country’s military with China’s acquiesce and sometimes more.

I once had a Burmese cat named Cleo who spent the first two weeks of our assignment to Athens with her nose pointed into a back corner of a shelf in our bedroom closet.  I suppose she must have come out when no one was looking because she clearly used the litter box and ate her favorite food.  She ultimately resurfaced but only after we moved to a garden apartment which allowed her to explore the garden at will sitting for hours soaking up the Greek sun.

Fear of the unknown had much to do with Cleo’s behavior in that temporary apartment just as it’s plausible that fear of being dethroned (or possibly worse – think Ceaceşcu in December 1989) has been a likely motivating factor for North Korea’s seemingly irrational behavior since the country was established in the wake of the Korean War.  This flashed through my brain when one of the experts at the conference in describing the unique characteristics of the North Korean propaganda barrage pointed out that the country’s threats always concluded with the phrase: “if the Americans attack.”  But the speaker added that these four final words are not reported in the media or government statements we see in the West. 

Living in Challenging Times: the US and East Asia

 

LIVING IN CHALLENGING TIMES: THE UNITED STATES & EAST ASIA
a two-day symposium

April 8-9, 2013
St. John’s College, Santa Fe, New Mexico

sponsored by

SANTA FE WORLD AFFAIRS FORUM
Co-sponsors: U.N.M. Center for Science, Technology & Policy
Albuquerque Committee on Foreign Relations, American Foreign Service Association & St. John’s College

DAY ONE:  2-6 pm: Registration; “East Asia and the Pacific:  Issues and Challenges,” Ambassador Will Itoh, Director, Washington International Programs, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and Senior Advisor, McLarty Associates ; “North Asia and the Korea Conundrum,” Dr. Chris Nelson, Vice President of Samuels International, Washington, D.C.; Cocktail reception for speakers and Symposium participants.

DAY TWO: 9:15 am -4:00 pm: Registration; “China as a Rising Power Seeking its Rightful Place,” Dr. Suisheng Zhao, Director of the Center for U.S.-China Cooperation, Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver; “The Chinese Military Machine,” Dennis Blasko, author “The Chinese Army Today: Tradition and Transformation” (Routledge 2012) and former US military attaché Beijing; talk on “Is the Myanmar Exuberance Irrational -- and whatever happened to Vietnam?,” Ms. Frances Zwenig, President, U.S.-ASEAN Business Council Institute, Inc.; wind-up panel.  Full buffet luncheon for speakers and Symposium participants.

All sessions will be followed by generous discussion periods.

PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS:  Friendship Force, Albuquerque Council on International Visitors, Public Diplomacy Alumni Association, University of New Mexico’s International Studies Institute, University of New Mexico’s National Security Studies Program, Public Diplomacy Council, Women’s Voices, American Association of University Women – Santa Fe Branch, & Fulbright Association of New Mexico.  

FEES & REGISTRATION: Both days: $70 members; $85 non-members; $30 students; 4/8 only: $40; 4/9 only: $50.  To reserve a place please e-mail [email protected].  Symposium fees may be paid with your credit card using our Paypal account. You may access Paypal directly by clicking on this link or you may send your check to The Santa Fe World Affairs Forum, PO Box 31965, Santa Fe. NM, 87594, with your name and contact information, if you are not a member.  Checks should be made out to The Santa Fe World Affairs Forum.  Please note on your check that payment is for the April 2013 symposium.  Your payment guarantees you a place, but it is non-refundable after Wednesday, April 4, if you are unable to attend.

 

The Biter Bitten

By Patricia Lee Sharpe.

Ha! Ha! Ha!  Not only am I laughing out loud, I’m rolling around on my nice but not outrageously expensive carpet from Pakistan and laughing.

Back in May Mitt Romney was on a begging session among his fellow rich guys in a supposedly safe place, a b(m)illionaires safe house, so to speak, away from the rest of us—yeah, away from us losers, us victims of our own fecklessness, who don’t understand that tax breaks and subsidies for the rich are rewards for achievement while tax breaks and subsidies for the poor and the middle class represent a waste of taxpayers’ money on the lazy and mediocre.

Sorry, got carried away.

The Unsafe Safe House

Unfortunately, it’s hard to keep the riffraff (and/or their sympathizers) out of every banquet or champagne-fueled reception for the rich. In this case, Romney’s remarks got videotaped, some parts have been revealed and now he and his campaign people are neck deep in damage control.  Seems that the Republican candidate is uncomfortable with the sound of the sound bites from the plutocratic party.

A Bite That Bites

He should be.  This is the biggie: Romney asserted that the 47% of the U.S. population who support the opposition aka Obama  have a dependency complex. (I know.  This sounds ambiguous.  Blame Romney, not me.)  That’s nearly half of the U.S. population, folks.  Insulted. And I’m one of the slug-a-bugs, it seems.  Month after month, year after year, I paid into Medicare and Social Security and now—Horrors!—I’m cashing in on that investment. 

Sound bite two suggests that all those lazy louts who support Obama should go out and get a high paying job so they, too, can pay taxes instead of depending on subsidies.  Yeah!  You can imagine what would happen if I came in the door seeking a job commensurate with my skills and undiminished ability.  They’d look at my birth date and laugh.  As for those with more recent birth dates, how many people applying for unemployment benefits wouldn’t jump at a job that would support a family–pay the rent, pay the medical bills, buy healthy food, keep the kids in shoes that fit, get them to school in clothes that don’t make their luckier school fellows bully them, buy books....you get the drift.  Where are those jobs?  Not the fast food jobs.  The real jobs.  With health benefits so people don’t have to depend on those nefarious government handouts.

According to Romney, even those of us with relatively good jobs weren't and aren’t really paying all that much in taxes, while the much maligned rich are paying through the nose.  That all depends on how you do the math, of course.  A middle class person, whose taxes come to 25-30% of current income, does indeed pay less in toto than a richer individual.  However, when such middle class people pay five figure taxes, the contribution to the common good cuts to the bone of, say, being able to pay college tuitions, whereas when a billionaire's tax bite hits seven figures (or more),  all he suffers is the irritation of an ever so slight modification of the budget for fine wines, the number of first class air tickets per annum, the type of luxury car he gives his kids or the annoyance of scrimping on the servant talley to keep up a fifth home in an expensive condo in a sexy world class city.  In short, we in the tax-paying middle class have not only been helping the poor (which is fine) but subsidizing the rich—and for decades.  And the only thing that seems to trickle down to those of us in the 99%  from Romney's perch in the plutocratic stratosphere is scorn—the kind that dripped from this recently revealed Romney failure to find the "elegant" expression. It’s amazing!  He should thank us.  He should be very grateful that most Americans, acting against their own best interests and increasingly out of touch with the reality of less upward mobility in America, still identify up not down.

Romney Blames the Victims

Back to the jobs issue, which Romney pretends to care about and sees as the justification for keeping the rich rich.  Yes, indeed.  Lots of jobs have been created by American-based business over the past decades.  The trouble is they haven’t been at home.  They’ve been in China, India, Thailand, the Dominican Republic—you name it.  No wonder Romney wasn't inclined to save an American company manufacturing cars in the U.S. and thus providing jobs for Americans.

Whoops! Sorry.  I forgot about the other jobs that have been created by American multi- millionaires.  Think of the huge need for maids and gardeners to look after those multiple homes—to say nothing of dock owners, etc., to cater for the multiple yachts.  And aviation people to keep the private jets flying at 36,000 feet over the America that Romney's pals would prefer not to see or understand.

Poor Mitt!

Well, I sympathize with Mr. Put-upon Romney over this sound bite thing.  I’m firmly with all fair-minded people who object to quotes being taken so brutally out of context that they seem to mean the opposite of what was meant by the naive speaker or writer who uttered or wrote them.   This, of course, is not quite the case with the Romney sound bite, which is a fairly accurate stand-in for his political views.  Sometimes it's worse to be accurately represented than to be misrepresented. 

But here’s where my sympathy really stops.  How on earth can Romney complain of being victimized by the sound bite monster when he’s worked overtime to profit by a much nastier version of the same trick?

The Bite the Republicans Gloried Over

Here’s how.  Barack Obama made some remarks that were mined for sound bites not too long before the Republican convention.  Trying to expose the fallacy of extreme individualism, Obama said something like this: business people don’t build their businesses all by themselves in isolation from the larger society. What he meant was that the most clever, hardworking entrepreneurs need government-built infrastructure, they need good roads and safe skies, they need bacteria-free food to feed their kids and unpolluted water to drink, they need police and fire protection, they need schools to produce able workers, they need a reliable judicial system to protect contracts—all coming from taxpayer funds. Reliable, honest government, regulating sensibly, allows business to succeed in America as it does not in most other places in the world. And so, surely, business people  should be just a little thankful to the rest of us for creating the context for their prosperity. Their parents probably helped, too, with emotional support at the very least.

The Republicans pounced on that delicious sound bite.  They have tried to make it appear that Obama and his Democrats have no respect whatsoever for the system that did indeed produce prosperity for decades after World War II—until Wall Street, deregulated thanks to collusion between Republicans and the Clinton administration, brought the country to its knees.

In short, the recent Republican convention was built almost wholly on exploiting, in every possible way, this tempting sound bite to discredit Obama and the Democrats.

So please, Mitt, no more complaints about the sound bite monster.

Jobs, not Sneers

And, meanwhile, about those jobs, Mitt.  How abound bringing the millions you’ve stashed so mysteriously and conveniently out of sight in the Caymans and Switzerland right home,  right now.  Show us by example that millionaires are responsible Americans who deserve their tax breaks, that you and the others want to build a healthy U.S. at least as much as you want to enrich yourselves.  Do it now.  Create more tax payers.  Put the money to work.  Generate jobs, not just (untaxed) interest income.

Even David Brooks, employed by the New York Times as its premier conservative columnist, couldn’t swallow the Romney line on this one. He asserts that Romney doesn’t understand America—or Americans, who work, by all reliable accounts, harder than any other people on the face of the globe, given the opportunity to do so. Read his column from top to bottom.

But Brooks is indeed a Republican.  He tries to protect the Conservative cause by admitting that Romney is running an incompetent campaign.  Worse, even as Brooks concedes that a full 47% of the U.S. population isn’t in dependency mode, he fails to mention the obscene subsidies that make the rich ever richer, subsidies that Romney and his backers never deplore.  Oil and gas subsidies.  Subsidies for rich  farmers.  That 15% income tax limit for people who make their money on money. And so on.

On the other hand, you can’t call the energy gang losers, can you?  Bankers aren’t losers, either. They are gainers.  They are winners.  The system is rigged to benefit them---and with the Supreme Court's Citizens' United decision helping them to buy elections, they are in a position to stay that way.   On top.  Gloating.  Sneering.

Pass the Hankie, Please

Poor Mitt Romney. He thought he was talking only to the well-oiled in-crowd, the people who were very hopefully interviewing him for the leadership slot, the people who are doing their best to buy him the presidency, the people who expect he will act to protect them, the people who have nothing but contempt for those who haven't made it into the millionaires club—and the word got out.

Thank heaven!

America's Asian Pivot

By Patricia H. Kushlis

At the Santa Fe World Affairs Forum’s symposium “Our World in Ferment” on April 17, China expert and Deputy Director of the Kissinger Institute for US-China Relations Douglas Spelman described the change in US policy direction in Asia over the past 18 months as more of a pivot towards Southeast Asia as opposed to one directed at the continent’s North where US attention has been fairly constant, and intense, for some time.

On the April 23 international news, a BBC correspondent reporting from the island of Palawan near where US and Filipino forces were engaged in Balikatan, the bilateral annual war game exercises held under the Mutual Defense Treaty, reported on the heating up of military tensions between China and the Philippines over who controls what in the South China Sea.  An aside: Palawan is an island where I once spent a week at a charming ecotourism resort a year after the US bases had been kicked out of the Philippines by one vote in the Philippine Senate.

Believe me, the reporter has a pretty cushy observation perch from which to observe military exercises as well as snorkel on the side.  

A Chinese Lake?  Maybe not

The Chinese consider the South China Sea a Chinese lake – made more valuable through exploration by international companies for likely oil and gas under the seabed.  Palawan is, by the way, just south of the South China Sea. A BBC report argues that it is precisely because the Filipinos and Vietnamese have signed contracts with international companies to explore for those riches in the disputed territorial waters they claim as their own that set the Chinese off.

The area in contention is called Scarborough Shoal. The Schoal lies within the broader area known as the Spratly Islands, tiny basically uninhabited dots in the sea.    

The rationale for the US pivot towards Southeast Asia has centered on keeping the sea lanes open. This is part of long standing US security policy in the region. What’s new is the Chinese challenge to it. Most of the shipping to North Asia passes through the Straits of Malacca then northward through the South China Sea.  The claims by Asian nations for control of their pieces of this sea bed off the coasts of southern China, Vietnam and the Philippines have been fuses waiting for a match for years. 

With China’s economic rise, it’s increasingly heavy handed approach to Southeast Asia has become more pronounced.  On the one hand, Chinese leverage is major in the areas of trade and economics where China has become the region’s dominant trading partner.  This is not necessarily bad for the US.  When I lived in Southeast Asia in the early 1990s, the Japanese were economically dominant in the region but that trade dominance did not negatively impinge upon the freedom of navigation through the Straits of Malacca and Singapore or the South China Sea.             

On the other hand, a deeply held fear of China’s growing security desires has sent ASEAN governments scurrying to find protection from other big powers further away.  The US is the obvious choice despite a residue of anti-American anti-colonialism in the Philippines and the mistakes of the Vietnam War – both of which seem to have been all but forgotten or at least, in the face of their larger concern, brushed under the carpet for now.

Santa Fe World Affairs Forum - Global Unrest Symposium April 16-17, 2012

April 1 Update

The Santa Fe World Affairs Forum

Join us on April 16 to 17,2012 for A Two Day Symposium on Global Unrest

Most recent commentary on the state of the world deals with revolution in one country or turmoil in a single geographic or cultural area.  The Santa Fe World Affairs Forum believes that it is time to examine these challenges and upheavals as part of a global phenomenon.  A SFWAF symposium to be held at St. John’s College on April 16-17 will look at the clash between change and status quo in Europe, China, Russia, and Mexico.  The symposium, co-sponsored with the University of New Mexico Center for Science, Technology and Policy, will provide for ample interaction between speakers and attendees.

The featured speakers for this symposium are:

EUROPE: Dr. Dieter Dettke, currently Foreign and Defense Policy Professor, Security Studies Program, Georgetown University, previously Executive Director for the US and Canada, Friedrich Ebert Foundation and staff director for the US-German Committee in the Bundestag, will help us understand a continent-wide social, political and economic flux. 

Ms. Teri Schultz, freelance international reporter for NPR and CBS News Radio and EU correspondent for Global Post will discuss the financial crash that threatens more than Europe’s image of unity.

RUSSIA: Dr. Raymond R. Smith, University of North Texas (Dallas) and former State Department political analyst is a specialist in Russian affairs.  Smith, author of Negotiating with the Soviets and The Craft of Political Analysis for Diplomats, will explore this question: “Is 21st Century Russia Doomed to be Authoritarian, Unlikeable and Threatening?”

CHINA: Dr. Douglas Spelman, former State Department China expert, now Deputy Director of the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D. C., will focus on  “China’s Rise: Promise or Problem?”

MEXICO: Dr. Lois Meyer, linguist and professor, School of Education, University of New Mexico, and author of the book New World of Indigenous Resistance, will explore the effects of globalization on indigenous resistance movements in Mexico and the Americas.

The Symposium, which takes place at St. John's College in Santa Fe, opens at 2:00 on Monday, April 16 with registration, the presentations on Europe and a welcome reception. The Symposium resumes with morning and afternoon sessions on Tuesday, April 17.  Admission fee of $65 for members and $80 for non-members includes the welcome reception, morning pastries, lunch, coffee/tea and refreshments.

St. John’s College, the University of New Mexico Latin American and Iberian Institute,  the Albuquerque Council for International Visitors, the International Studies Institute (ISI) at the University of New Mexico, the Albuquerque Committee on Foreign Relations (ACFR) and the  the New Mexico Chapter of the Fulbright Associationare are partner organizations for this symposium.

TO REGISTER:  Send an email to [email protected] and include your organizational affiliation.  You may pay with your credit card using our Paypal account. You can access Paypal directly by clicking on this link or send your check to The Santa Fe World Affairs Forum, PO Box 31965, Santa Fe. NM,87594.  Checks should be made out to The Santa Fe World Affairs Forum.  To help keep our records straight please note on your check that it is for the April 16-17 Symposium.  If you are a member of a cosponsoring or partner organization which makes you eligible for member rates please also so note. Your payment guarantees you a place, but it is non-refundable after Tuesday, April 10 if you are unable to attend.  Reservations will be taken on a first come, first serve basis.

It is also possible to register only for the Monday session about Europe ($40) or the longer Tuesday session about China, Russia and Mexico ($50).

For information on Santa Fe accommodations please click here for the link to the Santa Fe Convention Bureau's listings.

For additional symposium information, please e-mail us at [email protected]

 

Candidates for an Underground Railroad: Afghan Women

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

Little by little U.S. policy makers are beginning to realize that a war with the Taliban can’t be won.  Why not?  Because it’s almost impossible to extricate or isolate “the Taliban” from the rest of Afghan society. 

Here, for instance, is a less than exhaustive list of how and why Afghan menfolk get involved with the Taliban:  Theology.  Ethnic loyalty.  Yearning for justice and order.  Traditional mores.  Excitement and adventure.  Disgust with corruption in Kabul.  Money. Self-protection.  Anti-American, anti-foreigner sentiments.  Fear, threats or duress. 

Unfortunately for American (or NATO) aspirations, no one incentive can counter or neutralize  each and all of these motivations.  As far as theology is concerned, there is a civil war going on within Sunni Islam.  Since this is not our battle, we can’t win it.  What's more, our influence is negligible—or worse: by confronting the Taliban, we create sympathy for beleaguered fellow Muslims even among those who actually loathe the Taliban.  The U.S. has also been unable to mitigate corruption within a central government functioning under a Constitution imposed by foreigners, whose fingerprints taint it beyond redemption, corrupt incumbents or not.  Traditional Afghans ask:  wouldn’t Sharia or simple Paktunwali be preferable?  Fear is more elemental.  Fear goes away when the Americans patrol, though relief is usually tinged with the shame of depending on non-Afghans for security. When the Americans move on to the next village, district or province, however, the guys with the guns are Taliban again.  Time to grow the beard back.

So it’s not surprising that a new Washington consensus is emerging: bring the Taliban in from the cold.  Get them to buy into the system.  More wishful thinking! If the Taliban leadership (or even lower level types) were sincerely amenable to joining in a government according to the present rules, why have they been fighting all these years?  Who honestly believes the Taliban, even in partial power, will respect women’s rights (defined according to Western standards) even if they promise to do so? Isn’t this the likely scenario: they’ll persuade their non-Taliban male colleagues to limit women’s opportunities, little by little, until it’s back into the box, ladies. 

The Taliban may take a while to regain the unchallenged upper hand in much of Afghanistan, and that’s the bright side for American forces.  With a little luck, the Yanks will be gone, the war lords will regroup and the re-Talibanization can be blamed on U.S.-favored Afghans who refused to use a proven model effectively. Whew!

Colombia - Fact Sheet Update

By Patricia H. Kushlis

In 2007, John Heard spoke at the Santa Fe World Affairs Forum on Colombia and US-Colombian relations and we included a fact sheet on Colombia, Plan Colombia and US-Colombian relations on WhirledView as a result.  It is now three years later and we decided it was time for an fact sheet update - so here it is.  It is a special page that is located at the top of our left hand sidebar under the category WV in Depth. 

Since then,  the Santa Fe World Affairs Forum has its its own website.  The URL is easy.  It's just http://sfwaf.org.  We invite you to visit it to learn more about the organization and the programs we have offered since it was formed several years ago.