"Funding Innovation: Avenues, Resources and Support for Projects,” May 2, noon to 2 p.m.Joshua Eckhardt, associate professor in the Department of English and founder, general co-editor of British Virginia, will moderate. Panelists are David Holland, research and entrepreneurial specialists in the School of the Arts, and Jessica Venable, grant analyst in the VCU Office of Research.Įach event will be held in the Multipurpose Room on the second floor of the James Branch Cabell Library, 901 Park Ave.
#DIGITAL PRAGMATA BEN FINO RADIN REGISTRATION#
Sessions are free, but seating is limited to a first-come, first-served basis and online registration at is required.įaculty and graduate students interested in the digital arts and humanities, as well as digital scholarship and teaching, are encouraged to attend these events.
FP subscribers are encouraged to send in questions in advance. Join FP’s Ravi Agrawal for a timely debate between Beckley and Jin. But Keyu Jin, the author of The New China Playbook, counters that Beijing could helm the world’s largest economy within the next decade-if it continues its innovative approach to local competition. Together with his Danger Zone co-author Hal Brands, Beckley made the term “Peak China” mainstream. In 2021, Michael Beckley argued in FP that China’s demographic challenges and a decline in productivity would lead to economic stagnation. Which theory is correct? It depends who you ask. But more recently, an alternative school of thought has become popular: China. Only FP subscribers can submit questions for FP Live interviews.įor much of the past three decades, there was widespread consensus that China’s continued rise was inevitable. This leads to one of two possible decisions: pre-emptive action to delay the program, or accepting the inevitable.Ĭontra Cohen, the most pragmatic thing for the United States to do is to expect nothing fruitful to come from negotiations with Iran - and to (nonviolently) prepare for the contingency of a nuclear Iran.Ī question to my realist colleagues here at FP - why on God’s green earth would Iran ever accede to an agreement whereby it gives up any autonomy in its nuclear program? Pragmatically, I seriously doubt that the United States can offer anything to get Tehran to halt its nuclear program. The only sanction that would really hurt Tehran enough to buckle is a gasoline embargo, and the Russians and Chinese will never sign on to one of those. Rachel Loeffler argues that these sanctions carry some bite, but the nuclear program is a domestic crowd-pleaser and offers the hope of policy autonomy that a lifting of sanctions does not provide. The lifting of financial sanctions? As Iran’s mullahs might put this, whoop-dee-frickin-doo. Why should Iran trust the United States’ word on this? From Tehran’s perspective, would you trust the ability of the Obama administraion to rein in Israel? Security guarantees? Accepting those is not terribly pragmatic from Iran’s perspective.
What can the United States possibly offer that would convince Iran’s mullahs to give that up? I completely agree with the first excerpted paragraph of Cohen’s column - which is why I don’t buy the second paragraph.Īs Cohen ably demonstrates, Iran’s leadership sees a lot of threats in its near abroad and recognizes the utility of a nuclear deterrent. What’s required is American pragmatism in return, one that convinces the mullahs that their survival is served by stopping short of a bomb. A state facing a nuclear-armed Israel and Pakistan, American invasions in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan, and noting North Korea’s immunity from assault, might reasonably conclude that preserving the revolution requires nuclear resolve. Pragmatism is also one way of looking at Iran’s nuclear program.
Today’s column points to the pragmatism of Iran’s leadership and urges the United States to be equally pragmatic: Cohen’s recent columns have been all about his trip to Iran, in which he accurately described a country that was not spending every waking moment plotting to destroy the United States.
This brings us to today’s Cohen column, and the paradox contained in his last few paragraphs. I’ve been, well, less enamored of Cohen’s writing, though in fairness to him I’m tough on all foreign affairs columnists. Cohen has been writing a fair amount about the Middle East as of late. Bloggers at Foreign Policy and elsewhere have discovered Strange New Respect for IHT/NYT columnist Roger Cohen.
0 kommentar(er)
