CenterpieceNewsletter of the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University • Volume 18 • Number 1 • Winter 2004

FROM THE DIRECTOR

Continued page 3

The Center’s Web address is: http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu© 2004 President and Fellows of Harvard College

INSIDE

Fellows Lives Lived3

Who’s WhereHarvard Academy

4ASK...Lisa Martin

6

Fellows’ AlumniConference & Reunion:America’s Role in the

World TdayKathleen Molony

8

Of Note11

Photo

Marth

a Ste

wart

In the fall of 2003, the Weatherhead Founda-tion Board authorized a new $3 millionendowment grant p ledge to enable

Harvard’s Weatherhead Center for InternationalAffairs to support the research of its faculty asso-ciates more effectively. The Foundation’s splen-did generosity during the past seven years hastransformed this Center’s capacity to support re-search on key issues and problems in the world.

The initial Weatherhead endowment grantwas established in 1997 to create a significant basisof support for the Center’s activities. That grantfunded large-scale, interdisciplinary WeatherheadInitiative programs, faculty research semesters,and a wide menu of annual conferences and recur-ring seminars. It also provided a wide array ofsupport for graduate and undergraduate studentresearch and substantial backing for the Center’sFellows Program and the Harvard Academy forInternational and Area Studies. In fall 2002, asecond substantial endowment gift provided fur-ther funding for the Harvard Academy and theCenter’s graduate and undergraduate student re-search programs. The founding pledge has beenfulfilled. Funds continue to arrive ahead of theschedule for the endowment gift for student pro-grams and the Academy. Why, then, this newgrant?

As previously reported,1 during 2002-2003the Center created five task forces to re-examineits programs comprehensively. As a result, theCenter’s executive committee adopted some newpolicies and modified others. The executive com-mittee authorized faculty associates to apply foreither a research semester leave—as has been pos-sible for several years—or $80,000 to support asignificant research endeavor. In addition, profes-sors may apply for either a conference or $20,000to support a more modest-scale research endeavor.

Concern soon arose, however, especiallyamong junior faculty, that there would be fewerfunds available to support research semester leaves.Others worried that the collegial life of the Center— conferences and seminars — might weaken. Ineach case, the reason for the concern was that thenew programs competed for money against theold; the amount of funding available had remainedunchanged. Moreover, the worldwide recessionthat greeted the start of the current decade at longlast had an impact on the Center. In fiscal year2003-2004, the Center’s income from theWeatherhead endowment dropped for the firsttime ever. Some sources of support for studentprograms fell as well. In addition, the University’scentral administration and the Faculty of Arts andSciences (FAS) made various decisions that sig-nificantly increased the FAS tax on all Centers andthe payments to be made for personnel fringebenefits. Fortunately, the original executive com-mittee decision that had authorized new programsalso delayed the start of the new faculty associateresearch support program until FY 2004-2005 andlimited eligibility for the $80,000 research grantsto those who were willing to forego applying forresearch-semester support for seven years. More

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

1. “From the Director,” Centerpiece 17:3 (Fall 2003): 1-2.

Professors Ed Diener,Lisa Berkman, and SirMichael Marmot (leftto right) exchangeviews during theNovember 2003“Workshop on Well-Being and SocialCapital” chaired byProfessor RobertPutnam and JohnHelliwell.

2 • CENTERPIECE

From the Director ...over, anticipating that there might be times ofbudgetary austerity, over the past several years theWeatherhead Center had built up a modest re-serve fund that we have been using during thecurrent academic year. In budgeting for 2003-2004, we have drawn on these Center reserves, andspecifically used them to level-fund student re-search programs.

We are confident, however, about theWeatherhead Center’s financial future. We havemanaged the Center’s budget prudently. The ex-istence of the Center’s reserve is one illustration ofsuch medium-range budget planning. We alsoexpect income from our core Weatherhead en-dowment to increase again, and the income fromthe second endowment gift should soon start toflow to enable the Center to launch the new stu-dent research programs that the WeatherheadFoundation’s generosity has made possible. Wehope to restore and expand other sources of en-dowment and current-use support for Centeroperations, especially student programs, thoughin this regard we can only promise effort, not yetresults.

The missing piece in this management of theCenter’s resources, however, remained insuffi-cient faculty associate research support. We wantto facilitate access to the new forms of supportwhile sustaining our previous conference and re-search semester commitments, allowing us to sup-port the generation of knowledge at a faster pace.We want to decrease the barrier to eligibility forour larger grants, and not have to ask professors tobe in touch with us only once every seven years.We also want to enhance the Center’s capacity todisseminate the results of its research.

The Weatherhead Foundation’s marvelousnew endowment grant will allow the WeatherheadCenter to support faculty associate research underthe original as well as the new and wider menu ofgrant options that the Center’s executive commit-tee has authorized. The income from the newendowment grant will go just for faculty research,but will otherwise remain unallocated. The Cen-ter Director will decide each year how to allocatethe income from this new fund to support facultyresearch (including the possible appointment ofdistinguished visiting scholars) and research dis-semination. Because of the new, more generousFAS policy for leaves for senior professors, how-ever, no part of the income from the new grant willsupport research semester leaves beyond what theoriginal Weatherhead endowment grant funded.Thus, the new income will be focused on researchprojects—precisely the new endeavors that theCenter’s executive committee authorized in 2002-2003. These research projects often connect pro-fessors with graduate students, as well as someundergraduates. Grants for the original and newlyauthorized channels for faculty support will beawarded based on the Center’s continuing peer-review procedures.

In this way, the Weatherhead Foundation hasremained faithful to its vision of support for re-search at the Center on international and com-parative world issues. Its munificence will enablethe Center to fine-tune and augment its supportfor professors, graduate students, and undergradu-ates who engage in research, produce new knowl-edge, and continue to build a sustainable, collegialintellectual community.

Jorge I. DomínguezCenter Director

Photo

Marth

a Ste

wart

Peter Gourevitch, Margarita Estevez-Abeand Robert Lawrence (left to right)discuss one of the presentations at theOctober 2003 conference “The Politics ofGlobalization: How Citizens, Firms, andWorkers Respond to InternationalMarket Forces.” The conference waschaired by Professors Estevez-Abe andMichael Hiscox.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○

○

○

○

○

○

WINTER 2004 • 3

Feng Jianwu, a Fellow in 1999-2000, died on June 4, 2002, at the age of 49. Hedisplayed extraordinary courage and optimism during the last two years of his life,through which he fought a debilitating cancer. A career diplomat, Feng Jianwuworked for many years with the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and itsDepartment of Western European Affairs. He was also accredited to Algeria andSwitzerland. Working with Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment in 1996 he promoted cooperation between the OECD countries andChina in the field of the environment. From February 1997 to August 2000 heresided in the United States. During that time he helped the Natural ResourcesDefense Council with two programs to improve energy efficiency in China andreceived an award for his outstanding work. He then collaborated with JeffreyLogan, Aaron Frank, and Indu John on a paper entitled “Climate Action in theUnited States and China” (1999) under the auspices of the Battelle MemorialInstitute’s Advanced International Studies Unit and the Environmental Change andSecurity Project of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

For years, both Chinese and American nongovernmental organizations benefitedfrom his advice to overcome bureaucratic and political barriers to environmentalinitiatives. As a Fellow at the Weatherhead Center he was appreciated for his affablenature, his intelligence, and his great willingness to learn. His wife, Song Li, of theGlobal Environment Facility in Washington, D.C., recalls how friends and colleagueshave remembered him since his death, as a person “full of fraternity, knowledge—his nickname was ‘Encyclopedia’—sharp thinking, eloquence, generosity, andintegrity.” “He so much enjoyed his time at Harvard,” Song Li said, “and hedescribed in great detail… his interactions at the university. Given his efficiency andeffectiveness, I believe that his achievements—in terms of daily work, publications,and the assistance that he provided to so many—were what ordinary people wouldhave performed over a period of 70 years. He had a highly concentrated but veryfruitful life.” He is also survived by their son, Shazhou.

FFFFFeeeeellllllololololowwwwwsssss’’’’’ L L L L Liiiiivvvvveeeees Ls Ls Ls Ls LiiiiivvvvveeeeedddddThe Fellows Program is theprincipal forum for the interactionof practitioners with the faculty ofthe Weatherhead Center forInternational Affairs.

4 • CENTERPIECE

Harvard Academy

Peter Andreas (1998-2000) is assistant professor of political science and internationalstudies at Brown University; Brian Axel (2000-2002) is assistant professor of anthropology atSwarthmore College; Kanchan Chandra (1999-2002) is assistant professor of political scienceat MIT; Kiren Chaudhry (1988-1990) is associate professor of political science at theUniversity of California at Berkeley; Jacques Delisle (1986-1988) is professor of law at theUniversity of Pennsylvania Law School; Ed Gibson (1990-1992) is associate professor of politicalscience at Northwestern University; John Giles (2001-2003) is assistant professor of economicsat Michigan State University; Rebecca Hardin (2001-2002) is assistant professor ofanthropology at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor; Macartan Humphreys (2002-2003) is assistant professor of political science at Columbia University; Paul Hutchcroft(1991-1993) is associate professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin at Madison;Ayesha Jalal (1988-1990) is professor of history at Tufts University; Simon Johnson(1989-1991) is the Ronald A. Kurtz Associate Professor at the Sloan School of Management, MIT;Oleg Kharkhordin (1996-1999) is dean of the Department of Political Science and Sociologyat the European University at St. Petersburg (Russia); Jeremy King (1993-1996) is assistantprofessor of history at Mount Holyoke College; Tahiri Lee (1989-1991) is associate professor oflaw and associate dean of academic affairs at the College of Law at Florida State University; SabaMahmood (1999-2003) is assistant professor of anthropology at the University of California atBerkeley; Michael Montesano (1996-1998) is assistant professor of Southeast Asian studiesat the National University of Singapore; Maria Victoria Murillo (1996-1998) is associateprofessor of political science at Columbia University; Gregory Noble (1986-1988) is aprofessor of public administration at the University of Tokyo; Dan Posner (1996-1998) isassistant professor of political science at UCLA; William Sax (1987-1989) is professor ofanthropology at the Ruprecht-Karls-Universitat Heidelberg (Germany); Alan Taylor (1991-1993)is professor of economics at the University of California at Davis; Kellee Tsai (1997-1999) isassistant professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University; Veljko Vujacic (1994-1997)is associate professor of sociology at Oberlin College; Steven Wilkinson (1996-1998) isassistant professor of political science at Duke University.

Founded in 1986, the HarvardAcademy for International andArea Studies is dedicated toincreasing our knowledge of theworld’s major cultures and ofthe relations among them.

Who’s Where

NNNN NEWEWEWEW EWBOOKSBOOKSBOOKSBOOKSBOOKS

The following page presents recentpublications byHarvard Academy Scholars.

WINTER 2004 • 5

�

Immigration’s impact on the economy and on society is shaped not only by character-istics of the immigrants themselves, but also by basic features of the society that thoseimmigrants have joined. This book contains eighteen chapters by leading scholars fromthe United States, Canada, and Europe, who explore this theme theoretically andempirically. An introductory essay by the editor suggests four major dimensions ofsociety which emerge as significant in this new research thrust: pre-existing ethnic orrace relations within the host population; differences in labor markets and relatedinstitutions; the impact of government policies and programs, including immigrationpolicy; and the changing nature of international boundaries, part of the process ofglobalization. The book had its origins in a conference sponsored by the CanadaProgram at the Weatherhead Center.Catherine Boone (Academy Scholar, 1990-92) is associate professor of political science at the University of Texas atAustin.

Political Topographies of the African Stateby Catherine Boone

Moving from the sixteenth century to the present, and using a wide array of multi-lingualsources, The Reconstruction of Nations shows how multiple versions of national identityevolved and competed with each other in what are now Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, andUkraine. Snyder contends that the triumph of modern ethnic nationalism in this partof Eastern Europe is very recent. Federalism and communal toleration were consideredviable national ideas from the 16th through 20th centuries—only the atrocities of theSecond World War buried such traditional alternatives. Snyder’s original explanationsfor these atrocities include the first scholarly account of the Ukrainian-Polish ethniccleansings of the 1940s. Snyder concludes with an analysis of the peaceful resolutionof national tensions in the region since 1989. Winner of the American HistoricalAssociation’s George Louis Beer Prize for the best publication in European internationalhistory since 1895.

Tim Snyder (Academy Scholar 1998-2000) is assistant professor of history at Yale University.

The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, andBelarus, 1569-1999

by Timothy Snyder

This book explores the history of the Dominican Republic as it evolved from the firstEuropean colony in the Americas into a modern nation under the rule of Rafael Trujillo.Turits reveals how the seemingly unilateral imposition of power by Trujillo in factdepended on the regime’s mediation of profound social and economic transformations,especially through agrarian policies that assisted the nation’s large independent peasantry.Most of the existing literature casts the Trujillo dictatorship as the paradigm of despoticrule through coercion and terror alone. This book elucidates instead the hiddenfoundations of the regime, portraying everyday life and economy in the Dominicancountryside and the exchanges between state and society under Trujillo. Winner of theAmerican Historical Association’s John Edwin Fagg Prize for the best publication in LatinAmerican history.

Richard Turits, (Academy Scholar 1996-1997 and 1999-2000) is associate professor of history, University of Michiganat Ann Arbor.

Foundations of Despotism: Peasants, the Trujillo Regime, and Modernityin Dominican History

by Richard Turits

for Internationaland Area Studies

6 • CENTERPIECE

Can you tell us something about IO asan institution?

IO has for years been the top-ranked scholarlyjournal of international relations, measured bycitations and other indicators of influence in thefield. It is an unusual journal in that it is notconnected to a professional association (for ex-ample, the APSR is published by the AmericanPolitical Science Association, and ISQ by the In-ternational Studies Association). In addition, theeditorship moves every five years (in contrast tojournals such as International Security or WorldPolitics, which have been at the same institutionfor decades). These features mean that IO canfocus solely on its intellectual mission and that afresh editorial eye is always being brought to thematerial submitted to IO for publication. I thinkthat these features, along with IO’s very activeeditorial board, have allowed it to publish cutting-edge, high-quality work more consistently thanother IR journals.

What is its intellectual mission?IO’s mission is to publish the best scholarly

research on international relations. We have fo-cused traditionally on international politicaleconomy, and while we maintain some specializa-tion there, today we publish on the entire field ofIR. Articles in IO must be theoretically informed.If they are empirical, as the vast majority are, theymust hold to the highest standards of empiricalresearch. Our mission is quite single-minded: topublish and promote innovative and rigorous re-search on international politics.

Who reads it, and who else would youlike to read it?

Our readership is largely academic; it consistsprimarily of professors and graduate students.Most of our readers are in North American andWestern Europe. Our main goal for expanding theaudience is to reach out to other parts of the globe,such as Latin America, Eastern Europe, Asia, and

Africa. We have less interest in expanding ouraudience to include policymakers, although ofcourse we hope that they occasionally find anarticle in IO useful and interesting.

How did your education lead to concen-trating your work on internationalorganizations?

My undergraduate degree was in biology, butI also did some coursework in political science,history, and economics. After graduation I workedin a biology lab at Scripps Clinic in San Diego fora year, which convinced me that life in a lab wasnot for me. I applied to graduate school in politicalscience, was admitted by Harvard, and fortuitouslyarrived here about the same time as Bob Keohane.He was at that time just publishing his majorworks on international institutions, which struckme as unusually rigorous, innovative, and inter-esting.

Which scholars have influenced you most?The obvious answer is Bob Keohane, who

chaired my dissertation committee. I also learneda great deal from the methodologists that I workedwith while at graduate school at Harvard: HenryBrady, Gary King, and Jim Alt. In a broader sense,my engagement with the more “scientific” aspectsof social science was driven by my undergraduateexperiences at Caltech. I took a course with RodKiewiet there, and while I did not follow his foot-steps to study American politics, his introductionto modern political science was invaluable.

Have you had formative professionalexperiences outside of the academy?

I guess my year at Scripps Clinic that con-vinced me not to be a biologist must count! Also,some early consulting experiences convinced methat an emphasis on working in the private orgovernment sector would not be as congenial forme as focusing on an academic career.

ASK Lisa Martin

Lisa Martin is the Clarence Dillon Professor of InternationalAffairs in Harvard’s Department of Government and editor-in-chief of International Organization (IO).

WINTER 2004 • 7Continued page 11

What are you trying to bring to IO withyour editorial leadership?

My goals are to maintain and reinvigorateIO’s tradition of excellence. I am open-mindedabout which theoretical and methodological ap-proaches are used, but I insist that all our publica-tions meet the highest social-scientific standardsof rigor. I hope to continue publishing articles thatspan the field of IR, and that draw on differentmethodological traditions. To reach a more globalaudience, our goal includes publishing more ar-ticles from authors outside North America. I amperhaps more open to publishing “pure theory”articles than some of my predecessors have been.

How has the study of internationalorganizations changed over the lastgeneration?

Keohane’s 1984 publication, After Hegemony,marked a real turning point. The study of interna-tional organizations (IOs) was previously quitedescriptive in nature, or was focused on countingrelatively uninteresting quantities, such as votesin the UN General Assembly. In the last genera-tion, we have seen the development of models andtheories of institutions that are appropriate for theinternational setting in that they take into accountthe fact that any international agreements thatmatter must be self-enforcing. Since Keohane’sseminal work, we have seen extensive theoreticaland empirical developments. Theoretically, wehave seen the development of more precise mod-els that, first, explain both the conditions underwhich IOs can make a difference and how, and,second, that attempt to explain features of IOsthemselves (such as membership patterns andenforcement provisions). Empirically, the studyof IOs has expanded from its initial emphasis onpolitical economy to encompass security issues,social issues, and environmental issues. Ironi-cally, if you looked at the state of empirical workon IOs today, you might argue that one of the areasmost neglected by political scientists is interna-tional economic institutions, although work onthose is picking up.

Where do you see the field going in thefuture?

The field has happily moved beyond the para-digm wars to which it was condemned in the 1980sand much of the 1990s (neorealism vs. neoliberalinstitutionalism vs. liberalism vs. constructivismvs. postmodernism…). We are now largely in themode of “normal science,” in which we concen-trate on developing particular models and sub-

jecting them to rigorous empirical examination.Some people are anxious to move beyond thedevelopment of separate models (for example,those who see IOs as the result of deliberate calcu-lations by states versus those who see them asdriven by internal bureaucratic dynamics) towardintegration and creation of synthetic models. Per-sonally, I am skeptical that we can integrate themajor models very well at this point. The modelsoften rest on incompatible assumptions, and theyoften are not yet fully developed on their ownterms. I think that more time working with indi-vidual models is necessary before we can start tointegrate them in a coherent manner.

What is your opinion about the ways inwhich the Bush administration is deter-mining the role that the United States isplaying in international organizations?

I just published a chapter in an edited volumeon multilateral organizations after the Iraq warthat addresses this.* In it I conclude that U.S.policy toward multilateral organizations today isone of opportunistic or ad hoc multilateralism. Iargue that principles of multilateralism (implyingself-binding) have been rejected by the Bush ad-ministration. Instead, multilateral organizationsare treated as tools of convenience, to be usedwhen they promise immediate payoffs and mini-mal restrictions on freedom of action, but ingeneral to be kept marginal and treated with deepdistrust. A policy of opportunistic multilateralismwill gut multilateral organizations and thereforeprove costly for the United States. Such a policymisunderstands the logic of multilateralism, whichrequires the powerful to bind themselves. In orderfor multilateral organizations to live up to theirpotential, the United States will have to rebuild areputation for respecting the limitations ofmultilateralism. We see little sign of an apprecia-tion of this today, but there is some chance that agrowing awareness of the very high long-termcosts of unilateralism will lead to a renewed appre-ciation of the benefits of multilateralism.

Might your academic career takeanother intellectual path in the future?

I anticipate just the usual shifts of interest thatany academic career illustrates. I continue to beinterested in institutional dynamics, on both thedomestic and international levels. I am returningto some of my original interests in internationalpolitical economy with a project on the interna-tional financial institutions, and one on trade inservices (particularly tourism). After my term as

* “Multilateral Organizations after the U.S.-Iraq War,” prepared for Impactand Consequences of the U.S.-Iraq War (World Scientific Publishing, 2003).

8 • CENTERPIECE

Fellows Leonardo Vivas (2000-01) andSebastian Wood (2000-01) flank the director ofthe Fellows Program, Kathleen Molony, at thealumni conference and reunion of November20-22, 2003.

spanning several generations of Fellows and rep-resenting approximately thirty countries, returnedto Harvard University in late November to par-ticipate in a conference and reunion. It was amongthe largest gatherings of alumni since the program’sfounding in 1958. Over the course of three days,Fellows convened in familiar venues on theHarvard campus and at the American Academy ofArts and Sciences where they considered“America’s Role in the World Today.” In additionto the academic component of the program, Fel-lows also spent time catching up with classmates,renewing ties with faculty, connecting with thosefrom other classes with whom they shared a senseof affiliation, and forming new relationships. Sev-eral social events included a reception at the Inn atHarvard, a welcome dinner at Loeb House, and adinner, with entertainment by the Harvard Dinand Tonics, an a cappella group. Many friends ofthe Fellows Program—including former programdirectors Les Brown and Steven Bloomfield, Cen-ter co-founder and former director Robert Bowie,other Center directors Samuel P. Huntington,Joseph S. Nye, Jr., and Jorge I. Domínguez, Centerexecutive directors Anne Emerson and JimCooney, and senior faculty—participated in thegathering.

The academic sessions brought focus on theUnited States. Initially and understandably somealumni greeted this theme with skepticism. Intheir view, the choice of topic was confirmation ofAmericans’ exaggerated sense of importance in

the world. What was it about the United States, inthe view of one alumnus, that could occupy somany people over several days? Wasn’t the deci-sion to focus on the United States itself a state-ment that the rest of the world and its problemsdon’t really matter to Americans? As it turnedout, the conference proceeded as it did with theexpress purpose of compelling a critical assess-ment by practitioners and academics of America’srole at a particularly complex moment in interna-tional affairs.

As John F. Kennedy School of Governmentdean Joe Nye pointed out—and as Michael Palliser(Fellow 1982) demonstrated in the opening ses-sion—by bringing practitioners and academicstogether, the Weatherhead Center for Interna-tional Affairs plays a fundamental role in influ-encing those who engage extensively in the foreignpolicy debate. And while there are several mecha-nisms through which the academy facilitates dia-logue between practitioners and scholars, moremust always be done to ensure that both nonaca-demic professionals with broad practical experi-ence and those engaged full time in research andanalysis of international affairs reap the full ben-efits of this interaction. Both Nye and Palliserpraised the interdisciplinary approach of the Cen-ter and emphasized its important mission in bring-ing theory and practice together.

Center director Jorge I. Domínguez, in re-marks at the welcome dinner, expressed his admi-ration for the Fellows and emphasized the

by Kathleen Molony

Nearly 100 alumni of the Fellows Program,

Fellows’ AlumniConference and Reunion

“America’s Role

in the World Today”

(Photo Martha Stewart)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○

○

○

○

○

○

WINTER 2004 • 9

important role they have played in the life of theCenter. As an example of the ways in which prac-titioners teach members of the academy, he re-ferred to a recent Center roundtable discussion, inwhich military Fellows shared their insights onmilitary lessons learned in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Program alumni joined faculty in plenarysessions and discussion groups for the conference’ssecond and third days at the American Academy ofArts and Sciences. Professor Samuel Huntingtonlaid the groundwork for a consideration ofAmerica’s role in the world today with an exami-nation of its national identity. Who the Americanpeople are and how they view themselves areimportant elements in the making and conduct ofU.S. foreign policy. The United States is a countrythat is defined not only by its ethnic and racialcomposition but also by its many religious faiths.Huntington claimed that the United States is cur-rently undergoing a religious revival of sorts, whichmust be taken into account among other variablesin assessing its foreign policy. Huntington alsonoted that immigration, particularly immigrationfrom Mexico, is having a profound impact on theUnited States and that this impact will be feltincreasingly in the future.

Subsequent plenary sessions examined sev-eral other themes: the scale of U.S. power today,America as world citizen, and American leader-ship in the global economy. Professor Stephen M.Walt, academic dean of the John F. KennedySchool of Government, noted that the UnitedStates is currently in a position that is almostunprecedented in the modern world. By all mea-sures, its power is formidable: its economy dwarfsthose of almost all other countries; it spends moreon its military than the rest of the world com-bined; and it is a leader in the mass media, too. (Asan example, the majority of the world’s top gross-ing films is American.) Furthermore, this positionof primacy is one that American leaders havedeliberately sought since the 1940s. However, whileprimacy reaps certain benefits (e.g. in the areas ofnational security, trade and investment, and glo-bal stability), pitfalls abound as well. Its powermeans that actions taken by the United States canhurt others—whether it intends to inflict the hurtor not—with potentially serious consequencesboth for the world and for America’s image abroad.

Cameron Hume (Fellow 1989-90) acknowl-edged that it is difficult to exert leadership whenthere are so many priorities, and when other coun-tries are preoccupied with concerns that are differ-ent from those of the United States. As a diplomathe has observed that much of the world expectsand wants the United States to use its power and

influence. But how the United States uses itspower and influence determines how others viewthis country, and whether or not they are willing towork with the United States to achieve a morestable and a safer world. Hume called the Bushadministration’s 2002 National Security Strategya “trenchant and coherent” document that statesclearly the administration’s “assertion of a limiteddoctrine of self-defense.” He said further that theadministration’s priority is to do whatever it takesto protect the nation against terrorism.

But America’s response to threats of terror-ism have raised real questions about its adherenceto “good citizenship,” suggested J. Bryan Hehir,president and CEO of Catholic Charities for theArchdiocese of Boston and Parker G. Montgom-ery Professor of the Practice of Religion and PublicLife at the John F. Kennedy School of Govern-ment. He agreed that the National Security Strat-egy expanded the capacity of the United States totake action, and he also saw the erosion of restraintnot only as a departure from the policies of thepast (when the United States worked in partner-ship with other countries) but as a dangerous newdirection. He claimed that in considering aspectsof “global citizenship” it is important to distin-guish between good citizens and bad citizens, asdid Professor Stanley Hoffmann. Hoffmann sug-gested that America’s recent conduct has verybadly fallen short and, furthermore, that few people

Continued page 10

Current Fellows Philippe Le Corre, María de los AngelesMoreno, and Gerhard Kuentzle (left to right) wereamong the nearly 100 Fellows past and present toattend their 2003 conference.

○

○

○

○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

10 • CENTERPIECE

or institutions have done much to question thatconduct. Harvard can, and should, play a role ineducating students and others about the MiddleEast, a part of the world about which Americansknow very little, Hoffmann added. He went on tosay that lack of interest and knowledge about therest of the world, both within and outside thegovernment, has serious consequences.

Indeed, Professor Jeffrey Frankel argued thatAmerican leadership in the global economy iscompromised, to a certain extent, by a constantsearch for votes. Frankel believes that PresidentBush squandered a leadership opportunity in theimmediate aftermath of September 11, when itwould have been easy for him to demonstrate tothe rest of the world that the United States takes itsglobal responsibilities seriously, explaining toAmericans why they should make sacrifices atsuch a time. Instead, the United States has contin-ued to oppose multilateral treaties, implementunwise tax cuts, act as a protectionist, and signifi-cantly increase public spending. In response tothis opinion, Professor Robert Lawrence volun-teered what he called a “more nuanced assess-ment” of American leadership in the globaleconomy. Votes do matter, he said, but it is theresults of congressional elections to which onemust pay particular attention since negotiatingauthority lies with the U.S. Congress, and thepresident, constitutionally, is no more than an“agent.” What concerned Lawrence, in particular,is the American tendency in recent years towardincreased partisanship in the making of tradepolicy. But if the United States has made somemistakes in recent months (the administration’srecord on trade was better at its start) it is alsoimportant to recognize that it is not alone. Europealso bears some responsibility.

Keynote speakers at the two luncheons pro-vided privileged points of view to the assembledFellows. Professor of American literature LawrenceBuell, in his remarks on “Emersonian Individual-ism and American Exceptionalism,” suggestedthat Ralph Waldo Emerson can be used as a refer-ence point by practitioners of international affairsfor thinking about both the positive and negativeeffects of exceptionalism, as Emerson not onlythought profoundly about America’s unique role

in the world but also was a voracious borrower andadapter of ideas from around the world. FormerColombian president Andrés Pastrana (Fellow1990-91) provided a way of thinking about theevolution of American foreign policy and definingterrorism. Pastrana contended that an approachto combating terrorism must recognize that inter-national terrorism has many faces. In the case ofColombia, he stated, where civil society has beena victim of terrorists on the left and the right formany years, it is important that other countries,particularly the United States, work together tosolve the pernicious drug problem. He claimedthat the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,altered irrevocably and necessarily the approachto terrorism on the part of the internationalcommunity.

Fellows were given the opportunity to chal-lenge the speakers, both in the plenary sessionsthemselves and in discussion groups that aug-mented and complemented the larger meetings. Afew Fellows felt that the discussions did not pro-vide enough “balance,” that there should havebeen more presentations by those in support ofU.S. policy. The discussion groups, which covereda broad array of related topics, were intended toprovide an opportunity for dissent and for differ-ent voices to be heard – and, indeed, Fellows spokeeloquently and forcefully in these sessions, chal-lenging discussion leaders and expressing alterna-tive viewpoints. In the end many participants feltthat the conference allowed consideration of somevery important issues and dimensions in the de-bate over America’s role in the world today.

Fellows’ Alumni Conference...

� � �

�

Former Colombian president Andrés Pastrana (Fellow 1990-91) provided a way of thinking about theevolution of American foreign policy and defining terrorism. Pastrana contended that an approach to

combating terrorism must recognize that international terrorism has many faces.

WINTER 2004 • 11

IO editor is over (another three years), I look forward to some time to reflect on directions in my ownresearch.

How has motherhood affected your work?I was lucky. I was tenured early enough that I was able to postpone motherhood until after tenure.

Undertaking motherhood at the same time in their careers that scholars are under great pressure topublish rapidly is extremely difficult. On the other hand, I would encourage women not to put offmotherhood for too long— the biologicalclock is real, in spite of all the technology atour disposal. We need to continue pressuringuniversities for generous and even-handedpolicies toward maternity that do not forceyoung women to make outrageously difficultchoices between their careers and mother-hood. Motherhood has affected my work inthat it inevitably has slowed down the rate atwhich I can produce original research—butwho knows, maybe that’s just a sign of age!

In the midst of your teaching, yourresearch, your editorial responsibili-ties at IO, and being the mother of three-year-old Sophia, is it true that youalso train dogs?

Well, yes. I compete with my Shetland Sheepdog, Bobby, in a sport called agility. Basically it’srunning your dog through an obstacle course. I started doing agility on a whim, and have becomecompletely addicted (my weekends in spring and fall are pretty much devoted to competition…). I’mplanning to get another puppy to begin training this spring, and hope that I won’t make all the samemistakes I made with Bobby! Bobby and I now compete at the master’s level, but I hope to take mynext dog even further.

ASK...Lisa Martin

OfNOTE

From February 17 to 20, 2004, the Weatherhead Center proudly hosted its firstShort-Term Distinguished Visiting Scholar, Professor Kenneth Schultz of theUniversity of California at Los Angeles. At UCLA Professor Schultz studies the impactof domestic politics and institutions on international relations, and he teachescourses on international relations, the politics of foreign policy, and game theory.During his stay at Harvard, Professor Schultz gave a public talk entitled "CouldHumphrey Have Gone to China? Measuring the Electoral Costs and Benefits ofMaking Peace" and met individually with faculty, graduate students and Fellows ofthe Weatherhead Center’s Olin Institute for Strategic Studies.

Former Weatherhead Center Fellow, Ingrid Lehmann (1993-94) is a Fellow this spring in the Joan Shorenstein Center on thePress, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Ms. Lehmann is the former director of the UnitedNations Information Service in Vienna and has recently been teaching in the Department of Communication at the University ofSalzburg, Austria. In her 25-year career with the United Nations, Lehmann also served as director of the U.N.'s Information Officesin Washington, D.C. and Athens. She also worked in the U.N.'s Department for Disarmament Affairs and in its peacekeepingmissions in Cyprus and Namibia. While at Harvard she is comparing U.S. and German media reporting on the U.N. weaponsinspectors in Iraq in 2002-03.

The Project on Justice, Welfare and Economics (JWE) is hostingvarious events during the spring semester that include meetings in which JWEfellows will present their work and receive commentary from the JWE FacultyCommittee and current and former fellows. The project is also hosting dinnerdiscussions to engage interested members of the Harvard and Boston-area academiccommunity in the work of the project.

12 • CENTERPIECE

1033 Massachusetts AvenueCambridge, MA 02138

Nonprofit OrganizationU.S. PostageP A I DBoston, MAPermit No. 1636

E-mail correspondence regardingthe Centerpiece or other mattersmay be directed to:

Jim CooneyExecutive Directorjcooney@wcfia.harvard.edu

Steven BloomfieldEditorAssociate Directorsbloomfield@wcfia.harvard.edu

Amanda PearsonPublications Managerapearson@wcfia.harvard.edu

The Center’s Web address is:http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu

Visit the Weatherhead Center’s Web siteto find a variety of work produced by theCenter’s faculty, including recentlyauthored articles “In the News.”

www.wcfia.harvard.edu