Celebrating a Decade of the Conference on Diversity in International Affairs

The murder of George Floyd iin 2020 catalyzed an anti-racism protest movement that echoed around the world. Global protests, mostly in support of Black Lives Matter, lasted for months and were reignited this year after increased attacks on Asian Americans and other communities of color. This panel discussed the direct relationship between race, racism, and U.S. policy; the role of protests and the media in prompting discourse about that relationship; and how racism at home affects U.S. credibility abroad.  LINDSAY: Hello, everyone. I'm Jim Lindsay, senior vice president and director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. It is my great pleasure to welcome you to the ninth annual Conference on Diversity in International Affairs. Today's event is jointly presented by the Council on Foreign Relations, the Global Access Pipeline, and the International Career Advancement Program. America's ethnic and racial makeup has changed dramatically in recent decades. The ethnic and racial makeup of America's foreign policy community, however, has not. The composition of the U.S. foreign policy community is not likely to change significantly without a concerted effort to identify talented members of underrepresented groups, expose them to career possibilities in foreign policy, and actively recruit them for positions. We hold the Annual Conference on Diversity in International Affairs to help make that happen. We want to celebrate America's diversity in the fact that we as a country have ties to virtually every country around the globe, which is a great strength and a complex and ever-changing world. You want to lift talented voices, the unique perspectives that are not being heard, and make them part of the foreign policy debate. We urge all of you to follow up after today's session and tomorrow's sessions by learning more about how you can help play a role in international affairs. Two outstanding organizations that share the Council's commitment to diversifying the foreign policy community are our partners for this conference, the Global Access Pipeline (GAP) and the International Career Advancement Program (ICAP). Both GAP and ICAP have been with us from the start of this conference. For those of you new to GAP, it is a collaborative network of organizations forming a pipeline for underrepresented groups in the United States, from elementary school to senior leadership positions. ICAP as a professional development and leadership program for highly promising mid-career professionals in international affairs in the United States. I want to thank the GAP and ICAP leadership teams for their work on this conference and in the broader field of international affairs. I want to specifically thank Rita Amir, Ivan Carpio, Nima Patel Edwards, and Lilly Lopez McGee. We all owe a special debt of thanks and gratitude to Tom Rowe, who oversees both GAP and ICAP and who has been a leading voice in the field. I also want to thank my colleagues here at the Council on Foreign Relations Meetings Program and Events team for their work in planning this virtual event, especially want to say thanks to Nancy Bodurtha, Stacey LaFollette, Teagan Judd, Sarah Shah, and Krista Wessel. I also want to give a shout-out to my colleagues Jan Mowder Hughes and Shira Schwartz, who were instrumental in making the conference happen. Without further ado, I'll turn things over to Reena Ninan who will moderate today's session. I know you will enjoy it. Have a great day. NINAN: Jim, thank you so much, so grateful to be here to have this conversation. And so grateful to the Council on Foreign Relations for having this conversation. It's an important one. It's not an easy one. And I'm glad that we have the panelists that we do because not only have they covered foreign policy and been in the space extensively, they've also been personally affected in many ways as well. We've got Karen Attiah, who's the global opinions editor at the Washington Post. We also have Congressman Andy Kim, who is the U.S. representative from New Jersey, Democratic Representative and Keith Richburg, who is the director of the Journalism and Media Studies Centre at the University of Hong Kong. And Keith, if his name sounds familiar, you've probably read his byline many times in the Washington Post. We are grateful all of you can join us. Keith, I want to turn to you and I just want to make sure that you guys, you can't see me yet. Is that correct? RICHBURG: Right. I can see you. NINAN: You can see. Okay, Okay, perfect. I want to start with you, Keith, because I want to thank you. It's 4:00 a.m. where you're at in Hong Kong. Thank you for staying up to be taking this conversation. I want to ask you, since you're in Hong Kong, it's really fascinating to watch how the Chinese government has taken the Black Lives Matter movement and sort of this awakening of race in America and placed it repeatedly over and over on the front pages. How is that really affecting how foreign policy, U.S. foreign policy is perceived abroad? RICHBURG: It's a great question. And by the way, thanks to the Council for doing this. So that's why I thought it was worth getting up at four in the morning because this is such an important topic to be discussing at the moment. But you know, I've seen this I've been involved in foreign affairs issues for you know, going back over three decades and you know, every time there is a problem of race in the United States and it explodes, whether it's Rodney King or the George Floyd murder, you know, our rivals, our enemies try to take advantage of it. And that's definitely what we saw here in China. You know, right after the first Black Lives Matter movement protest started after the George Floyd murder, the Foreign Ministry spokesman put on Twitter just the words "I can't breathe." And that basically the Chinese kind of propaganda machine started comparing the protests going on in the United States to the protests that had been happening in Hong Kong a year earlier. They recycled an old tweet from Nancy Pelosi saying that the protests in Hong Kong were a beautiful sight to behold. And so they kind of juxtapose that over, you know, some scenes of vandalism in the United States saying, a beautiful sight to behold, you might recall during that first meeting that the Secretary of State had with his Chinese counterparts in Alaska, you know, they the Chinese opening statement was basically a long harangue, saying, you know, get your own house in order, black people are being slaughtered in the United States, you've got Black Lives Matter protests. So it's, it makes it more difficult, I think, for the U.S. to criticize the human rights record of others, when they can turn around and say, clean up your own house first before you criticize us. So you know, America's "race problem," and I will call it that, has always been kind of a sore point for the U.S. when they are trying to promote human rights around the world, people always can throw that back. And so that's the, it's been a constant problem, you can go back to the civil rights, movement, etc. when the Soviet Union during the Cold War used to use the Jim Crow laws, treatment of black people as a propaganda tool. And it's happening again now. NINAN: Congressman, you have extensive experience as well with what it's like to be in the system and to face discrimination. You were an advisor at the State Department and you made the very brave step of speaking about it publicly. And you tweeted about this. I'm going to read the tweet because I think it speaks to the moment it says, "I'll never forget the feeling when I learned that my own government questioned my loyalty before Congress. I worked in diplomacy at the State Department, I once received a letter banning me from working on Korea issues just because of my last name." What was your response? How was that experience? KIM: Yeah, well, thank you, Reena. And thank you everyone for joining up. And I'm going to stop complaining about my Zoom schedule, when I hear what Keith is doing waking up at 4:00 a.m. in Hong Kong. So look, you know, I worked at the State Department as a career person, career officer, and worked on Iraq and Afghanistan issues, served out in Afghanistan had top secret security clearance. And then one day I just showed up at Foggy Bottom, and there was a white envelope on my keyboard one morning, I opened it and it was a letter telling me that I was banned from working on issues related to Korea. And I was so confused because I wasn't even trying to work on issues related to Korea, I was not applying for any jobs. It was just a proactive and preemptive letter just kind of warning me and telling me not to do this. And I just I found it really hurtful. It really, it felt really painful. I still like feel it inside me right now. Because it just felt like this experience I've felt other times in my life, where it just feels like I'm being told I'm not 100% American, you know, it's telling me, you can work on these other issues. But when it comes to your ancestral homeland, and you know, I was born in America, I don't even speak Korean very well. You know, it's just this feeling like, if I were to work on Korea, my government worries that I might not actually represent America, you know, that they worry that I might not be able to do my job, simply because of that connection. And that's a hurtful feeling. You know, that questioning of my loyalty and questioning of whether or not I can do my job and be American? And, frankly, made me question whether or not I could stay at the State Department. I questioned whether or not I could find my, you know, whether I could envision a career moving up the ladder and getting a job on the seventh floor as an advisor one day. It made me question if I could do that if I had this black stain on my record. And I know so many number of other Asian Americans that experienced that and others. So, you know, it's something that now I'm on the Foreign Affairs Committee in Congress, and I'm trying to change but when it gets to it fundamentally, is this true question of like, does America think that our diversity is a strength rather than a threat and a concern? And if so, what are we going to do about that? Especially at a place at the State Department, which is literally our face to the rest of the world? And that's why I just feel like it's something we absolutely need to confront. NINAN: I want to get to the what do we do about it in a moment, I want to turn though Karen to you. The media play an important role in how foreign policy is examined. I know you've been influential in getting different voices into the Washington Post and into the papers. What has your experience been like? And over the past few years—I know you got Jamal Khashoggi to write for the paper—what have you seen? Have you seen a change and what gives you the most concern at this point? ATTIAH: Thanks for this; thanks for this conversation. And thanks to CFR for having me. I think you know, already from what has already been discussed a lot of what I think we're trying to grapple with, and frankly, trying to correct, are our issues of representation and very fundamental, I think, to the American promise and the American ideal that everybody has a voice in how their society should be, should be shaped. And so the animating ethos behind Google opinions, which was started back in 2016, or so was just this idea to what congressman was talking about, which is basically, that it's a strength, that you have a connection to your country, that you have a connection to your culture, and that you should have a voice and be heard about how you see things going on in your country and in your culture. And that's really what you know, in our little corner of resistance sometimes was what we were, we are trying to do is to give people who are from these countries to be able to speak about their own knowledge, instead of having it always be kind of filtered through kind of what out you know, called sometimes the interpreter class, I think, in Washington. Whether, you know, think tanks and analysts and correspondents, but again, this idea that is a universal human truth that the power of one's own story is how we construct truth and how we construct meaning. I think where, look, I mean, similar to, I get this question of representation, and media has a long way to go, we are actually further behind than we were perhaps two decades ago when it comes to diversity amongst the top ranks in in media, in journalism. And when it comes to Black, Latino, Asian American representation, frankly, it's pretty embarrassing where our where our industry is. So it's, and with the reckoning over George Floyd's death, it's that these issues are now much more in the forefront. But I think it comes back down to does our industry, is our industry willing to commit to having our ranks represent the direction of the country, that it's going in demographically, values wise, and I think, to present to the rest of the world as well, that we are capable of listening to the rest of the world, especially as we're making foreign policy decisions that literally are life and death matters for many people around the world. So I think for us, it's this idea that you know, drops in the bucket, but we hope that having these voices from around the world will at least give Americans a chance to broaden their imaginations about the rest of the world and in the hope that they can vote for, demand better policy if they're able to read and empathize with others who work from around the world. NINAN: It's such a good point about also seeing the interpreters' looking glass and how they see the world and the importance of diversity. Congressman Kim, I want to talk to you a little bit about the rise of AAPI hate. And when you're talking about diversity in Congress, I mean, while this is really the most diverse Congress we've ever had in the history of our nation, there are still complex issues of race that Congress just doesn't understand. What have you learned at your time in Congress about the way we communicate with Congress, what works and what isn't working and getting through? KIM: Well, one thing I learned is, you cannot make any assumptions that someone else will stand up and raise the issues that you care about and fight the fights that you want to see made. You know whether that was the work that I did, I was the only Asian American on the Select Committee on the Coronavirus Crisis last year. And, you know, I saw how important it was for us to have diversity on that committee to raise different issues of racial health disparities and other challenges when it's coming to our economy. And when it comes to just the last year, you know, I really, you know, just this narrative about what's happening with the violence and the discrimination. Yes, things are incredibly bad. I've not seen this level of fear and anxiety in the Asian American community during my lifetime. But will we recognize it? No. For those of us who are in the communities that the discrimination and the racism and frankly, the violence that we see, that preceded COVID, it'll be there after COVID. This is not just some new phenomenon. And I think that that was really important to add to the conversation. I think I had literally members of Congress coming to me and telling me like, "Oh, I'm so sorry for what your community is going through right now. But look, the pandemic's almost over, it's going to get better." And I just find that to be very frustrating that these are, you know, members of Congress, that these are people that I work with that seem to not understand the root of, of these challenges for different communities. And that's why I took to talking very personally about the challenges that I experienced before COVID, at the State Department or my family, is to show how this is much deeper than that. And yes, we passed an important piece of legislation last week that the President decided addressing hate crimes facing the Asian American community, writ large, other communities. But we know that that single piece of legislation is not going to change everything, you know, it's not going to necessarily make, you know, all these Asian American grandmas that I talked to, who are fearful about going outside, it's not going to make them immediately feel like they're safe. So there are challenges that we face. And what I have really taken away is that, that we need to build a sustained attention and engagement to really address this. I want people to understand and care about the challenges that the Asian American community faces, not just one, there's something horrible on the front pages of newspapers about our community, or during the month of May in Heritage Month, you know, I want them to care about the Asian American community in June and July and August and September. And I want us to stand up against hate and all for not just that, which you know, is directed towards people that look like us. So those are some of the longer-term goals I'm trying to put into the work that I'm doing in Congress. NINAN: And it's just so fascinating, your background about how you, what you experienced at the State Department, then going into your life in politics and trying to change that as well. Keith, I want to turn to you. I want to talk a little bit about a trip that President Obama actually took, I believe is back in 2009. When he came to China, you spoke a little bit about how present-day China, how they're really playing up these race issues in America. What was it like in 2009, covering President Obama, a Black man becoming president of the United States? How was that received? RICHBURG: That's really interesting, because you know, during the entire campaign, the propaganda machine, meaning the state-run media, which follows the same official line, they consistently said that there was no way Obama was going to win against Hillary Clinton, because America is a racist country. That's kind of the you know, Chinese Communist Party line, America's deeply racist, they would never elect a Black man. And so therefore, Hillary Clinton was going to win. And then once Obama won the Democratic nomination, the party line became, well, John McCain is going to win because America is a very conservative country and it's also a very racist country, and there's no way they're going to elect the Black man. And then when Obama won, everything went silent for a couple of days, because they had to kind of figure out "what do we say now?" And then finally, Xinhua came out with the narrative that they all had to later on repeat saying, "well, Obama did win but you know, he went to Harvard, and he's actually only half Black so that shows the elite, they're still in charge in America. They made it a class issue. And so it was really interesting. They had an official narrative they like to keep out there is that America is a hopelessly racist country, it's a hopelessly divided country, that Black people are all being slaughtered in the streets or in being put in jail. And the Obama presidency kind of turned that around on its head. And so that's that was actually quite fascinating. And that's why I think they, you know, the official propaganda machine is much more comfortable with the George Floyd murder and Black Lives Matter being protests in the street, because that's something they could get their heads around. And so you see, "we told you, it was a racist country," you know. And again, it's interesting going, listening to what the Congressman is saying to every time there is one of these, these anti-Asian hate incidents in the U.S., that also becomes front page news, here in Asia, because they're basically saying, "hey, all of you people in Hong Kong who want to emigrate, look how bad it is in the West so you'd better stay here." And so you know. So that is, it's interesting how the propaganda affects but one more thing about the Obama trip, because I was traveling around Asia at the time and to China, you know, people pay attention to what happens in the United States. And when Obama was elected, all of a sudden, you started seeing these kind of hope and change candidates coming up all over the world. I mean, in Indonesia and elsewhere. You know, "hope and change" became kind of a slogan in many campaigns. Likewise, in 2016, when President Trump was elected, suddenly started seeing these populists popping up everywhere and kind of emulating the Trump style so you know, what, if I guess the whole point is in foreign policy, what happens in the U.S. matters, the rest of the world does pay attention. You know, when our president is talking about fake news, all of a sudden, you've got the dictators and authoritarians all talking about fake news all over the world too. So what happens matters? And so that's why we have to get this racial reckoning right. Because that could be something that would go around the world and be a real signal. NINAN: Okay, part of the problem, though, that I've seen in my time abroad is, so often people of color don't see themselves as being of any sort of diplomatic caliber. There's an issue in the State Department with retention, how do you change that perception? How do you get people of color to see I mean, we heard directly from Congressman Kim, his ethnicity was a liability, it was viewed as a liability. How do we change that? RICHBURG: Yeah, personally, I think it's one step at a time, but you have to do it by having people who you know, who are diverse, you know, diverse backgrounds there to serve as mentors for others. If you can look up and you see people there look like you, then you know, then you could think I can do that job. Look, I joined the Washington Post way back in 1980, when I graduated from college, but there was a Black city editor and a Black assistant managing editor, and I could say, "wow, there are people here who look like me." So that's part of the thing. And I think you have to go even younger, you have to go into high schools, and talk to young people and let them know that this foreign policy space is a space for them, and again, so it's mentorship, it's seeing people who look like you there. And look, you're already seeing changes in the State Department. It's a big ocean liner to turn it around. But right now we've got, including right here in Hong Kong, you got a lot of diplomats who are here with a same sex partner, that's something you never would have imagined. Because a few years ago, being gay would have been something that might have gotten you kicked out. And all of a sudden, now we have that it's not a big deal. And so the State Department can change, it can become more open and diverse. And I think that's, as others have said, that's really one of America's secret weapons is our diversity in the fact that we have people who are from different cultures. And it's really fun when you go to an embassy Fourth of July party and you see all kinds of colors and all kinds of faces, and you say that's America. NINAN: And I have to say, personally, you know, my I started my career at the Washington Post TV set during the Iraq war. Seeing you in Paris, your byline made me realize, you know what is possible for a woman of color like me to one day be abroad, and I ended up going to the Middle East. So thank you. Karen, I want to let you have the last word, I want to look at a study that I keep coming back to I'm so fascinated by the study, and I quote it all everywhere. It's from the Truman Center, and it looked at the lack of diversity at the State Department. And it found in 2002, Black women represented 2%. In 2017, fifteen years later, that number change to 3%. That was even before Trump that they were looking at. Secretary Blinken has named his first Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley who I've heard wonderful things about from inside the State Department because she has worked and been ambassador in the State Department. And she's looking to transform the place. What does she need to do there? ATTIAH: Yeah, this is a really fascinating and, and frankly, I think tragic situation for black women who are were interested in foreign policy, actually, me myself, before I joined the journalism world, I was a Fulbright Scholar, so had some ties to the State Department and kind of got a little bit of the inner workings and the challenges to advancement there. And I would say I learned kind of very early on, the pipeline to get to positions within foreign policy, the State Department, I think I read that a sixty percent or so of those who work in top levels of foreign policy have an advanced degree, many of them have an Ivy League degree, I was privileged enough to be able to go to Columbia School of International and Public Affairs, but I realized that even being able to get your foot in the door is such a huge barrier. And I think some of that is very, very similar to even journalism, frankly, which is very much dominated by those who have advanced degrees, by those who have the mentors and the guides in high school. And if they are able to go in college, you can tell them and say hey, you actually are pretty good at languages have you thought about maybe signing up to do programs that could help track you into the State Department. Whereas I think a lot of people even in the neighborhoods that I grew up in here in Texas, are more likely to be tracked into signing up for the military. That's their form of foreign policy experience. So I think you know, what needs to happen and you're reading about this topic is you know, basically looking at a hiring spree that the talent is out there. But it is a cultural change. And a lot of these institutions, it comes down to a cultural change. Back to what was already said before that America has a lot of soft power. And part of our stories, the world is the story of this melting pot experiment where people from different walks of life, different colors, those who are descendants of enslaved people can serve and represent proudly, this grand experiment. So I think, I think a lot of what needs to happen is a huge rethink, in not only in recruitment, but what just what message they want to send and not just for optics, but within so when somebody walks in, they're not thinking whether or not their connections to a country or tests of loyalty, people will try to pronounce their name correctly in the door. These things, I think, and also, again, just starting from maybe perhaps programs, even from the high school level, even from the college level, where that it can be shown to kids that you can represent your country abroad in more ways than just signing up for military service, but that you can help build bridges and be a diplomat. NINAN: That's so great, because I don't think that's heard enough Karen, you’re the point that you're trying to make about that. I want to thank all of you for your experiences and for sharing it with us. And I know we've got a ton of questions from our participants, I want to turn it over. But I also want to say as much as we talked about how difficult it's been, I've never had as much hope as I have in this moment, particularly in the words coming out of Secretary Blinken saying the need for more diverse lived experiences, and it sure feels like there's more to this. So I want to turn it over. At this time, I want to invite participants to join the conversation, I want to remind everyone this is on the record. And as a reminder, there's also a virtual networking happy hour that's going to follow this and we'll have that information in the chat. I also want to thank very much for putting together this panel of Sara Shah, who has been just a force at CFR who's leaving for new opportunity. I want to thank you, Sarah, for helping to organize this discussion. And I know you're going to shine where you go next. I'm going to turn it over to our operator, Sara. STAFF: We will take the first question from Maryum Saifee. Q: Thank you, Sara. My question, I'm Maryum Saifee, I'm with the State Department and actually worked on the report that Reena mentioned the Truman Center report on building a more just and equitable State Department. My question is for Representative Kim, firstly, thank you for your courage and sharing your experience. That's something that the culture of the department, we usually are kind of hardwired to keep our heads down and not talk about, you know, adversity. And so I think your story is emblematic of many State Department employees of color, myself included, who face some of this racism both in the department and abroad. One thing that's been a challenge in the department in advancing diversity work is the lack of disaggregated data collection. So we're often told that our stories of racism are anecdotal or sort of bad luck, rather than systemic because we just don't have the data. So how do you see disaggregated data collection is a mechanism for transparency and accountability, and frankly, an antidote to some of the gaslighting. Thank you. KIM: Yeah, no, thank you. First of all, appreciate your comments there. And I know after I, you know, talk publicly about my experience, I did have a lot of people that are currently at State Department or formerly at State Department or other parts of national security come and told me that they had similar issues and similar experiences, you're right that the culture there doesn't lend itself to one of speaking out on this. I remember when this happened to me, I went to higher ups and told him I want to try to appeal this. And I was told that there's no way for me to appeal this unless I was actually seeking a job to work on Korea issues. And I tried to just say, "I don't want this to stay on my record." And I was told by a number of people more senior than me, to just let it go to not talk about it. Since I'm not looking for a job in Korea issues. They were like just don't make waves. And that was really, really rough and again, didn't make me feel make me feel like people understood why it was that I was protesting this. It wasn't just about deal to get a job. It was about, you know, respect. And, you know, when it comes to trying to understand this on a broader level, you know, I've had conversations with Secretary Blinken and the deputy secretary about this, I look forward to speaking to the chief diversity officer. We are trying to get a better sense of just the totality of the problem. Whether it's, it's with what I'm talking about there or just the bigger issues when it comes to recruitment, retention, and promotion. You know, we're having a lot trouble understanding, you know, just where exactly, the traumas lie, and they're trying to get that kind of data. So I hear you on that front, we are trying to be more data driven, and really try to understand the scope of it. So we can push back against these claims that these are just simply anecdotal. We know that it's not, we know that it's more systemic. And, but trying to get that data to be able to do it, and then try to then understand how this day the data in itself, the transparency is not going to fix it on its own. It's a matter of what steps that we can take and how we have metrics to be able to fix that. So I don't have a specific answer to your question but know that I am working to get that data that I have assurances that we will get it in a fuller form and be able to tackle this in a much more substantive way. And I'm going to hold the Biden administration to that. NINAN: Right, Sara? Can we have the next question, please? STAFF: Sure, we will take the next question from the written Q&A, we have a written submission from a Anisa Antonio, who asks, and I believe this goes beyond the State Department, is representation truly enough? Can we go beyond that to develop systems of support that guarantee the voices of people of color will evolve into real systemic change addressing under representation in every level of the government? ATTIAH: I'm happy to take a crack at that. Is representation truly enough? I believe it's not. I think that representation is a step, is a tool is utterly necessary. But what we are talking about is even beyond just diversity. What we're talking about is, frankly, the willingness to share power, to share resources, to build environments that are not just, you know, not just diverse, but frankly, actively anti-racist. And I think that sometimes the, there's, there's been a lot of sound and fury and hiring of DEI officials and consultants. And then you know, where we are asked, and those of us who are, you know, frankly, have probably tons of stories of not feeling or not feeling seen or not being heard or are asked, you know, well, how do we change this? And a lot of times, I start to ask, that's the question to those who created the institutions, as James Baldwin said, you know, how long are we supposed to wait for your progress, as he said to a white reporter, actually back in the 60s. So I would love to see, you know, more questions and forms to those, you know, who do hold the power, would you help hold the purse strings, hold the hiring decisions as to what the holdup is. And I think that things are changing, again, demographics, I can social media, frankly, has played a huge role in making these things visible. Because you know, as a member of the media, we're realizing that we are not as much of the gatekeepers as we used to, used to be, and that, particularly people of color, those who've been marginalized, have found ways to find community and make their voices heard. So I do think that things are changing. But I think ultimately, what a lot of us a lot of people are asking for is for America, in particular, to basically live up to its promises, and that it's not enough to have, you know, people of color around the table if they don't have power, if they don't have decision-making power, if they don't have the ability to be able to mentor and bring and bring people up because ultimately at the end of the day, whether journalism, whether it's policy, whether it's science, it makes for better policy, better journalism, better science. And I'm wishing for the day that we didn't have to have numbers, the biggest business case, that it is just the status quo. NINAN: Great point, Karen. You know, accountability is so important, having a mechanism for that, but also having data collection, being able to get those points. We're not there yet, not to have it, but it's really important. You raise a great perspective. Sara, would you mind giving us the next question please? STAFF: Sure. We will take the next live question from Danielle Obisie-Orlu. Q: Hi, thank you. My name is Danielle Obisie-Orlu, I am from the University of Pittsburgh. And my question is to all of the panelists. As an American-Nigerian who grew up in South Africa, I hold my experiences and connections to different countries and cultures around the world to be one of my core strengths when engaging in discussions on diplomacy transatlantic and foreign policy and human rights advocacy, quite simply because of the diversity of thought that my experiences bring to those rooms. Upon hearing what Representative Kim has said, how does someone who considers themselves a third culture kid, but who has goals to work in diplomacy and with the United Nations as an American citizen, remain hopeful? And what steps can I take when my background presents itself as a liability? Thank you. NINAN: Keith, do you want to take a crack at that one? RICHBURG: Wow, yeah, I was going to say I think your background is fantastic. It's not a liability, it's a strength. I really, I really do believe that, you know, I've, I've just gotten involved in this new organization that's just an ad-hoc group of it's called the African American China Leadership Forum. And it's for people like myself, or in the China space to serve as mentors for young people, either in government or business or in my case, media to help them along. But my mentee, the person I'm meant to mentor for is a fantastic young journalist working in Taiwan, she speaks Chinese, her mother is Vietnamese immigrant and her father is a Nigerian immigrant and she grew up in Texas. And I said, wow, that's the exact perfect background, that's the American story, two immigrants met in the U.S. got married, you know, produced her, this is fantastic. That's a fantastic story. In fact, I'm trying to encourage her to write a book about that, you know, about her life as a go to Vietnam and beat that side of the family, then go to Nigeria, meet the other side of the family. I mean, again, you know, I'm sorry that even the word liability came up in that because again, that's what makes America so unique. So you know, it's a melting pot country, but it's more and more becoming a blended country. I think about two censuses ago, they finally started putting mixed race as a category and the census, because that's one of the fastest growing categories in the U.S. And I read somewhere that the, you know, by 2050, basically, America is going to be a majority-minority country, or there's going to be no majority in the U.S. So again people like the last questioner, or the person I mentor, that's, that's America. That's the face of America. That's the future of America. So I think, really, I really think those are those are strengths, not, you know, something to be cherished. KIM: You know, if you don't mind, I'd love to just jump in real quick here. And, Danielle, thank you for raising what you said, and I want you to know that I loved my time at the State Department. I love my time in government service, I would not have tried to continue to work in Congress and these other efforts had I not enjoyed my experience. I hope to have an ability to serve my country for the rest of my life. So I don't want you to take my story that I shared as anything that says that I had a bad time or that it was, you know, that these are things that will make me reconsider this, if I had to start again. I raised these as things that we need to fix, that issues that we need to shed light on and work deliberately to change and improve. But I want you to know that I found it's such a rewarding experience. And what I will say is, if this is something that you're interested in, stay in touch with me and others, you know, like I would not have had the career that I had, if I didn't have good mentors and others looking out for me. And you know, while there is a systemic problem that we need to address, about how we engage and recruit and promote and retain and, and work with, there are good people there that are that helped lift me up and gave me those chances and gave me those connections. And if I can be that to you or to others, or if there's others that can step up to help you and help you explore what is possible. I want you to explore that. So I'm excited for you and your background, I agree with Keith is extraordinary. And I cannot wait to see what you do. NINAN: Congressman Kim that on that topic, you know, Karen mentioned the importance also of mentorship. How do you change that, you know, the perception of someone like her saying, you know, I don't think that I might be qualified, I'm not sure. How do you get to those people to say, yeah, you actually are qualified and you should give it a shot? KIM: Yeah, I mean, I think that that's something where we need to do better at. And Keith kind of mentioned this before, but like, we need to be going out to the rest of America. I think that State Department employees, ambassadors, assistants, others, they need to be going out and engaging in the American community and having those types of connections and conversations, finding ways that we can really identify people that we think should be stepping up into government office. I know for me on the elected office side. I started an organization called In Our Hands that is actively trying to identify and recruit young Asian Americans to get engaged and run for office, and not just wait around for them to raise their hand. But a lot of times, people of color, and I'll speak for the Asian American community, a lot of times, we don't really know that this is possible. I as a son of immigrants growing up in Burlington County, New Jersey, never thought that I could become a United States diplomat. That was not in the realm of possible jobs for me when I was growing up. And that was something only that I kind of came to later. And certainly elected office is not something I thought that I could hold. So what we need to do is, is strategically engage and widen the net of who it is that we're talking to, and expand their understanding of what is possible, and utilizing the diversity that we already have, and others to then multiply, use that as a multiplier effect. And then that's something that I just don't see us doing, at the level that we need to certainly not at the State Department or elsewhere. And I think that that would be a much better thing for us to do in terms of recruitment. But it also just be a much better thing for us to do to just spur this debate and conversation more broadly with the American people about what this foreign policy mean to you? And be able to bring that to people's schools and their living rooms, not just in the Beltway, and not just at summits or in capitals around the world. But foreign policy starts at home. I see it in my district with people in my district. They're the ones whose sons and daughters along the Afghanistan and, and their sons and daughters are the ones that are they're worried about the jobs that they'll get. So we wouldn't be stronger for it just a broaden dialogue write large. NINAN: Policy starts at home. It's a good line. Sara, if you wouldn't mind, we'll take the next question. STAFF: Sure. But before I do, Karen, and Keith, did you want to jump in on that? ATTIAH: Yeah. RICHBURG: Go ahead, Karen. ATTIAH: Yeah, I would just say super quickly as someone who is, I'm the daughter, Texas raised, a daughter of Guinean immigrants. And again, my first ambition was I wanted to be, I wanted to be a diplomat and working more formally, the diplomacy space, particularly with Africa. I would say just very quickly that these things are recycled. When I first came to Washington in maybe 2009-2010, there was a huge push and impetus particularly for those of us who are from the African diaspora that, you know, from, from State Department from groups that were active in Washington, that the fact that we were sort of bridge builders, connectors was a plus. And, and I found many groups, many organizations, diaspora, African women's networks, we're helping each other with opportunities, forums, dinners, all of that. So I think part of it is also to certain extent on us, those of us who are interested in these things to come together, but there's Facebook, Clubhouse, and also on us to build these communities of support for each other and frankly, kind of strategize, I think about how to support one another because it's not just enough to be once or even in the room. It's also about, we haven't talked about this at all. It's also about how to stay. How to stay in the room. We haven't talked about burnout; we haven't talked about the amount of people who—I have a lot of friends who do work in the foreign policy space—who are the toll on sometimes the mental health to be the only one. So I think that a large part of this is to kind of know each other who we are and to kind of get that particularly I think for women, particularly for women, that that support group, so that not only like once we get there, we stay there, and we can actually survive there. So sermon over. NINAN: That's a great sermon, and you're right, retentions a huge problem. Keith, I want to let you weigh in as well. RICHBURG: Yeah, just a quick, just a quick note, you know, you know, I'm from Detroit, Michigan, I grew up there. But you know, I always was fascinated by international relations, I studied in university, but I didn't have a passport until I was 21 years old. I mean, to me, going to Canada was going overseas, you didn't need a passport for that and so one of just one practical thing I think that could be done is what if there were more money going into schools to allow younger people in high school to get an experience going overseas, like I never had. You know, to be able to actually expose them at an earlier age. And when I went to when I first went to the Washington Post, I knew I wanted to be a foreign correspondent, but I was competing with a lot of other people who had spent summers in Europe or had traveled around Asia, or went backpacking around India, and as I thought Toronto was a foreign country. So, again, I was coming into it not ever having had that kind of experience that so many other kids had had. So that's one thing that practically could be done is to open up more exchange programs to get every young person should have some kind of overseas experience and then language experience, but especially communities of color where they may not have that advantage. They may not have families that take vacations overseas or let them travel. NINAN: Great point, Keith. It really is. Sara, I think we can take another question. STAFF: Sure. I'll take another written question. This comes from Leland Smith, who asks, I am a private sector attorney that works with a lot of senior officials and foreign governments. And we have thankfully, but only recently taken an all-in approach to leadership and celebrating diversity. The foreign offices and countries we deal with do have varying levels of diversity. So my question is, to what extent can the private sector help drive the celebration of diversity? Or will it also require government-driven top-down policymaking? NINAN: That's a great question. How important is it to get corporate buy-in to this as you're trying to change an institution that desperately needs to be changed quickly? Congressman Kim, you want to take that? KIM: Yeah, I'll give some reflections. I mean, you know, that question about what is possible that I raised earlier. I mean, I think that doesn't just extend only to government work and public sector. And I think trying to understand, you know, what that means, in terms of private sector in different industries is certainly important. And what when we see the nexus between that, and government, we know that there is a lot of cross pollination, a lot of movement between, you know, mid to senior level positions, in particular, between the private sector and government. And that is something that as well, that, you know, we can look for, but I do think it sets a tone, you know, I do think that again, it sets that idea of what is possible. And, you know, for me, as a young, Asian American grown up when I was thinking about what career path to choose, you know, kind of to Keith's point, you know, I turned to kind of look and see, you know, whether or not, you know, there are people with my background, or some of those experiences there. And I thought, you know, we use a phrase earlier that I think Reena that you kind of pulled it from either Tony Blinken or someone else, but about just like the lived experience, and really trying to broaden that element. I certainly think that that is a goal that should be embraced both in terms of the public sector and the private sector. So where that nexus is, I'm intrigued by that's a really interesting point. And I'm kind of curious to see, you know, what we can do to kind of leverage that to strengthen. And again, not necessarily even just here at home, in the U.S., but as this person asking the question, saying about, you know, other countries and governments too, I think that would be an important step. NINAN: Keith I want to get you to weigh in on that, because you're abroad in Hong Kong, you know, they talk about China as well, the importance of business relationships, you see all of that behind the curtain there? How important is it to get corporate buy-in when you're talking about something like changing an institution like the State Department? RICHBURG: Well, I think it's, I think it's crucially important to get corporate buy-in when especially because you know, what it is with you in Hong Kong here, for example, you know, the U.S. consulate here is one pillar, but the American Chamber of Commerce here is also pretty strong and pretty powerful as well. And so, you know, people are going to be looking at the American Chamber as much as they're going to be looking at the consulate here, and that's all over the world, I mean, people, business is almost going to become a separate pillar of U.S. policy abroad, and the probably the biggest export in this part of the world was probably Hollywood, at least before the pandemic when they were making movies. So that sort of diversity in the ranks of corporate America is important too, and having their buy-in as well, that, you know, and again, there's going to be a lot more, there probably is some, but there could be more synergy between corporate America, people going back and forth between corporate America and the State Department, for example. But, again, I mean, corporate America has to do a little bit, especially in the international space, has to do a little bit better job as well, fostering diversity, you know. If I can go to the Bank of America and Citibank here, I don't see a lot of diversity in some of these jobs as well. So that's, that's another issue of media. The ranks of the media not are not terribly diverse as well. And then I heard Karen speaking about the issue there at the Washington Post, I mentioned, I'm from Detroit 1967, we had what was then the worst riot in American history, and then the Kerner Commission by Lyndon Johnson came out and said, one of the major problems that sparked that 1967 Riot was the lack of diversity in the media. And here we are now all these years later, still talking about the lack of diversity in the media. So all sectors have to do it. Media, corporate America, Hollywood, you know, the State Department, they all have to kind of be pushing for the same goal of increasing diversity. NINAN: In Hollywood, I can't get over I don't know. Total aside, but the John Cena apology in Chinese, you know, over calling Taiwan a country? You know, it was I just couldn't believe it. It was pretty remarkable to watch. Karen, did you want to weigh in on this as well? ATTIAH: Yeah. I mean, I think I have two like concrete examples. I mean, for my experience with the private sector, I mean, to think back-to-back to what he said, I mean, I think that providing opportunities for students to get international experience sponsoring trips abroad to learn just to learn about other countries. I think for me, again, it was my first chance to study in Spain back when I was in college, it really made me want to explore more in the world. But for so many, particularly for those of us who are third culture, kids who, who hear that the only way to make it in America is if we become lawyers or doctors and just foreign policy is not something that is encouraged, really, I think that could help. And also, from, you know, I used to cover it and do some work with the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which is an arm of U.S. policy that works with developing countries to try to formulate compacts for development projects. And often, that was in conjunction with private sector. And I remember projects from GE, in Ghana, that they were working on trying to fix the issues of electrification and power supply, energy supplies. So I could imagine that again, another reason why maybe corporations like GE, or others that are working abroad, as well could find first of all ways to diversify the ranks of those types of international or global projects. But then also, again, I could see these corporations sponsoring trips for kids who are interested in electrical engineering, to go and do projects in other countries and learn not only to represent America, but I think we have to understand that we have a lot to learn from the world. I think the way I think the pandemic maybe in some ways has shown that I think in America, we have a lot to learn. And there's a lot that can inform our domestic and foreign policy by what we learn from other countries and other cultures and communities. So I think that the private sector again, not only diversifies and not only diversifies their international and global operations, so that those abroad can see that. But if they get more involved with people from a young age and getting them that international experience that only helps add to the pool that our foreign policy, journalism, national security apparatuses can draw from. NINAN: While they're young. Absolutely right. Sara, I think we've got a couple more minutes. Maybe we can squeeze in one quick question, if you don't mind? STAFF: Sure. So we'll take the last question from the written question queue. And it's from Alyssa Taylor, who asks, and this is for Karen, but it can apply to the whole panel. I know Karen talked about how elitism is widely seen in journalism. I can imagine that the same is seen in foreign policy as well. How can students who do not attend these prestigious institutions or have connections get their foot in the door? NINAN: It's such a great question, Karen, the Ivy League pool that goes directly into some of these major media institutions. Talk a little bit about that. ATTIAH: I have so much to say, for what I will do to try to keep it short. First of all, there's active efforts and I can say this for the Washington Post to expand outside of that and to recognize and to reach out to, whether it's journalism students at Howard University in our backyard, to those who are who demonstrate a knowledge and a passion for, for writing and for telling stories and who have unique perspectives. And I think, you know, there is a lot of work being done to try to expand our imaginations about who needs to be heard. And what I would say is advice. I mean, frankly, I didn't, in terms of like the journalism kind of route I didn't do the kind of traditional, like internships and I wasn't on the college paper. I didn't think I wanted to be a journalist. I think my advice would be, and this might be heresy to Keith's ears, but I will say it anyway. But I think it's journalism you learn on the job it's a craft, I'm still learning. I still have editors and colleagues who are like, yeah, you need to fix how to do this lead or net graph, but I think for me, my experience before was to find a subject community issue that you're really passionate about. And with social media, with blogs, I think for me like I wasn't I felt outside of the system, I felt very, not a part of it. But I tweeted a lot. And I found those, those circles of people who are tweeting about Africa policy, and I just kind of like butt my way into those conversations. I mean, obviously, now that space is so crowded, but I think what it is, is that when people ask me, How do I, how do I get started? I just say, just start writing, start writing, start putting yourself out there, I think, particularly for women and women of color. I know this is kind of addressed a little before, but I would say pitch put yourself out there, frankly, the divide with women and men in terms of who pitches you feels, I think, you know, I'm in my experience, I think we women sometimes tend to be like, oh, well, it's not perfect, I shouldn't submit. Men don't have that insecurity issue. But I would say right, find what really like engages you that the journalism you will learn you will have mentors, and that's why this is so important. But I was always told to find a place where you can be that kind of expert and have like a bit of a niche, find with that to what sets you apart. But at the basis of it, it should be this passion and strive to tell the stories. And I believe, I hope, I hope that our institutions are catching up with the fact that, frankly, those who are outside of the quote unquote elite circles need to be like they are the complete, our job is to serve them, not the other way around. So I think we're trying, we're getting there. It's a work in progress. But I was just saying, put yourself out there, pitch, write blog tweets, and talk to people, read as much as you can, be things cannot be, and travel as you can. And practice journalism. It's a craft. It's a practice. NINAN: Okay, I know we were talking about exporting democracy around the world. But exporting journalism is equally important. You are from a journalism Institute, they're in Hong Kong, I'm going let you weigh in. We only got about a minute left. RICHBURG: I'm going to agree with everything Karen said, I didn't study journalism either. Even though I'm teaching journalism now. I studied politics and international relations. But contrary to Karen, I learned it on working for the school newspaper, which was the Michigan Daily. And I should say, by the way, I went to University of Michigan. So when I showed up at the Washington Post, I was the only pretty much the only one in my row or on my floor, who went to a public university, everybody else, but that, you know, Ivy League schools, or California, Stanford or something. So I had to look around. And fortunately, we had Len Downey, who went to Ohio State who was the editor. So we were the two public school guys. But, you know, again, I mean, diversity means a lot of things. And it means partly just looking beyond the, you know, East Coast, Ivy League schools and the West Coast schools and looking at schools, like University of Michigan, where I went and other and other places as well. But again, it's absolutely right. It's just get out there, get that experience and do it. Karen was absolutely right. You know, when I, when I got hired, there were quite a few, you know, African American, Latino journalists around me, and most of them ended up leaving early after only a few years, because they felt frustrated that they weren't moving up faster. And you know, because again, I mean it with women as well, I think there's somewhat of a reluctance to put yourself out. And I've heard it over and over again, I don't think I'm ready for that job yet. Whereas a lot of other people know, they're not ready for the job, but they have that bravado when they apply for it anyway. So that's what we have to, that's what mentors can do. Just say you are ready for it, get out there, apply for it. NINAN: Just do it. I love it. I want to thank all of you, Karen Attiah, Keith Richburg, where it's 5:00 a.m. in Hong Kong, you've got up early at 3:30. Thank you so much. And Congressman, thank you guys, for being candid for sharing your personal experiences. It doesn't happen unless we're open about what we've endured and gone through and what needs to change. And on a happier note, as we are still virtual without a happy hour at about 5:15 I'm going to remind you guys as well, the audio and the transcript of this entire event will be available at CFR.org if you'd like to check it out. And we hope to see all of you at the virtual happy hour at 5:15. The link is posted in the chat box below. I want to thank all of you for joining us and for having the interest in this topic and big thanks to CFR for hosting this and seeing the importance and having these discussions. Thank you guys. (END)

ZARATE: Welcome to the Council on Foreign Relations. Great group. What a—what a great crowd. This is the opening plenary of this important conference on leading organizational change for diversity and inclusion. My name is Juan Zarate. I’m the chairman and co-founder of the Financial Integrity Network. I’ll be presiding over the discussion today. I’m honored to be up here today, in part because of CFR’s important role in shaping the international affairs environment and how we think about its development. I’m also honored to be here because of these three incredible people. You’ll see in their bios, each of them has enormous experience both in the public and the private sector, serving our country in various roles. And I’m humbled just to be up here with them. And so I’m really honored to be here. What we want to do with this opening discussion is set the table for what is hopefully a very constructive evening and next day talking about the importance of diversity and inclusivity, why that matters in the context of international affairs. And, frankly, hearing from the three experts up here as to how they’ve both experienced it and shaped and effected diversity and inclusivity in their lives. I think for a lot of you who are not only veterans in this space, but those of you who are aspiring to be professionals in some field in international affairs, hearing from them as to what they expect, what they’ve seen, and what they anticipate in the environment will be very important. So let’s start our discussion. And let me just quickly introduce our panelists, and then we can start. To my immediate right is Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall. Elizabeth and I met when she deputy secretary of energy in the prior administration. She’s now the distinguished professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Is also a senior fellow at the Belfer Center at Harvard. To her right is Dean and Ambassador Ruben Brigety. Former naval officer, sir, so I’m not quite sure how to address you. (Laughter.) I’ll just say sir, how’s that? Ruben is the dean of GW’s Elliott School of International Affairs. He’s the former U.S. representative to the African Union. And to the far right is Mr. Marc Allen. He’s a senior vice president at Boeing, the president of Embraer Partnership, has held incredibly important roles for Boeing in in the private sector, as well as public-private commissions and taskforces. So, welcome, all of you. SHERWOOD-RANDALL: Thank you. BRIGETY: Thank you. ZARATE: So let’s start with this question about what does diversity and inclusivity even mean to you in the context of your careers and international affairs? Because there are different lens through which to view diversity and inclusivity. Be very interested to hear how you think about these issues conceptually. Elizabeth? SHERWOOD-RANDALL: So, first of all, thank you. Thank you to the Council. I have to say, this room just rocks the world. I started out at the Council on the summer before my senior year of college as an intern. There was never a meeting at the Council that looked like this. And it is—(applause)—it’s transformational to see this group today, and how many young faces of so much diversity are present. The Council was the old white men’s club, literally. And I felt so privileged to even get a chance to be an intern. There was one female senior fellow at the Council. There was no one who looked like me. And the opportunity that I was given to work hard and earn my spurs and begin the path to a career in international affairs and public service was extraordinarily important. And so I would say that what I’ve learned over the many years is how important it is for each of us begin on that journey, to look for allies who will help us. For me, it was all men. There were no female role models. I had to work through those who had the power to open the doors. And then to earn my place and open the doors for others. And so I would say it’s really about standing together in this endeavor to build on our strength as a nation to meet the challenges that we face, and to find a place for everybody who has the desire to contribute to do so meaningfully. ZARATE: Ruben, how do you think about diversity and inclusivity, especially given your role now as a dean of a very important international affairs school? And how has that sort of impacted the way you’ve progressed in your career? BRIGETY: Sure. Well, again, Juan, thanks very much. And I’m thrilled that the Council is hosting this. Let me give three very short, specific answers to that question. The first, and most obvious, is that diversity means the inclusion of underrepresented minorities and women. The reason it means inclusion of underrepresented minorities and women is because they are underrepresented. The reason they have been underrepresented is not because of a lack of talent amongst the minority groups or amongst women. It is because of a series of structures that have systematically, at one point deliberately, excluded them. And then, once the doors were technically open, they simply did not have access to the same social capital, assuming the equivalent talent and capabilities. And that’s why—and you cannot reasonably assume that things will change if you keep doing the same things the same way. Shameless plug, I wrote an article for ForeignAffairs.com—(laughter)— ZARATE: That’s OK. You can do that here. BRIGETY: Exactly. Two years ago now, called Diversity of the National Security Establishment. And the basic argument of the piece was: There is not—with the exception of the civilian side of USAID and the enlisted ranks of the military, with the exception of the Marine Corps—there is not a single agency in the foreign affairs establishment of the United State government where diversity in the middle and the top looks the same as diversity at an entry level—not one. And so, that leads you to one of two conclusions: either women and minorities are either objectively not as good as their white male counterparts, or there is something else at work. And so we need to systematically think about that. So that’s one. As an academic, in addition to those things, it also very much means ideological diversity. So as dean of the largest schools of international affairs in the world, I take—in the United States—I take my responsibility of ensuring free debate of ideas extremely seriously. I have a point of view, but my point of view is not meant to define in any stretch the level and the debate that exists on campus. And so I work very, very hard, my team works very, very hard, to ensure that we have a full range of views represented not only in lectures, but also in terms of ideological perspectives of faculty and others. Third thing I will say, I want to come back to this point of allyship that Elizabeth said, because it’s so extremely important. Let me give you a story—a true story. Most of my stories are true. (Laughter.) So I have two sons that now are about thirteen and eleven. And a couple years ago we went to Atlanta and we visited the National Museum for Civic and Human Rights. If you haven’t had a chance to go take a look at it, I strongly suggest you do so. It’s basically a masterful storytelling of the history of the civil rights movement. And one of the exhibits is an exhibit about Freedom Summer—you know, the bus rides, the Freedom Riders. So they have a mockup of an old sort of Trailways bus, and then they have a wall about as big as that wall back there full of nothing but mugshots of people that were arrested as Freedom Riders. About three-fourths of the pictures are black, about one-quarter were white. And I told my sons: Take a look at this picture. See what you see? You see the white people? They didn’t have to be there. But they saw an injustice and they stood for it. And you must do the same thing, because there are going to be times when there will be people who will be excluded that may not be excluded on the same basis that you are included on. But you need to stand up, because other people stood up for you. And in positions of leadership, that’s how we ought to be thinking about advancing diversity in this space. ZARATE: Thank you. We’re going to come back to a couple of those themes. Marc, you’ve reached the heights of the corporate world, in one of the most iconic and important space defense, you know, companies and industry in the country. How have you thought about diversity, inclusivity from a personal standpoint, and then in the context of the ecosystem and environment in which you operate? ALLEN: At a personal level, you know, one of—for me, one of the great moments of diversity and inclusion in my own life was when I had the chance to go and live in Beijing, China as the president of Boeing China. Because when I got there, you know—(laughs)—you have to understand, I was stepping into a job that every single person there who was a counterpart of mine—ministers, and the government, CEOs of other companies in aerospace—looked at me and said: What is this young, black, tall guy doing here? (Laughter.) Who has got no expertise in China? And, you know, one of the lessons I learned fast in that experience, which was a very different way to think about diversity than in the context of the United States—where my difference is that I have brown skin. There I was much—it was a bigger message of difference, actually, than even here, which was fascinating. But one of the things I learned was it gave me the chance to tell the story. Why? And there’s nothing like a relationship. Of course, in China that’s so important. And so being able to build great relationships because it started right at the font of knowing and being able to hear my story, my background, and then me hearing theirs, and sharing, was just core. So one of the core messages around diversity and inclusion for me is it’s about, you know, how we share and how we listen. And the better we do that, the better we communicate. And that matters, because whether in international affairs or in the private sector, you know, what you have to understand about the myth of communication is that it has occurred. The myth of communication is that it has occurred, because more often than you realize—especially in big institutions—communication is not happening. People are speaking, people are listening, but communication, real connectivity, is not happening. And that gets harder when you break past your own network of people who look like you, think like you, grew up like you, speak like you. And so if you want to excel in the world of international business or international affairs, being able to excel in that space requires breaking through that sharing-listening barrier, that most people in the world face, no matter where they’re from, or what they look like. The institutional structures that Ruben just spoke about are real. And all they do is make it harder. So my perspective on this personally is that diversity and inclusion is a personal matter for me, is about going to places that might be uncomfortable, showing up boldly and excitedly, and then sharing and listening. Like, it’s a pretty simple construct. And then at the institutional level, from a company perspective, what I share across the company is there is talent everywhere. And so the real trick, if you care about having a diverse team, is actually just being better at looking for talent. Because if your team isn’t diverse, that means you just defaulted to the talent that you saw in front of you. So you’re not a good heat-seeking missile for talent. But if you want to be a good heat-seeking missile for talent, you’re going to go find it wherever it is. And it’s going to look different every time. And so that’s a fundamental premise I have that’s very personal. There aren’t a lot of big institutional programs that can force it. It’s personal. It’s leadership, and it has to be forced down at every single level. And that doesn’t mean you can’t have the programs, they are necessary, they are just not sufficient. So never let yourself make the mistaking of thinking the programmatic is sufficient. It is personal. ZARATE: That’s incredible. I could listen to all three of them all day. Something that you all said here that is important, because there are different lenses through which to view diversity and experiences of diversity and inclusivity, right? There’s gender, ethnicity, race, religion, there’s culture, there’s experience. I want to ask each of you how it is that the—sort of the diversity that we’re talking about here has been important in terms of decision-making and creativity in your professional lives? Because I think what’s often lost here, and there are studies that point this out, that diversity of backgrounds, and thought, and experience, and gender, and race actually leads to better decision-making. So I want to kind of tease that out, because I think it’s very important substantively as we think about the importance of both diversity and inclusivity. Elizabeth. SHERWOOD-RANDALL: Thanks, Juan. So I would say, first of all, the reason we do this is because it’s a right thing to do as a matter of principle. Before we talk about the reasons it may benefit our interests, just who we are as a nation is to be a nation that is inclusive, and that values every individual, and gives each individual a certain set of rights and responsibilities as a citizen. So I just start at that values level. But then I also say, OK, some people don’t necessarily get motivated by principles and values. So I’m going to appeal to their self-interest. And what you find, and you referenced a study, there are lots of studies that show that diverse and inclusive workplaces are places that are more successful, more profitable, heat-seeking missiles for talent, reach decisions that are more sustainable. And you can look for what variable you want to measure for, the bottom line is we’re more successful as enterprises. And in this very competitive environment for talent, looking out at so many of you who are so young, we need to attract and retain the best talent. And in the youngest generation, we know that this issue is central to you. That is, if you don’t see a workforce that is reflective of the kind of community you want to be a part of, you won’t remain in it. And so for leadership, it’s self-interested now to be mobilized on this issue. And I just want to pick up on what Marc said, and we may come back to this, I think it is absolutely on leadership. The example you set and the way you engage in every aspect of your work will demonstrate the commitment and set the example for your team, whether the team is ten people or ten thousand people or a hundred thousand people. You don’t set that example you can’t expect your organization to emulate your lead. ZARATE: Ruben. BRIGETY: Yeah, so let me say two things. So, first, as a way of further amplifying Liz’s fantastic remarks, the case that she just made seems self-evident to us. Notwithstanding the empirical data or the normative power, it is not self-evident to a lot of people. You know, Tucker Carlson had a piece—(laughter)—why are you laughing? (Laughter.) Tucker Carlson had a piece on his show just a couple of months ago in which he essentially said, you know, show me any society in which, you know, people who are different have got along better, society is better. And he didn’t just sort of come out of that out of thin air. There are a lot of people who believe that. And so part of the reason to continue to make this case—I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve heard either directly or you kind of see the side-eye, gosh, another diversity training. Like, why do we have to sort of do this again? Didn’t the Council, like, have this meeting, like, five years ago? Like, why do we have to keep doing it? (Laughter.) Here’s why. Let me give you—talk to you by way of analogy, right? So I’m a person of faith. I’m a Christian. It would never occur to me to say: You know what? I went to Sunday school once back in 1978. You know, I got the basic principles, check. Got it. Don’t have to do it again. No, right? I mean, one has to continue to reemphasize the importance of this body of work in this effort, if for no other reason that we simply can’t assume that as generations come they will imbibe the lessons that have been so hard-fought won previously. And if anything I think, quite frankly, you know, Charlottesville, or Pittsburgh, or, you know, Christchurch continue to reemphasize that. So that’s one. Two, I’ll give you just a couple of very short concrete examples about how diverse teams have helped my thinking. So as dean, you know, over half of our students at the Elliot School are women, at both the undergraduate and graduate level. And there’s a fair amount of, you know, evidence suggests particularly early in an undergraduate career young ladies tend not to be as assertive in class as young men are. So I had a policy, everybody knows this, when Dean B comes and guest lectures, I have—I have gender-equity in questioning. So, you know, ladies, gentlemen, ladies, gentlemen, ladies, gentlemen. I thought I was doing the right thing until one of my team members, who’s a gay may, came to me and said: Boss, I know what you’re trying to do. But there are a number of our students who don’t identify either as male or female on a gender—on a binary gender continuum. And thus, you’re actually being exclusionary when you’re actually trying to be inclusionary. And I was like, wow. You’re absolutely right. It never occurred to me. My bad. And we kind of think about other ways of doing it. I can talk—I can give you examples ad nauseum, but I don’t want to take the rest of the day. But, yeah, basically it’s continuing to be important, and leadership is vitally important. ZARATE: Marc? SHERWOOD-RANDALL: Can I speak up on one thing, because it flows directly from what you said about the need to keep going to Sunday school, essentially, or learning. One of the things about this for all of us is this is never done. It’s, as you’ve said, it’s an ongoing enterprise. But also, because what we need is a prepared talent pipeline. We have to be focused on this thinking about the people who will be leading thirty years after us, and looking at elementary schools, and junior high schools, and high schools. And it—and ensuring that the resources are being made available to grow up the talent that is diverse across this land, that we don’t have kids who are left out, who don’t get a chance to participate in the workforce of the future, because we get to hire people who have come through that pipeline now. But we also need to be investing, just as you’re saying we need to keep learning, we need to be investing for that future. BRIGETY: Absolutely. ZARATE: Marc. ALLEN: Yeah. I would just say that it’s not rocket science. That all the surveys show that value comes out of diverse groups working together. And it’s—you know, I just give everyone the picture and say: Just imagine if you’re holding, you know, a huge diamond in your hand, and you hold it up to the light, right? That diamond refracts light, and it comes off in all kinds of different planes off of every facet of the diamond. And the only way to really understand the quality of the diamond, would be to go and examine every single facet, right, to turn it around and look at it from every single angle. And that’s how you solve the world’s hardest problems. That’s what we got to do in the most complex industrial engineering business in the world, with aerospace. That’s what our leaders have to do in international affairs, solve the most complex and difficult problems. And if you could only look through one or two of the facets, you are really limited. And no leader worth their salt has the answer. Leaders worth their salt know that it’s the team that has the answer. And that means you want people who are looking for as many facets as possible to find the solutions. That’s why those teams are better. And one very quick example anecdotally. We had—we had one country—this is several year ago. But we had one country where a customer was flying one of our airplanes. And the airplane was not performing to some of the performance specs that were in the contract and we all expected it would. Performance specs means flying on—the amount of fuel, range, expectations, payload expectations, et cetera. And, boy, we threw every resource we had at it. We had engineers look at it. We had pilot take it out on test flights. We had their team looking at it. We had the best of class thinking coming in from every angle. And it persisted. The problem persisted for something like six to eight months. Couldn’t figure out why the airplane wasn’t performing. Everything seemed right. And then there was a new member of the team who got exposed to the problem, who came from a different country. And he said, you know what? When I was growing up in this business we had a problem where the cargo crews were sneaking extra cargo into the belly of the airplane. And then when it got offloaded by their friends they were taking charges for it, moving the extra cargo around. It was in a relatively developing aerospace environment. And he said, and we had a problem with performance, because you have extra weight on the airplane. Guess what? It turned out that’s exactly what it was. How did you solve it? You had such a diverse team that you caught that experience set and you brought it in. That’s why diversity is clearly valuable and why it pays. ZARATE: Yeah. That diversity of experience is remarkably important. Can each of you speak, especially to this audience which is ambitious and clearly wants to find ways of improving opportunities in each of the domains that you all represent. Can you speak to the internationalization of the domains that you operate in? Marc, you’ve already spoken to this in part from your experience in Beijing, but how that internationalization also shapes the way you’re thinking about the future of leadership, the future of training, and what those opportunities look like for people in the audience or people who may be watching us later on. By the way, we’re being recorded, so on your best behavior. Marc, can you speak to that, the internationalization of the marketplace? ALLEN: You know, look, when I ran Boeing International I got to look and peer into every single market we have around the world. And a couple things strike you right off the bat. The first is, they all begin to seamlessly run together. They all have the same data and information that one another had, which was not the case just ten years ago. So the seamlessness of data has made the markets themselves more seamless. And so talent flows faster. Expectations rise on a global level. So everything has to be undertaken at a world level now in our business. And that’s different than it was before. It means you have to think through every aspect of how the world’s going to react to any particular item in your working docket as you do it. But it also means it’s more fun, because when you think about the values of diversity and inclusion, they look different in terms of the actual application all around the world. One of my greatest joys was when we became a leading employer of females in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. We were one of the first companies there to start hiring females in our finance department. And you know what? The talent was unbelievable. They just were knocking the ball out of the park. And we were able to literally lead and demonstration by example in that market just what the opportunity could be. You wouldn’t ordinarily sit here in, you know, D.C., and think about that as an opportunity for leadership. But it is, that global opportunity for leadership is now available in a much more internationalized way than it was just a few years ago. ZARATE: Sure. Ruben. BRIGETY: So in the context of international affairs education, you know, the best thing for an international affairs student is to go study abroad, go see the world. The next-best thing is to bring the world to you. And that’s why it’s vitally important to find ways to bring foreign students to come study here in the United States. There are macropolitical policy challenges to that which, quite frankly, are more profound now than they have been in decades. There are also financial issues to it as well, particularly when you want students from non-OECD countries, from Africa, Latin America, parts of South Asia to come study with us. But the other piece, which goes back to Liz’s point about delivering on the promise of America can building a pipeline, is that it’s very important to ensure that students, regardless of their economic background, regardless of their minority ethnic background, if they—young people that have their eye on the horizon have to be—have a place where they can go and study and we can support them. Now, I’ll tie those two together in just a moment. The final thing that’s actually really quite interesting—it’s true at GW, I suspect it may be similar at other universities—we have, predictably, a very robust study abroad program. Eighty percent of our study abroad students are women. SHERWOOD-RANDALL: Wow, really? BRIGETY: The guys don’t go. ZARATE: Is that right? Wow, that’s a remarkable stat. BRIGETY: Yeah. Let’s pretty stunning. And so to tie each of the—all three of those strands together, what I would say is this: If you believe in diversity, you have to resource it. You have to resource it in terms of both human capital and financial capital. If I want to bring, you know, really promising students from South Sudan and Nigeria or from the South Side of Chicago, or from, you know, East L.A., they might be a brilliant as anybody. But they most likely don’t have the social capital in order to sort of find the right places to go, and they certainly don’t have the financial capital to do it. So—and that’s where leadership comes in, to decide: This is something that’s going to be very important that we have to resource it. And I have to say, you know, a shameless plug for the Council, back to Liz’s point, the kinds of conversations that we’re having today would have been unimaginable in this space twenty years ago. And the fact that we’re having them is a direct result and example of the kind of leadership that the leadership of CFR has placed on not only is it diversifying the Council but diversifying the Council as a pathway for diversifying the foreign affairs establishment of the United States of America. And I just, frankly, couldn’t be prouder of that effort. ZARATE: Elizabeth. SHERWOOD-RANDALL: So I think I’d like to say something about who we are in the world as Americans. We are in tumultuous times at the moment, and yet I will say that we have the capacity not only to strengthen our own democracy but also to strengthen democracies around the world by our example. And the fact of the opportunities that we have in America for women and for minorities, even though we are not as far along the path as we need to be, and that path will be a continuous one as we were saying, is so far ahead of what many people experience in many countries around the world, that when you live your dream to serve and you go out and show people what you can do in America, that changes their life too. And I’ll give you a small example of this. When I was in my early thirties I worked at the Pentagon as the deputy assistant secretary of defense. And I was working with a country that had been part of the Soviet Union and had been closed off to the world for decades. And after much work together to help this country develop its independence and its sovereignty, the defense minister decided he wanted to open a military academy in his country. And he asked me to come and speak at the opening of this military academy. And I said to him—I was then young, female, civilian, political appointee. And I said, oh, no, no, no. Let me send you one of our generals with lots of stars on his shoulders to speak at your opening. And he said, no Liza—he called me Liza—I want you to come and speak, because I want my people to see what women can do in America. And that’s an example of the power we have to inspire and transform. So we need to live up to it at home through the initiatives that we’re talking about today, about the requirement for leaders to set the standards in their own organizations and to drive change, and also to take that out into the world and help others who don’t have the same privileges that we do to achieve their dreams too. ZARATE: That’s a powerful story. BRIGETY: Hear, hear. ZARATE: And it’s the example internally and externally as well, the tapestry of the U.S., and the richness of our culture, the diversity. By the way, I just want to reflect on this, because I’ve written a bit about the national security implications of this, right? Which is the power of not just our diversity to influence abroad with our values and principles to reflect who we are, but even the ability to influence and shape opinions and environments, precisely because we have diversity, because we have Somali Americans in Minneapolis, precisely because we have Mexican-Americans on the border, precisely because we have any group that you can imagine from around the world present in the U.S., and leaders capable of doing great things not just in the U.S. and abroad. BRIGETY: Juan, if I may, I’d take that a step further. There’s not another country on the planet that has this level diversity that also has access to serving in capacities and ways that we do. So not only is it smart to empower it, I would argue it’s harmful to our national interest not to empower it. ZARATE: Exactly right. BRIGETY: Right? And so, interestingly the professional sides of the house in the Defense Department, in the uniformed military, the intelligence community, and the State Department completely gets this. And it’s important for there to be continued political leadership to reinforce the message of diversity as a core component of America’s national security. ZARATE: A strategic asset, no doubt. BRIGETY: Absolutely. ZARATE: All right. We’re going to open it up now to you all. So hopefully you’ve thought of some great— BRIGETY: Good for you for raising your hand immediately. (Laughter.) Well done. ZARATE: We’re going to start with you in front. If you can—remember, we’re on the record, speak into the microphone, identify yourself, and keep it to one question, please. Thank you. Q: Oh, OK. Hi, everyone. My name—oh, I didn’t know there were so many people behind me. Hi. (Laughter.) And my name is Shang Dee (ph). I am a UC San Diego student, currently intern on the Hill. And my take on diversity, which very interesting thing happened this week. There are three hearings on House Committee on Foreign Affairs about U.S. and China relations, but the witnesses who doesn’t have the diversity to tackle, I think, the complexity of the question. There’s no—I don’t see any Chinese Americans on that panel. And me myself, being a Chinese national, that it puts me at an odd situation in that room. But that’s just the comment that—a daily observation that I’ve made, that we do need more diversity in the realm of foreign relations. And my question, actually going back to what you said about where do we start teaching this unlearning and relearning of diversity, equity, and inclusion in our higher education? So I want you all, my peers, to raise your hand if your school, undergrad, grad, whatever, has a requirement for something called DI requirement, a class that you have to take or a course curriculum that you have to complete in order to graduate. If you do, raise your hand. Q: UC Berkeley. (Laughter.) Q: Right? Have some school pride, yeah. So only this whole room, maybe it’s such an American university thing, maybe I’m being kind of exclusive, other people who have other kind of education. But it’s not half of the room. It’s not a quarter of the room. It’s probably like only 5 percent of the room. So what are we—what’s U.S. education doing—let’s just look at the higher education level—to really bring these ideas into the daily lives of the students in which are crucial important in business world, in professional world? And how can we address that lack of diversity in the way—the pedagogy of teaching diversity, equity and inclusion? Thank you. ZARATE: It’s a good question. Little shorter next time, but that’s good. (Laughter.) BRIGETY: So let me answer it a couple of different ways, briefly. So, first of all, to take a point of what sort of Marc said, about the importance of listening and sharing. As a leader, as a professional, one’s ability to engage in diverse environments is not simply a nice personality trait. It is a core professional competence, increasingly so, right? ALLEN: Well said. Well said. BRIGETY: The work world, the diplomatic world, the academic world that all of you are going into will look very different from that that your grandparents went into. And that sort of generational divide about why this is some important how do we operationalize it, how do we think about it, I think is explained in part by virtue of who’s in the room, as opposed to who’s not. So that’s one. Two, having said that, it is extremely important that we think through how we teach, how we inculcate, how we prioritize matters of diversity within our organizations, in ways that are also consistent with both the letter and the spirit of the law. And because it is—it’s very easy, from a place of trying to do the right thing, to legally get it wrong, it doesn’t mean that one should shy away from it. Exactly the opposite. You have to lean in as a leader as far as you legally can and not shy away from it. But it’s also crucially important that it’s done in the right now. ZARATE: Young lady in the back, please. Q: Hi. Good evening. My name is Lesley Warner, I’m on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. I’ve talked to one of you on the panel about this particular issue, but I’m kind of curious given that this is a conference for entry level and mid-level professionals. We’re not at your levels. So I’m curious as to your thoughts on how we can influence organizations to embrace diversity, not for diversity’s sake but for some of the reasons that you mentioned. How do we influence the organizations in which we work now, and in which we will work in the future, at the mid-level to get to them embrace diversity? SHERWOOD-RANDALL: I’ll begin this by just saying I think the best way you can influence the organization within which you work is to be excellent. That is, by your example you change your environment. And I mentioned that when I began here at the Council there were no young women. I do think that rather than looking around and feeling like one is alone, it’s very empowering to think: How cool is it that I’m here? And let me use this opportunity to pay it forward and show people that there’s benefit in having people like me at the table and work your everything off to demonstrate that. (Laughter.) So that’s the first. The second is, of course, you want to look for leadership that is open to a conversation. And here, I would say this is back to the responsibility of leaders today to be truly willing to be made uncomfortable to hear truth, to listen to experience that is different than your own, and to take in on board. And that means you need to ask of your leadership, if it’s not paying attention, to engage them on the grounds of their interests. As I was mentioning, if they’re not willing to do it on principle, then do it because it’s important to their future to have a conversation about what’s going on in the environment. If you believe that it’s actually disadvantageous, that it’s creating a situation which will be negative in terms of recruitment and retention, and the ultimate substance of the work not getting done successfully. So it’s both about who you are and also how you seek out those who are willing to engage with you in a conversation about building a process that will bring more diverse talent to the environment in which you work. ZARATE: Marc, did you want to say something? ALLEN: Yeah, I wanted—I think that is a brilliant answer on both those fronts, and I really want to underscore those pieces because both are so critical to changing the landscape around you. I will add a third piece on as well, which is sometimes you have to extent your wing. And everybody has a wing, even if you don’t feel like you do. What I mean that is, you know, I think that— SHERWOOD-RANDALL: That’s a Boeing phrase. Extend your wing. (Laughter.) ALLEN: I’m thinking bird’s wing. ZARATE: He has some great phrases. They’re all Boeing assets. SHERWOOD-RANDALL: We use elbows, but. (Laughter.) ALLEN: I’m thinking of a guy named Leo who came to, gosh, I don’t know, five, six years ago. And he was, you know, a relatively mid-level leader in our organization. And he just said: Hey, Marc, I want you to meet somebody. She works in X city. She does Y. And she’s very talented. She’s excellent. And I think you just should hear her story. And so I, you know, met with her the next time she came through where my office was. And the story I heard, you know, upset me—when I heard some things she’d experienced in the workplace. And so, you know, for me, extending the wing was making sure we could move her into a different environment and give a job where she would soar. She was excellent and is excellent. For Leo to pick up the phone and ask me to meet somebody who’s, you know, an entry-level, just out of college hire, because he thought they were excellent, that was him extending his wing. He was protecting and giving some cover to her. And then my engaging and helping her get into the right job in the right place was my extending my wing. And that’s important. And it takes knowing people across your organization who really are committed to organizational health and integrity and making sure that the right thing is done. But sometimes it requires you to step out of your comfort zone. For Leo, it would have been a little uncomfortable to pick up the phone and call me the way that he did. But he did it. And all of you can be in a position to do the same thing. Sometimes you’re a little bit uncomfortable when you lean forward and expose yourself that way, step out on a limb for somebody else. But that is one way in which anybody can make a different in an organization at any level. BRIGETY: Can I response to the most excellent Dr. Lesley Warner’s question? Lesley’s a rock star, by the way. If you don’t know her you need to, before you leave. So in specific answer to the question about what can mid-level people do, in addition to what Liz and Marc said? Ask the question. Ask the question. Let me give you two examples from my own experience. It was probably the greatest honor of my life that I will ever have to serve President Obama in a number of senior capacities in the State Department. But early on his administration, for the first half, of the several hundred people that worked on the national security staff, there was only one African American other than the national security advisor. And I remember having this conversation with a friend of mine who was on the NSC staff who was a woman, who was a white woman. And she said, you know—you know, yeah, there are only the—you know, whatever—you know, a couple dozen, you know, women. And we went into the national security advisor’s office and said: You know, why aren’t there more women? And I said, you know, interestingly, there were enough of you to know that there were not enough of you. And so fast forward, not that much fast forward, I had a conversation. I was on a State Department trip with a senior political appointee. And I raised with this person essentially this issue, right? I mean, there are—how is it, this is the Obama administration, there’s, like, one—maybe there’s another one. Maybe there’s two out of, whatever, 350 NSC. And this person said to me, you know, that’s a very good point. The problem is we just don’t know enough people. We don’t know anybody, right? Which gets back to the—because I’m in rooms like this all the time with people that want to engage, that are excellent, that are talented, that want to do this very deep sort of talent pool at the entry and kind of junior, mid-level people. And then conversely, with very senior people, you know, like, gosh, we’d like to hire some folks, but the pipeline should just be better. No. The pipeline is there. The pipeline needs to be connected to your slipstream. And the only way that happens is, one, by asking the question—because, quite frankly, there are—there are—there are people just—I’ll give you another example. Again, I could go on and on. ZARATE: You’re on a roll. BRIGETY: I’m on a roll. (Laughter.) Love the military. Very grateful to have worn the cloth of my country. Of the four military branches in the Department of Defense—the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps—the United States Marine Corps is the only one of the services that has only ever had white men at the four-star level, despite the fact that all four services integrated at literally exactly the same time, when President Truman desegregated the armed forces in 1948. And despite the fact that all three other services combined have now had fourteen four-stars who are African American alone, let alone other ethnic minorities and other women. How is that? Why is that happening? So I had this conversation with a senior former Marine Corps officer. And he said, really? I had no idea. And he didn’t. I mean, it literally didn’t occur to him. It didn’t occur to him. But I can tell you, that is a blinding, flashing indicator for every African American Marine Corps officer, because every one of them is asking themselves: If I do my very best, if I give the Marine Corps my all, is it possible the Marine Corps will reward me with the highest rank? And if the answer is yes, where’s the evidence? Because there’s never been one. So you got to ask the question. ZARATE: Let’s ask another question. (Laughter.) Sir, back there. Q: Hello. My name is Kamaal Thomas. I’m a cyber policy researcher at the Carnegie Endowment. My question, I just wanted to know if you all could share some stories of some of the challenges you faced in terms of diversity, and some just general tips on how to navigate those situations. BRIGETY: Where to start? (Laughter.) ALLEN: Juan, I think you should— ZARATE: I’m the presider. (Laughter.) One anecdote, something that sticks in your mind that was either an impediment or something you had to— BRIGETY: I got one. I got one. I got one. (Laughter.) ZARATE: I knew it, Ruben. BRIGETY: Yeah, yeah. (Laughter.) So I was—you know, when I was ambassador to the African Union, you know, we were at, you know, obviously an embassy compound. Our embassy had basically a post exchange, essentially, which was the most popular place in all of Addis Ababa, because you get all kinds of, like, American goods flown in. So you—you can’t tell anybody this. It’s a secret. You can’ tell anybody this. I have a Pringle addiction. (Laughter.) So every once in a while I would leave my office, go to the PX, get a box of Pringles. So I had a three-piece suit on, going to buy my pringles. And we had this delegation from one government agency that was there. And I was going to buy these Pringles, and one of the delegation, an American, says to me: Excuse me, how much is this thing on the shelf? And I was like, oh, I’m sorry. I don’t know. I don’t work here. They say, oh, I’m sorry, I thought you were the manager. I said, no I’m not the manager. I’m the ambassador. (Laughter.) And interestingly, he was an American of African descent, right? So it just never occurred to him that a black man walking around in this space could be anything other than the staff. I’ve had that experience more times than I could possibly—I can’t stand in front of a hotel in Washington, D.C. without somebody asking me to park their car. (Laughter.) Routinely, especially if I’m wearing a bowtie. (Laughter.) So eventually, right, I mean—(laughter)—it’s true. Honestly, it is. Honestly, it is. One of these days I’m just going to pull, like, a James Bond and just take the car, I swear to God. (Laughter.) I swear to God. (Laughter.) Right? And so, quite frankly, I mean, it takes a consistently level head to kind of figure out how do you kind of respond in ways that are appropriate, notwithstanding the fact that no matter how high you progress it everybody’s first instinct to see you as the help. ALLEN: I think it’s absolutely undeniable, right? You walk around with brown skin in America, you’re going to get looked at differently. You walk around as a woman in America you’re going to get looked at differently. And we could go to different countries around the world and in different countries different things will be the trigger. So the first thing we have to do is realize it’s not just an American matter. It’s a bigger, global matter. And it’s just a human matter, frankly. And in that sense, all humans will live with this sense of self and other forever, I believe. So we just have to first acknowledge, we’ve all had these experiences. We’ve all been asked way too many times how we’re going to help, as opposed to not having that as a first assumption. But I heard from Shonda Rhimes something that was—like, it puts words to something I had always believe deep in my core and had acted to, but finally put words to it. And it was real simple. It was this. It was conscious obliviousness. Conscious obliviousness. The idea is simple: I’m very conscious of that reality that I just described. I’m very conscious that when I am in one part of the world if it’s America, just to use where we are, since that’s just something we all likely share in many ways, I’m going to be perceived through the lens of being a black man in America. That’s just a reality. And obliviousness. I need to be oblivious, because if I spend my time looking at that, I’m not spending my time doing the things that make me excellent. That’s why conscious obliviousness matters so much. Yeah, be aware, be conscious. But then put it away and be oblivious, and live oblivious, and focus on cybersecurity. Focus on what you do, and be excellent, back to that first point, and put out your wings to help others, and let your heart shine, and share yourself with the world, and people will be impressed because they will get to know you. But you have to live, in that sense, above it. If you live in it, eh, didn’t work for me. Get above it, worked for me. ZARATE: Yes, up here in front. SHERWOOD-RANDALL: I was going to say something to the women here. ZARATE: Please. (Laughter.) SHERWOOD-RANDALL: So that was two very powerful statements. I have to absorb all that. So my experiences with this—this is actually a very meaningful exchange because it shows how different experiences are for different individuals and how we all need to hear each other. Most of my experiences with what you’ve asked about when I was younger. And young women in the national security field were not familiar those who had been in the field forever. And when I was young and working on the Hill, it was the norm for men who were senior, they could be members of Congress or staff, to think that young women were fair game. You were not—that was just—that was just the way things were. Not the senator I worked for, never Joe Biden, but others. So I will say here, I just want to pick up on what Marc said and then get to a story. I do think it’s quite important not to get mad and not to lose your cool. And to try to build a bridge with whomever you’re dealing with who just doesn’t get who you are. And those people may hold the keys to the kingdom for you. You don’t know necessarily. You may need to find a way over whatever the weirdness is that their attitude presents you with. You hold the power to do that. So here’s my wonderful story. I did go to work for Joe Biden. I was twenty-six. I was his chief foreign affairs and defense policy advisor. I’d just finished my Ph.D. And he asked me to go out on a listening tour to listen to his constituents. And I want to a military base in his state, and the preparations had been made for me to arrive. My name then was just Sherwood. I hadn’t married Jeff Randall yet. So it was just Dr. Sherwood. And I arrived, I got out of a car, and there was a red carpet. And a person met me at the end of the red carpet. And I stood up. And the person put out his hand and said: When is Dr. Sherwood arriving? (Laughs.) And I realized I didn’t look like Dr. Sherwood to him, right? That wasn’t what he was anticipating. And in that moment, it was one of these moments where you just have to think, OK, present yourself as you wish to be seen and build a bridge, because the alternative is to create a moment that’s very uncomfortable and not be able to move forward. So I just think we have to—we have to handle these things—as you said, rise above, be Zen, and show these people that they need to deal with you on your terms. BRIGETY: Can I just add one more thing? I know we’re running out of time. But I want to talk about the importance of allyship in this space. So I’m a southern gentleman. My mother raised me to be a decent gentleman. My father set a very good example. Notwithstanding that, I’m ashamed that it didn’t come—that I didn’t come into a certain knowledge set until I was about forty-five. And that’s when the #MeToo movement happened. And literally when the first hashtag #MeToo started coming—this would be about a year and a half two years ago, and my Facebook feed exploded with women, friends, colleagues who said: #MeToo, and here’s my story. Or, just #MeToo. That’s all they needed to say. And what occurred to me is the knowledge that most women live with, at a minimum, a degree of inappropriateness, to much worse. That if happened to most men, we’d want to hurt somebody. And that, frankly, has made me, as an ally, much more supportive as an ally on women and gender issues and, frankly, caused me just to think much more deeply about differential ways in which, you know, women can be treated, and how one could be much more supportive in that regard. And that—and so I would encourage all of you to think about ways in which you can be an ally to—and in ways that just wouldn’t necessarily occur to you. SHERWOOD-RANDALL: Could I say one thing? Because there is a debate in this diversity and inclusion space about what it means to be an ally. And I’ve heard it in various settings. And want to say, I come out of the national security world. To me, an ally is defined in this way: An attack on one is an attack on all. That’s what it means if you’re someone’s ally. That what it means in the context of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, our principal military alliance. (Laughter.) So when we say ally, this is what we mean, right? That means that when you describe what you just described, it makes me want to fight for you, right? BRIGETY: Exactly. And likewise. Exactly right. SHERWOOD-RANDALL: So that is—that’s what it means to understand someone’s story, their perspective, what they’re experiencing. Another example of this, in the summer of 2016, when our cities were on fire around this country, and I was then DepSec at the Energy Department, we had 113,000 people strewn out all across this country doing many, many different kinds of jobs. And I was beginning to see real stress in our workforce. And I asked for the opportunity to go out and talk with our people informal settings, not like up on a podium like this, but get into a room where the staff hung out just to socialize with one another normally, not to have leadership there, and hear their stories. And I will never forget the moment of being out at Germantown, where we had thousands of federal workers working for DOE, and hearing a woman say to me with tear in her eyes—an African American woman, worked for DOE all her life—when she left for work in the morning she wasn’t sure she would see her teenage son alive again at night. Every day she worried about his safety going to school and back. Shook me to the core. That’s the kind of thing, when you hear those stories—and Tim McClees was my chief of staff at DOE is sitting there shaking his head because he was there with me. When you hear these stories, it changes you and it makes you want to stand as an ally together to make our country better. That’s what we all have to own every day. ZARATE: Ma’am. Q: Hi, everybody. I’m Victoria Tellez, and I’m a financial researcher for a nonprofit think tank. So my question is, since I’m a numbers girl, when I think about diversity and inequality, I also think about financial inequality, and economic inequality, and kind of the pipeline you talked about, into mobility, in this field that I’m very attracted to. But it’s very hard for me to think about, you know, if you make it through the college process and you get from school financially, it seems very difficult to get those internships on the Hill that are unpaid, or entry into this field. And somebody who has to support their parents in retirement, sister in college, it’s really hard for me to think about the balance between serving my country and serving my family financially. So how do you balance that? Does it have to be a struggle? Do I have to go into the private sector and do finance for ten years and then come out and try to do something good? Like how do you balance that desire? ZARATE: It’s a fundamental part of the question of inclusivity. How do you— SHERWOOD-RANDALL: Well, I mean, I’ll begin with the—and interestingly, there was—there was a hearing today in the House on this very issue, of the STEM pipeline in this country, looking at the challenge of supporting a more diverse STEM pipeline through investment in our minority-serving institutions. And one of the facts we now know is that kids coming out of these institutions carry a disproportionate burden of aid that is a huge impediment to freedom to choose what to do with their lives. And so this reflects on what you were saying. This is on our country to choose to invest in, to create more of a level playing field. And some of it involves the federal government, some of it involves philanthropy, a lot of it involves the private sector. You look at some of the data on what major companies are doing to support the raising up of talent and trying, again, to level the playing field. Some of it is on our universities. But we all have a role to play in this. And your individual, you know, set of—the balancing act you have is familiar to many. And what I would be seeking if I were in your case—in your situation would be allies, to look to my leadership of the place I work, to look for the kinds of support that are available through philanthropy, to seek ways to propel yourself and still do the job you need to do for your family, and find ways to achieve that balance. Which may mean sometimes you save money and sometimes you’re going to spend it, right? And when you go into public service, you tend to spend down whatever saving you had, and then you have to dig yourself back up out of that hole. So I would say it’s going to be a—it’ll be juggling or balancing, but you’ll find a way. BRIGETY: I’ll say quickly two things. One, what you’ve articulated is a very real issue. I hear this from students and young colleagues all the time. And so I would offer two things. First is: Life is long, and so is your career. So think about sequencing, right? So the idea that you may have to take a higher-paying job now doesn’t mean you’ll never be able to return to public service. The idea that you’re taking a lower-paying job now doesn’t mean that you’ll never make money. And it is OK to make money. It’s entirely legitimate. The second thing I would say is that part of the key to making money, eventually, is not only your professional excellence, it’s also your social capital. It’s the ability to be in places in the slipstream where opportunities present themselves that will allow you to develop. So continue to develop your social networks. I give this charge to everybody—beyond, like, the financial piece, just for your professional growth—every single one of you—every single one of you—I’ll say this again. Every single one of you must have as your objective being accepted a term member at the Council on Foreign Relations. (Laughter, applause.) You should apply and you should get in, because one of the great things about being a member of CFR is that once you’re a member everybody who is a member is your peer. And that provides all kinds of professional and other developmental opportunities that, if you’re serious about being a foreign affairs professional, you really need to take advantage of. ZARATE: Last question. And if you make it quick I’ll call on you. OK, yes, you. (Laughs.) Thank you. Q: Hello. My name is Nablia Aguila (sp). I’m a graduate from MIT and I’m actually from Ecuador, so I’m one of those Latin Americans. I have a question more regards to the international foreign policy and diversity, which has been touched before. What I can say to—perhaps to the gentleman from Boeing is—(speaks in Chinese)—meaning, I’m trying to learn Chinese. And my question is— ALLEN: (Speaks in Chinese.) Q: Yeah. (Laughs.) how does diversity in regards to China, and also both from the perspective of China and the U.S. and other countries, how does it help us predict the next strategic moves to act accordingly in policy and business? ALLEN: So if you would, would you just give that last sentence of your question? So I heard the question of predicting how to act, but I didn’t hear who the actor was. Can you give that to me one more time? Q: OK. So my question is, give that diversity gives us some added value, how does it help us really on the ground figure out that next strategic move, because with China—China is so unpredictable sometimes. So how does it strategically— ALLEN: So are we. (Laughter.) SHERWOOD-RANDALL: China’s much more predictable than we are right now. (Laughter.) ALLEN: Yes, it’s a wonderful question. I got it. Wonderful question. Wonderful question. Sometimes I feel like a broken record, right? So I apologize in advance if I sound like a broken record here. But I had the chance as young boy to spend a year and a half, two years in France. And that was a really formative part of my growing up experience. And the way I describe it to people now is that it taught me the value of the pause, right? The pause is when you come across something that’s different. And the pause is to, pause, and then begin to think is it different good, different bad, or just different? And the reality of most of us, is that we actually have very little pause, if any. Most of us who grew up in one spot from zero to eighteen, go away to college at some place that looks like where we were from zero to eighteen, we don’t have any pause. When we see something different, it’s bad. This is just a human reality. So the value of the pause is you start thinking, you open the spectrum of listening, because you’re trying to assess different good, different bad, or just different. And that’s where all the best creativity and deal making comes from. And I don’t care if it’s business deal making or if it’s a bilateral or multilateral government-to-government deal making. The best deal making comes from the creativity to listen to multiple parties, understand their interests deeply, to understand it from where they sit, and then begin to build the circles where your interest and their interest overlap, and then design the architecture and the mechanics that are going to bring forward your cooperation. That’s how all good deal making works. So the whole point about diversity and why it’s so valuable in this global context, including the bilateral relationship, is that when you have two people on both sides who are good at that, you are much more likely to get a deal out of it. You know, Shang Dee’s (ph) point was great earlier today. I’m sorry, not Shang Dee (ph); your name, one more time? Q: My name? ALLEN: Yes. Q: Yeah, it was Shang Dee (ph). ALLEN: Shang Dee (ph). Thank you, Shang Dee (ph). Great point earlier today about when you have a group of leaders in the foreign affairs establishment who sit and testify on the Hill, who may not have much pause because they just haven’t had the exposure or the life experiences because of where they come from. It is not something to be condemned. It’s just a reality. It just is. Like, it would be a more effective foreign policy strategy, in my view, for any country, including for China to the U.S., right, to be able to have people who sit there who have a lot of pause in their natural instinct, because of the way they’ve been exposed to diverse thinking, diverse people, ethnicity, diverse sex and gender characteristics and orientation. I mean, these things are things that give us the lived life experience that help us be creative listeners. So that’s why, to me, it would make a big difference that kind of bilateral construct. ZARATE: Unfortunately, that’s all we have time for. I just want to make a personal comment and honor my parents, father who came from Mexico, mother who came from Cuba, who in their aspiration to come to America, viewing it as the greatest country on Earth, gave me and our family an opportunity to serve. And just to end on a high note, many of my experiences as a national security official have been those that have been amazed both around the world and even in the United States that the child of immigrants coming from Mexico and Cuba could end up at the right hand of the president and be representing the United States. And for all of us, I think it’s been an honor to be able to represent this country in a variety of ways. And I want to thank all of you for your time. We now have a networking session. Please join me in thanking Marc, Ruben, and Elizabeth. (Applause.) (END)

Speakers discuss how leaders from different sectors are spearheading organizational change in their respective fields, both through their experiences championing diversity at high-value levels and navigating the current COVID-19 crisis. This virtual event replaces the in-person 2020 Conference on Diversity in International Affairs, which was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. LINDSAY: Good afternoon, everyone. I’m Jim Lindsay, senior vice president and director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. It is my pleasure to welcome you to the virtual webinar on diversity in international affairs. This meeting is jointly presented by the Council on Foreign Relations, the Global Access Pipeline, and the International Career Advancement Program. Now, the pandemic has made it impossible for us to meet in person, as we have for the past seven years, to discuss diversity issues. We’re very glad we can get everyone together virtually. Now, we hold this annual event for one reason, and that is that the ethnic and racial makeup of America’s foreign policy community does not mirror what America looks like. That gap robs the foreign policy debate of talented voices, it diminishes the chances that U.S. policy will reflect the broad array of perspectives its citizens hold. Our goal with today’s event is to advance the effort to diversify America’s foreign policy community. We hope that you will find today’s talk informative and inspiring. Even more so, we urge you to follow up by learning more about how you can play a role in international affairs. Two organizations that can help you do that are the organizations that have joined with CFR to put on today’s event. That is the Global Access Pipeline, or GAP, and the International Career Advancement Program, otherwise known as ICAP. For those of you unfamiliar with GAP, it is a collaborative network of organizations forming a pipeline for underrepresented groups in the United States, from elementary school to senior leadership positions. ICAP is a professional development and leadership program for highly promising mid-career professionals in international affairs in the United States. I want to thank GAP and ICAP’s leadership teams for their work on this event and in the broader field of international affairs. Particularly want to thank Maria Theresa Alzura, Wida Amir, Erin Brown, Lily Lopez-McGee, Amber Whittington, and Zarina Durrani. A special thanks goes out to Tom Rowe, who oversees both organizations, and has been a leading voice in the field. I also want to thank CFR’s meetings program and events team in their work in planning this important virtual event. Without further ado, I’ll turn things over to Lulu Garcia-Navarro, who will moderate today’s discussion. I hope you enjoy it. GARCIA-NAVARRO: Hi, everybody. Welcome to today’s Council on Foreign Relations virtual meeting on leading organizational change in a post-COVID-19 world with Helene Gayle, Nicole Lamb-Hale, and Raj Shah. I’m Lulu Garcia-Navarro. I’m the host of Weekend Edition Sunday and the podcast Up First on NPR. And I will, as they have discussed, be presiding over today’s discussion from my beautiful guest bedroom. (Laughter.) And we are all joining you from our respective places of either work or home, I’m assuming. This is a very unusual event. So we should just acknowledge that. We are all kind of in the throes of dealing with this pandemic. And I’m going to introduce our panelists first. Helene Gayle has been president and CEO of the Chicago Community Trust, and that is one of the nation’s oldest and largest community foundations, since October 2017. Dr. Gayle spent twenty years at the CDC and has also worked with the Gates Foundation, CARE, among other philanthropic and humanitarian organizations. She was also named one of Forbes’ 100 Most Powerful Women. Welcome, Dr. Gayle, to you. Nicole Lamb-Hale is managing director at Kroll. Before that, she had a long history of public service, serving as assistant secretary for manufacturing and services in the U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration, taking part in many high-level negotiations. She was also the deputy general counsel for the U.S. Department of Commerce and has sat on too many boards to mention. She is also a past holder of the Gwendolyn and Colby King endowed chair for public policy at Howard University, which is very close to where I am. Welcome to you. LAMB-HALE: Thank you. GARCIA-NAVARRO: And Raj Shah is an entrepreneur and leader in the national security community, currently serving as the executive chairman of Areceo.ai. Before that, he was the managing partner of the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Unit Experimental, reporting directly to the secretary of defense. He serves as an F-16 pilot in the Air National Guard, and he has completed multiple combat tours. Welcome to you. SHAH: Thank you. GARCIA-NAVARRO: Helene, I’m going to start with you because, as we’ve seen, when we’re talking about diversity at this moment I think we have to start with an acknowledgment of how this pandemic is impacting people of color. Here in D.C. Latinos are more than seven times more likely to become infected than whites. African Americans represent 70 percent of all deaths. We’re seeing something similar in Chicago. So this is affecting communities of color disproportionately. But America’s not alone in this. We’re seeing similar issues in Sweden among the migrant populations, in the U.K. among Black and brown communities. What does that tell you about the challenges ahead? GAYLE: Well, you know, I think—and thank you very much. Great to be here with you and the other panelists to discuss this issue. And it is multifold. And as somebody who has zig-zagged between the global world and domestic issues, I think COVID is one of those situations that, you know, I think we are all in this, and so we are hopefully all learning together as we face these different challenges. And as you said, you know, in many ways some of the things that we’re starting to see in this pandemic should not have been a surprise to us. It should not have been a surprise that here in the United States that it would disproportionately impact communities that were already very vulnerable both for health challenges as well as the economic impact of this pandemic. And I constantly am highlighting the fact that this is one of those few times where we have had an economic crisis that is caused by a public health issue. And that for communities that are at risk both health as well as economically this is kind of a double whammy in many ways. And I think we’re seeing the same things both in the domestic situations in other nations around the world—as you mentioned Sweden and, you know, other places that are seeing vulnerable communities most hard hit—we’re also seeing this between countries. And, you know, it’s been interesting to kind of look at the map, if you will, of this pandemic and how it is affecting different parts of the world differently. And, you know, I think it does continue to show that this double whammy of health and economic means that we are seeing things unfold that we should have, and could have, been more prepared for. So as an example, you know, those of us who have spent a lot of time in Africa know that, you know, in some ways perhaps Africa might have been more prepared from a public health standpoint because of having gone through Ebola, and HIV, and other crises. On the other hand, the very measures that have been put in place so quickly to stem the health spread and the health impact means that the economic impact is even greater. So as populations that would be out taking care of agriculture are not able to grow food, we know that there’s going to be a huge issue of drought—of famine that evolves from this. The fact that people have been sheltering at home means that there are a large swaths of population who aren’t able to get out and get food. And so, you know, I think it is this double bind of a public health issue that has such a huge—that the very measures have created an economic crisis is continuing to show our vulnerability both within countries but also between countries. GARCIA-NAVARRO: When we look at that and take that perspective, I’m going to ask you, Nicole, you know, we have to acknowledge that this is a dire moment. But can it also present opportunities to sort of reimagine things so that the very problems that we are seeing in this country on the ground, but also, you know, in the international sphere about who is representing us at the table, how we engage with other countries. As someone who’s been a part of government and worked in the international arena, I want you to just set the table here. Why is diversity important? And give us an example from your own experience. Why when we face a post-COVID-19 world is it going to be important to see who is seated at the table and who is going to be representing the United States? LAMB-HALE: Well, thanks, Lulu, and to the panelists—my fellow panelists. It’s great to be here with you today, and all that are out there in the virtual CFR world. Happy to be a part of this discussion, which is very important. And I think that one of the things that this crisis has reinforced—I mean, it’s not new news, as Helene said—is that, you know, there are disparities that exist. That, you know, when things are normal and, you know, we don’t have a crisis like this, it’s easy to overlook or easy to, you know, justify or—you know, maybe not address with the urgency that we need to address now—address it now. And so I think this is an opportunity—I love the thought, and I’ve heard this thought consistently, about reimagining. You know, this is an opportunity for us to step back—as we try to work our way through this crisis—to step back and look at, you know, what systems need to be put I place. You know, what perspectives need to be brought to bear so that people around the world can work together to avoid or minimize crises like this. When you mentioned, you know, who needs to be at the table, I mean, I think that what this crisis has taught us—and we should have known it; it was always true—is that we are all in it together. You know, the virus knows no borders. You know, borders are porous to the virus. And so what happens in a country that we may not think about as much in the third world, because it, you know, maybe doesn’t impact us in the same way economically here in the U.S., really matters because if people travel from the U.S. to those countries in and out, all through Europe or wherever they are going, the issues in terms of health care disparities, et cetera, that sometimes we’ve overlooked can have an impact here on our shores. So, you know, there’s the saying: Never let a good crisis go to waste. I mean, I think that we certainly have in this time an opportunity to reimagine how we engage with each other globally, how resources are allocated, and to really ensure that all of the perspectives that can influence outcomes are at the table. And that’s why diversity is so important, I think. GARCIA-NAVARRO: Raj Shah, I make a joke sometimes when I look at how this is playing out in this pandemic that we can either end up—because I’m a science fiction fan—sort of Star Trek—we can—we can reinvent things and make them better—or we can maybe end up Blade Runner. And I’m wondering, what do you see when you look at your career? Have you seen things change? And do you see this moment as a gamechanger, where things potentially could move in a different direction? SHAH: Yeah, thank you. And Lulu, as, you know, we enjoy hearing your voice every weekend in this house. It’s a great pleasure to be here with you today, and with the other panelists, so thank you. You know, I do think that as Nicole said, right, that there is an opportunity to take this difficult situation that the U.S. and the whole world is going through and try to see how we can find certain advantages that come out of it. So I’ll give you one specific one, right? So I’m out here in California, in San Francisco. I’ve been involved in the startup world for a while. And it’s very much a war for talent, right? The best startups are the ones that can attract the best engineers and the best executives. And it’s really, really hard. And you know, many times the limiting factor for a lot of companies is the ability to get great engineering and great computer science talent. And you couple that with the fact that for San Francisco, New York, and many of our population centers, right, the cost of living has gone through the roof, and making it much more difficult for folks from unique backgrounds or disadvantaged backgrounds, candidly, to participate. So I think one of the things that we’ll see after all of this is that companies have been forced to do remote work. They’ve been forced to learn how to be productive. And particularly companies that have been sort of slow in the digital transformation—and I would put the U.S. government, and I would put some large investor industries square in that. But they’ve been forced to work remotely and they’ve found that, hey, we can actually do it. We can figure out how to conduct business over Zoom. So I think—I hope what we’ll see at the backend of this is just sort of a broader playing field in that war for talent. That there’ll be the ability for a much greater part of the workforce both in the U.S. and worldwide to participate in these high-end knowledge jobs, and will make these companies more efficient, and bring new people into that work. GARCIA-NAVARRO: Nicole, I see you nodding. I mean, if you had to prognosticate, how you could change something. How maybe something beneficial could come out of this. What do you see? Do you think that this will maybe level the playing field, as Raj Shah is suggesting? LAMB-HALE: I think it will go a long way towards doing that. I mean, everyone is kind of—we all have a little bit of a disadvantage. There’s no home field advantage right now, right? (Laughs.) As we’re working, as we compete. You know, businesses compete, you know, nations are competing. It’s just—were all, as I said before, and we heard this quite a bit, but it bears repeating, we’re in it together. And so it’s going to be interesting to see how on the other side of COVID-19 things change in the way that we do business. And some of that change is, sadly, going to create some winners and losers, right? So when you talk about the advantage of technology during this time, you know, there is—I would predict that commercial real estate is going to suffer post-COVID-19 because many companies are looking at the fact that, and this is around the world, you don’t need as much office space. We can be more efficient having people work from home. So you know, that creates to some extent maybe a loser, you know, maybe an industry that may suffer as a result of this. And they’ll have to be more creative. You know, the upside, the other thing that we’ve seen that’s beautiful, and it’s certainly something of note in the context of climate change, is around the world the air is a little bit clearer, isn’t it? You know, there are animals showing up, and fish showing up—(laughs)—in bodies of water that people haven’t seen for a while. And why is that? Because there is less—you know, less carbon impact because people are at home. And I think that over time people will get used to that, and like to see, you know, blue sky. And maybe that will motivate discussions on a global level to move faster on climate change. So I think that there are going to be ups and downs as we come out of this. I think there are a lot of lessons learned. And I just think that it’s going to require resilience and creativity. And that’s something that I think is—can be furthered even better when you have sort of diverse voices, diversity at the table that’s helping to move the world in that direction. GARCIA-NAVARRO: Helene how are you imagining helping your community in Chicago, because obviously that is at the center of your mandate. And you know, at a certain point one things, you know, you’re only as strong as your internet connection these days. (Laughs.) I mean however, you know, you can communicate to the outside world, however you can participate, I mean, it is very dependent on your access to technology and other things. So what are you thinking about in Chicago? GAYLE: Yeah. So before we went into this COVID world, we had recently revised our strategy and with a focus on what we could do to close the racial and wealth gap in Chicago, because if we look at what the economic future was for our city, and we recognize that when you’re holding two-third of the population back, and, you know, I could go through all the statistics, but suffice it to say if you look at earning capacity, wealth, and assets, et cetera, for African Americans and Latinx community, way below. And if you look at any indicator, whether it’s health, education, et cetera, all of those things show that real gap. And recognizing that economic, and wealth, and access to wealth is a huge barrier for all other sorts of things. So if we look at our issues around public safety, and health, education, et cetera, the wealth inequity is a huge driver for that. So just six months into this strategy COVID hit, that was unmasking many of these inequities that existed in our community that people weren’t—and, I think, Nicole, you mentioned earlier—you know, people kind of knew but weren’t really paying attention. And I think this really revealed kind of those deep inequities that already existed, and in some ways give an opening to being even more focused on these issues, because if we’re going to—as we, you know, used to say in the emergency response world, build back better, we also have to build back equal. And we got to really take care of some of some of these existing structural inequities that we have in our society because it will be—it’s COVID today, but it will be something else tomorrow. And I think it’s a—you know, we do need to take this, quote, “opportunity,” if you will, to think about the fault lines in our society, the weaknesses in our society. And, you know, I often look at some of the things that we’re doing as a result of this crisis and I wonder why we couldn’t really think about these long term. So broadband access. You know, every child is now having to do learning—you know, distance learning. Many kids may have laptops, but they may not have access to broadband. We’re working on that as a result of this emergency situation. Why can’t we do that long term and really close this digital divide once and for all? You know, we’re handing out cash to people who are financially insecure. We’ve had debates forever about whether giving people cash in some sort of a basic income makes sense or not. Why not look at that as a pilot and see if that makes sense as a way of bridging some of those gaps long term? Worker protection, et cetera. I mean, all the things that we’re doing now because of the crisis situation, which essentially is shoring up our safety net that we just haven’t had, couldn’t we do some of these things in a more long-term fashion so that we are going into whatever the next crisis is much more resilient as a society, much more equal as a society, and addressing some of these long-term structural barriers that we know are impeding our progress as a nation and continuing to be able to move ourselves forward. So I think we have some real opportunities to take lessons from what we’re doing during this and really think about how do we create a different world, a more resilient work, and a more equal world coming out of this? GARCIA-NAVARRO: I want to bring up something that a friend of mine at #NatSecGirlSquad sent me, which was the results of a study they just completed which saw a few statistics about the national security environment and the international relations environment. And they said that 87 percent of respondents wish that there were more opportunities made available to women and people of color. Forty-seven percent said that they had experiences of discrimination as a leader in those spheres. So bringing it back to the world in which you all operate, this is obviously an issue where people feel that it is not only hard to get into these fields, but also hard for minorities to stay in these fields. So I would like to ask all of you about how you recruit, mentor, and retain diverse talent at a time when there are all these incredible pressures. And I’m going to start with you, Raj, and then Nicole, and then Helene. SHAH: Sure. Thank you. And it’s an important question. I guess I’ll look at it from maybe the viewpoint of someone that served in uniform, and that was sort of my first real professional job. So I guess I’ll make two points. One is, certainly from a pipeline and intake standpoint, the—you know, the national security entities—so the Department of Defense, the intelligence community, the State Department, you know, are trying to increase the diversity of the types of folks that come in, that are attracted to that and that pipeline. And I think there’s still some work to be had there. But I guess I’d make a counterpoint about once you’re in that system how one gets treated. And from my own, I guess, personal experience, I would say at the junior levels of the military, it is one of the world’s greatest meritocracies. Not perfect, but it is, you know, unbelievably focused on results. And that is because in those worlds, the Department of Defense, the intelligence community, the decisions that are being made are ultimately life and death, and very tangibly like and death. And so because of that, everyone around you wants the highest performance. They care less about skin color or background because, you know, they have their own personal interest of surviving the situation. You know, so from my own story, right, I entered flight school in December of 2001. And I’d actually packed up my apartment in Midtown Manhattan and moved to northwest Oklahoma to start flight school in the U.S. Air Force. And, you know, it certainly was the only person, you know, of brown persuasion in my class. That said, and that being close to 9/11 and the attacks, you know, I personally did not face any negative reaction because of color. And it was, again, how did you perform every day. It wasn’t that—no one was given—no one was given a break. It was rack and stack. And I think as you get more senior in an organization, things naturally become political and more difficult. But I guess what I would encourage—I know many of the listeners on the call today are either college students or recent graduates kind of thinking about their first steps into the world of national security and foreign policy, is that I would—I would encourage folks to go into it and to work hard, and do their best, because I think, again, there are—three are good cultures and metrics, especially at the junior levels around that. Again, I think there’s work to be done on increasing the pipeline and the funnel. But, anyway, I just—I wanted to share that perspective. GARCIA-NAVARRO: Nicole, I mean, I really struck me what Helene was saying previously, is this idea that we are going to be facing a lot of challenges that are going to require a lot of creative solutions. And some of those solutions are just actually identifying what those problems are because you’re familiar with them because you come from communities that are going to be impacted. So the question to you is the same: How do you encourage people to come in in your own organization and help them to stay? LAMB-HALE: Right. You know, I think that what’s in some ways more important than recruitment is retention, because I think that in the beginning and to the point that Raj made, you know, people are coming in, you’re at the level where you are, and, you know, you have to work to earn the right to move up and to be promoted, et cetera. And so looking at ways to, number one, and I agree with Raj, the pipeline needs to be worked on so that there are people that you can draw from or draw on to be in these roles. But I think it’s also important that when they arrive, identifying mentor opportunities, mentorship and sponsorship probably is more important—sponsorship opportunities for those individuals is important because it’s often easy to hire someone into those roles, but not really working with them and kind of helping them to navigate, particularly if they’re coming from a background where maybe they didn’t grow up at the knee of someone who was an ambassador to a certain country or, you know, who served at a high level in the military. You know, they’re not going to have that advantage. So having someone sponsor them, help them move through the system, if there’s a real commitment to that, I think will go a long way towards increasing diversity in these fields. And there are many different— GARCIA-NAVARRO: Did you have that? LAMB-HALE: Pardon me? GARCIA-NAVARRO: Did you have that? LAMB-HALE: I have had mentors. I’ve been very fortunate to have mentors, and a few sponsors, throughout my career. You know, I kind of come at—I come to this space in maybe a little bit of a nontraditional way, because I practiced law, was kind of a business restructuring lawyer for eighteen years, and then kind of found myself with an opportunity to be in a field that I truly enjoy in terms of national security and foreign affairs. But, you know, I draw from the lessons that I learned, even in the context of practicing law, from sponsors and mentors around how to navigate complex organizations. You know, what are the things to do to be noticed in the organizations? You know, often people from diverse backgrounds, you know, follow the rules. And they think, well, why am I not moving along? Well, there are written rules and there are unwritten rules. And the only way to know the unwritten rule is to have a mentor or a sponsor to help you discover those. And I did benefit from that very early on. And, you know, that sponsor doesn’t have to be, you know, of color. They don’t have to be a minority. It’s just someone who cares and is paying attention and is sensitive to some of the structural impediments that may be faced by the mentee that may put in them in a position where they are at a big of a disadvantage, even on a level playing field. It’s not always level. It may appear to be, but it’s not always level just based on life experiences. So I think that is—that will go a long ways towards increasing diversity in this field. GARCIA-NAVARRO: Helene, do you have any thoughts? GAYLE: Yeah, I would—I would comment and echo many things that others have said. You know, I think the pipeline issue is very important, but I think we put a lot of focus on pipeline for many years and probably not as much on how do you build strategies for retention and career mobility within organizations? And, you know, there’s a project that we have here in Chicago called the financial services pipeline. It’s really looking at how to diversify the financial services industry, which is a big industry here in Chicago, and obviously in many places. And you know, I’ve jokingly said: Let’s take pipeline out of the name, because I think we put so much focus on getting people in, but not keeping them in. And then I think these issues of how you have mentorship, how you have role models, and how do you really work on the structural barriers, which include implicit bias and all these other things that we know really do end up meaning that people don’t always get an equal shot at staying and advancing within organizations? So I really think we need to focus a lot more on the middle and above, because that’s where we start seeing the glass ceiling. And that’s diversity, whether it’s gender, race, ethnicity. But I think that is where I would like to see more focus. And I think in this world of foreign policy, I think having role models—that’s why I like having—you know, this panel is so great, because I think, you know, foreign policy has not, one, always been welcoming, or always been seen for people of diverse backgrounds, and particularly people of color, as a career that’s open to them. And I think that, you know, we’re seeing a lot more young people who are seeing this as a career pathway, and a lot of it is because there have been people who have had those careers, who come out and speak about it. And I think that a lot could be said for how do we make sure that people—as I say, you can’t be it if you can’t see it. You know, how do we make sure that we have role models that look like—you know, who share that diversity and look like the cross-section of America, because we know how important it is? But then again, how do we just have mentors within systems anyway who are looking—who are deliberately looking out for diverse candidates within their organization to clear those obstacles and those hurdles? GARCIA-NAVARRO: We’re going to go to questions soon. But I just want to bring up something before we do, in these last few minutes, money. Because we know that when there’s a big economic downturn like the one that we are experiencing right now, often, you know, as you’ve mentioned, Black and brown people are disproportionately bearing the brunt of it. But beyond that companies, if they’re going to make cuts, might make cuts in unconscious bias training. They might make cuts in their diversity programs. They might make cuts in things that they see as expendable. So how do you not lose the ground on the work that’s already been done? And we’ll go around again—you know, Raj, then, you know, Nicole, then Helene. SHAH: No, I think it’s an important consideration, and a lot of companies kind of faced it, right? In the economic downturn they’re going to have to reduce their discretionary spend. And we’re going to see that across the board, from both employment levels and programs. I mean, I think it comes back down to being able to—and I think panels like this are very helpful—articulate the business need for why diversity’s important, right? It’s not diversity for diversity’s sake, right? It’s nice that, of course, if you look like a cross-section of America. But if you, you know, put the real reason before a company and its board, is that a company that really understands its diverse customers and diverse motivations is going to be a better company with the leadership and the employees who reflect that. So I think making that case, showing the data behind that, will show that, hey, these diversity programs are actually not nice-to-haves but needed. GARCIA-NAVARRO: Nicole. LAMB-HALE: So I would agree completely. It’s really making the business case for diversity. It’s not really—in our world now, our globalized world, it’s not really optional. I think that, you know, there is a lot of data that’s out there that shows that, and you see it—it bears itself out in advertisements. Lately I’ve noticed there’s more diversity in promoting products. You know, the people who promote products. It’s not, you know, a social program. This is a business program. It’s a business imperative that the data does bear out. And so I think keeping it at that level is important. GAYLE: Honestly, I don’t have much to add. I mean, you don’t cut what you think is essential. If you think it’s essential, it’s not the first thing that you’re going to cut. So I think continuing to demonstrate that—and there’s lots of data that suggests that, in fact, you do better when you have greater diversity of all sorts. GARCIA-NAVARRO: Have you seen that change, though, over the course of your career? I mean, do you think that we’re in a better position now than we have been? GAYLE: I think we have a ways to go. I think the data are there. And so the fact that people have been paying attention to it and are starting to make the business case, which I think is a big shift from an equity, social justice, all of which I believe deeply in. But I think it is when you are able to make a business case that people start listening, and paying attention to it, and seeing it as essential. So in the sense that it has migrated, and we have a better database, I think we are doing better. Now I think we need to really take that and continue to beat the drum on why this really matters. So we’re not there yet, but I think we have moved. GARCIA-NAVARRO: And, Raj, just quickly, I mean, what do you think you brought to the table? When you’re sitting—when you say you’re the only brown person, you know, what is it that you feel that you’re bringing to that group of people? SHAH: In a context of— GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yeah, in the context of when—you know, you’re giving that anecdote about, you know, being the only brown person in flight school. You know. SHAH: You know, I think it—diversity can do a lot of things to improve a group, right, because if in my case an immigrant family, right? So the experiences I may have had, the experiences of being able to compare and contrast things we take for granted if you just grew up in the U.S., or if you had family that immigrated from somewhere else. I think, you know, those perspectives can make a group stronger, it can help people understand motivations. So some of this stuff, and I’m glad there are some data and studies, is it’s sometimes hard to quantify, but I think very important when you’re trying to strengthen the cohesion of a group and its ability to accomplish its mission. GARCIA-NAVARRO: All right. So I think at this point we’re going to invite the audience members to join our conversation with their questions. And the operator will remind you how to join the question queue now. STAFF: (Gives queuing instructions.) We will take our first question from Emily Couch from the National Endowment for Democracy. And she submitted a question written. And the question to all the panelists is: The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the strong, yet long ignored, undercurrents of racist attitudes towards East Asians in America. We have seen this on a local level and through statements from the Trump administration. How can we counteract these prejudices on an organizational level? GARCIA-NAVARRO: Who wants to take that? GAYLE: Well, yeah, I guess—I’ll just start. You know, that is one of those questions that is, you know, hard to give an exact answer. I think first and foremost recognizing it. I think squelching nonfactual information is important. But I think, you know, it’s like so many other forms of racism. You know, unless you name it and then deal with it, it’s hard to actually make that change. So I just think it is an issue that all of us who are interested in building an anti-racist society, that we challenge it when we see racist ideas being promulgated. LAMB-HALE: You know, I would agree with what Helene said. It’s really kind of naming it and shaming it. It’s important that it not be, you know, kept kind of in the shadows. It needs to be called out for what it is. And I think that it’s incumbent upon, you know, all of us to be vigilant in ensuring that that happens. SHAH: I agree with that. I think the statement I would—or, the perspective I would have is that it’s easier to be racist against or have prejudice against, you know, sort of faceless groups or broad groups. It’s much harder when it’s particular individuals. And I think that’s one of the challenges of this COVID situation, is it’s preventing that human-to-human interaction. And that is people really get to know one another and their motivations and intent, it cuts through a lot of that. GARCIA-NAVARRO: OK. Next question. STAFF: Our next question will be from Irvey Thomas (sp). Q: Thank you very much. Thank you so much, Dr. Gayle, Ms. Lamb-Hale, Mr. Shah, for enlightening to the various lessons you’ve observed since COVID-19 has hit our society. You have all discussed the many ways COVID-19 has impacted our environment and ways of working, from reduced global emissions to increased opportunities for diverse talents unable to live in important tech hubs like San Francisco. I was wondering, in terms of policy responses what can those of us in the policymaking sphere do to help bridge these gaps you discuss, especially when people tend to listen better when we make a business case, as Dr. Gayle mentioned earlier? For instance, what would long-term safety nets seeing to build resiliency and address long-term structural barriers look like? GARCIA-NAVARRO: Helene? GAYLE: You know, I think one of the things that we’re trying to do, and I think lots of others, is, you know, first of all, having the data. And I tend to be a data-driven person. I know that policy is not totally made based on data, but I think it is a foundation for, you know, how you build support for policy change. And so I think, you know, this situation does allow us to learn lessons from some of the things that we’re doing differently as a result of this crisis. And so I think that actually analyzing, learning from them, really looking at what are the impacts, what are the results of some of the things that we are doing—you know, whether it’s greater access to broadband, worker protections, et cetera—that access to cash in ways that people didn’t have before. You know, what are some of the safety net things that we are doing now, different lending to small businesses that are much more flexible and often businesses of color weren’t able to give capital, ideally, through some of the federal dollars should be able to have more flexible lending, et cetera. So there’s lots of different ways in which we are being more flexible as a result of this crisis. And I think we should collect data, learn from it, and then use that to base some of our public policy development, some of our advocacy, so that we can build some of the systems that we think can make longer-term difference. GARCIA-NAVARRO: Because, Raj Shah, I mean, at the end of the day, this is sort of a vast experiment that we’re undergoing right now, in certain ways. SHAH: I agree. I think I’d add—so I agree totally with Helene and Nicole certainly too about broadband, so everyone has equal access. And I think there’s one other area that from a public policy standpoint I would highlight that would allow broader parts of the nation to take advantage of, I think, how the world’s going to look. So Nicole and I had the pleasure of serving on a CFR taskforce earlier this year, I guess it was last year, on American competitiveness. And one of the key recommendations that the group made was around increasing STEM education, right? So if we are going to see an acceleration of digital transformation across companies and the government, folks that are native—digital natives and that have these core STEM skills will be most likely to be take advantage of. And so I think from a public policy standpoint, advocating STEM, advocating access to these types of programs earlier in students’ careers is just an immense opportunity for us all. GARCIA-NAVARRO: Nicole, do you have anything to add? LAMB-HALE: Nothing to add. Everything’s been said. GARCIA-NAVARRO: OK. All right. (Laughs.) Next question. STAFF: Our next question comes from Tom Rowe. And he asks: The difficulty with the early pipeline argument is that there are major obstacles to people of color at the mid-career level. We currently have talented folks of color at the middle levels. We could have diverse leadership if we wanted such diversity. Why don’t we? LAMB-HALE: That is a great question. (Laughs.) GARCIA-NAVARRO: It is. LAMB-HALE: Why don’t we? And I think that, you know, there are a combination of factors that are influencing that. Some of it is bias related. Some of it is not understanding the business imperative of having that kind of diversity in organizations. So I think that it’s just important for us to, you know, continue—and as I mentioned earlier, and I think Dr. Gayle did as well—focus more on the—what I would say—the kind of retention kind of imperative versus the recruiting imperative. I think that, you know, we often make ourselves feel better when we have more numbers of people coming in, but if you can’t keep them, then you really haven’t moved the needle. So it’s really about, you know, working towards finding ways to level the playing field because many people from diverse backgrounds, and backgrounds generally, you know. It may not be that it’s ethnic diversity. It may be economic diversity, where there’s not as much exposure to some of the things and some of the skillsets that translate into success in organizations. So really working on that and being a sponsor of persons who are recruited who are from diverse backgrounds I think will go a long way towards solving the problem. GAYLE: And I would just add, I mean, I would imagine all of us are where we are today because somebody recognized something in us and gave us a break. You know, once you get into an organization, it is about relationships and networks that get to and move you to the next stage. Yes, there’s objective information about how well you perform, but you know, again, there’s a lot of data that show, given equal performance, it is those networks and people looking out for you and those relationships that actually often make the difference in terms of career mobility and retention. And so you know, I’ve seen organizations and companies that have actually systematically made it a priority that managers had to come up with five people that they see as folks that they would want to, you know, mentor and help build their careers, and that no manager could have a pool of mentees that was not diverse. And so I think, you know, there are ways in which you can get companies to actually think much more proactively about those relationships and the ways that you can help provide support. But you’ve got to—as we’ve all said—you got to believe that it’s actually in your benefit. And I think that’s part of it. You know, it’s both helping companies believe it and figuring out are there systems that you can put in place that kind of simulate what might take a lot longer to just happen on its own. SHAH: I guess the only comment I would add is that I think retention of mid-career professionals in the, you know, national security agencies and the military is something they’re struggling across the board with, right? Both diverse and non-diverse candidates. And we could explore our diverse candidates impacted even more. But the lack of flexibility in human capital systems, you know, the promotion systems that perhaps haven’t changed for several decades, you know, again, I think it’s—the world is moving at a much higher speed. If you look how fast people will progress in technology businesses I think our human capital approach has to evolve in the national security organizations. And we’re going to lose all kinds of qualified people to opportunities on the outside if that doesn’t happen. LAMB-HALE: I would add something just from my own experience, which is I think that it’s vital that you have leadership at every level say that this is an absolutely essential priority, and that it is unequivocal, and that there are metrics involved with that. Because if there is not someone at the very top who then enforces it at every level on the way down saying: This is absolutely important that we retain. You will be judged on that. You will—there will be—it’s part of the metrics of how we evaluate you and your performance. I think a lot of lip service can be paid to things that don’t actually end up happening. So I think that that is one of the sort of most important things.  And then secondly, I think it is really important that when you are looking, especially at that middle level, it’s exactly what you said, Raj. It’s this idea of, how do we evolve? How do we meet the expectations of the talented people where they’re at? And how do we make sure that they’re feeling fulfilled, and that they’re feeling challenged, and that they’re not constrained by the systems that we’ve—and I mean, we, all of us—put in place, you know, to sort of make—to constrain them? So I think there’s a lot of different things that, especially at the middle level, need to be done to make sure that people who get into that position feel like they are valued and that they want to say. GARCIA-NAVARRO: Next, please. STAFF: Our next question will be from Pastore Arroyo (ph). Q: Hi. Can everyone hear me? Awesome. So good afternoon, everyone. And thank you for all the insights you’ve shared. As he said, my name is Pastore (ph), and I just got back from a Fulbright Scholarship, teaching English abroad. And so just a little context. After graduating from college I took a job as an entry-level assistant paralegal at a law firm, but I had no experience working at a law firm or being a paralegal. And so most of my training was on-the-job training, consisting, like, of a brief workshop and then asking my colleagues how to do this and that around the office. Do you believe that the transition to remote work could impact entry-level jobs, both in the work experience required to get the entry-levels and the experience of networking with colleagues and interacting with them in an office space? GAYLE: I’ll start. It’s funny that you should mention that, Pastore (ph), because we just had a discussion about that today at my firm. (Laughs.) Be it on Zoom, just like we are now, about the tension around the remote connections and then culture, quite frankly, and the ability to mentor. And I think that the conclusion that we drew was that, you know, technology-enabled interaction is certainly important and, you know, fortunately we have it during this crisis, but that we really need to have a mix of both virtual connectivity and in person because it’s through those in-person interactions that a lot of the things that we’re talking around, you know, sponsorship and mentorship can really come to—you know, come into reality. And so one of the suggestions that we’re kicking around that was made was just, you know, making sure that as we do this that, you know, as the crisis permit, as it abates, we ensure that there are in-person meetings. You know, maybe it’s—you know, you choose the cadence. It depends on the business. But that it’s important that there be actual in-person connectivity to get to know people, to understand their strengths and weaknesses better, and to just develop relationships, because the other thing that is important is that, you know, mentors and sponsors, you know, they should come about organically, I think. I think they’re most successful when that happens. I’ve been in organizations where it’s kind of been forced top-down, and it never worked that way. And the only way for it to be organic is for there to be real human-to-human interaction. And so I think that we need to, you know, take advantage of technology, certainly, but I don’t think it can ever replace human interaction. SHAH: I agree with exactly what Nicole said. We are humans. You know, Pastore (ph), we’re social animals. And so we crave and need that interaction. And I think all of us are doing the best we can with technology to bridge the gap for now. But, you know, I’m optimistic that at some point the world will return to normalcy. GAYLE: Yeah, I would agree with all that, with the one addition that we may be in this for a while, and I think we got to figure out how not to have this be an excuse for not doing some of the things that we know are important to do. So, you know, it is—it is definitely not—the intangible of in-person is missing but, you know, I also think it would be a moment where people could say, oh, well therefore we can’t keep anything moving that has to do with, you know, human resources, talent development, diversity, et cetera. And I think we just got to keep pushing while we’re in this moment. But all the other things, I totally agree. STAFF: Our next question is from Stephanie Hanson (sp), who asks: What are best practices to address an inequitable promotion pace problem within an organization, especially when it might be largely caused by unconscious bias? GARCIA-NAVARRO: Who wants to take that? GAYLE: Well, I guess I would just start by saying: attacking the unconscious bias. I mean, there’s so many ways now. And I think most workplaces these days are realizing that even if they don’t believe it, that they should do it. And I think sometimes in the doing it they start believing. And so I think, you know, attacking the unconscious bias first and foremost. But you know, as anything with, you know, HR, having documentation is also important. You know, if you think you’ve been passed up, or somebody thinks they’ve been passed up, being able to really have the data to demonstrate, you know, your case, and to be able to ask the questions: You know, what did go into the thinking about this? But, you know, I think as we’ve said a few times, I think attacking these things head-on is the way you really get to start at least chipping away at some of the issues. LAMB-HALE: And I know it’s an uncomfortable conversation, asking people who much they earn and telling people how much they earn, but I personally have always been a big believer in sharing that information because I think that it is helpful to others to understand where you stand and where others stand, because it is almost impossible without the data to understand exactly if there is an actual problem or if there is, you know, just the perception of a problem. And that is something. Also pay equity studies are important, I think. Many companies are increasingly doing them so that there is, you know, a defense against any perception of systematic differences in pay, which we know exist obviously because we all see the data writ large. But that is also something that has happened in my company and has happened in others. STAFF: Excellent. Our next question is from Taylor Jackson (sp). Q: Hi. Thank you guys so much for being here. This has all been very informative. My question is for Dr. Gayle and Ms. Lamb-Hale. As a Black woman myself, I’m curious to know how you have seen your experiences as Black women working in international affairs different from some of your white counterparts. And how have those differences contributed to challenges throughout your careers? GAYLE: Wow, that’s a big question. (Laughs.) You know, it’s funny. I’ll give you two anecdotes, both of which—I mean, I think they’re kind of funny. We’ll see what you guys think. But I think what I often try to do is to infuse a little bit of humor and kind of make it a little bit more light, so that—I think sometimes the question, or the issue is addressed better that way. So I’ll tell you something kind of early in my career that happened, and then something, you know, more recent that I really thought was funny. I think you will to. If I ever write a book, it will be about the second thing I tell you. So the first thing. You know, I’m a young lawyer. You know, I used to be called kiddo all the time. Now I wish people would call me kiddo. You know, gosh, you finally grow up. But I remember, you know, I always looked very young and, you know, as a result, I would always be a little bit more formal than most of my colleagues because I wanted to look a little older so, you know, I would look like I was really a lawyer, right. So I remember once getting into an elevator. I’m in my office. You know, I had started practicing law in Detroit, Michigan. So I’m in my office elevator and there’s this older white gentleman that walks into the elevator with me. We ride up, and he notices that I’m going to the law firm that I said that, you know, that he was familiar with in that tower. So he said, oh, are you a paralegal, and I said, no, I’m a Harvard-trained lawyer, and I just smiled at him. And he was so embarrassed, and I felt like, wow, I taught him something today, right. So, you know, and I wasn’t angry about it. I smiled about it, and then I saw him later and, boy, did he want to avoid me. But over time, it got better. But, you know, it’s funny. That’s a story—I don’t know that, you know, one of my white counterparts, particularly one of my white male counterparts, would have received a question like that. I think there was some bias. I don’t think he could imagine that I could be a lawyer at this law firm. And so I think over time, you know, things like that happening—you know, it’s one person at a time. I get it. But I think it helps to, you know, break down stereotypes. So the more recent situation happened when I was in government. So I was an assistant secretary in the International Trade Administration at Commerce. So one of—the major part of my job was to take U.S. trade missions around the world. So I took a trade mission to Algiers and Libya, which was interesting. It was twenty-five U.S. companies. While the members of the trade mission were meeting with potential business partners, I was negotiating market access challenges and issues with my government counterparts. Well, there was one meeting where I was meeting with a minister from the Algerian government and I arrived a little bit early with my team. And, you know, it was a beautiful room, you know, mahogany tables. My flag and our flag was next to my chair. You know, the Algerian flag was next to the minister’s chair who I was going to meet with. And one of the staff from the minister’s office saw me approach the chair and he said, ma’am, that chair is for the minister, and I said, I am the minister. And he was, again, very embarrassed. And so I guess I say all that to say that, you know, people make assumptions, certainly, and sometimes there are challenges because people can’t imagine that you could be the one in charge, you could be the assistant secretary, you could be the ambassador. But I think that the more that we do it and the more that we not let that kind of thing get us down, I think the more progress we’ll make. GAYLE: And I have my own series of humorous stories of being taken for granted. I will maybe talk about the reverse, which is I think that sometimes being a woman and being African American has actually been an advantage for me in international settings. I feel I have often been accepted in ways that I think I might not have been accepted if I was a white male. And so I actually think there are times when people actually value the diversity, value that you’re bringing something different, and I think in a lot of international contexts, as an African American people may not have some of the same hostility when you’re in situations where there is—there has been misunderstandings or tensions with America. Sometimes I think people actually value seeing people of color because they feel like you’re not “bad American.” And so, you know, I think there’s actually sometimes been a real value and I think sometimes being a woman has been refreshing in some of these international contexts where they are used to seeing only men. So I think it cuts both ways. GARCIA-NAVARRO: And I’ll just add real quick so we can get to more questions, but to the point that Helene just made, one of the nicest things that was probably said to me on that very mission—this was now in Tripoli—there was a Libyan businessman who, you know, I was talking to at an event and he said, the United States should send more people like you, and I thought, wow. And that’s to the point that Helene is making. I mean, I think it was refreshing to him to see me. GAYLE: Yeah. And I would—you know, just to say, you know, I think for those of us people of color oftentimes the Diaspora—the home countries or, you know, what have you actually value very much seeing that diversity and see it as a real strength to see those of us who may represent parts of the world that we all, you know, came from at some point in time. OPERATOR: Excellent. Our next question is from Anita Joshi (sp), who asks: The panelists have discussed the opportunity for permanent positive change as a result of COVID. Yet, many firms still discuss the COVID as a temporary situation. How can we ensure organizations will be open to permanently transforming how they operate rather than anxiously racing back to the normal, and how do we ensure the more inclusive changes necessitated by COVID stick? GARCIA-NAVARRO: Raj? SHAH: You know, I think many of these companies are just going to be forced to make these changes. So, for example, I talked a little bit about the remote work and I think what an advantage that will be to democratize access, particularly the high-tech jobs. Well, you know, this COVID episode is going to take at least three months if not longer, and there will be a lot of data that will emerge, right. How many new recruits did you get? How much more efficient were your workforce by not having in a—not have them come to a physical space? And so I think the answer, in my opinion, for maintaining some of these things is for the things that did work have the data, expose the data, and show those results. And so that’s, again, I think—the key advantage, I think, is, you know, especially when we talk about digital transformation, for a lot of businesses it’s a prospective thing, meaning if we transformed it sounds like it will be great. Now that you’re having this force transformation there’s actually data. It’s not, you know, prospective. It may be nice if we have it. But they can actually go back and see the results. So I think some of these will actually stick and not go away. GAYLE: Yeah, I would disagree. I think that anyone who feels like we’re going to go back to the same road we left is probably unrealistic. I think these changes, because they are going to be long term in terms of the way that we work, I think we are going to be thinking very differently and in innovative ways. I think in terms of the issues of inclusivity, you know, some of that—I just think all of us who believe in it need to keep beating the drum about why it’s so important and I think, you know, if we look at the impact of COVID and what it has done disproportionately to some communities versus the other, there’s no way that we can hide from that. You know, I think the realities of the—both the health but particularly the economic impact is going to be very real. So I think, you know, we’re going to have to face some of these challenges. This is not a, you know, we did this and we’re out of here. This is going to have long-term impact for our society and we’re going to have to adapt and be innovative if we really want to come out of this in a winning position. OPERATOR: Excellent. Our next question is from Angana Shah. Q: Hi. This is Angana Shah, ICAP 2013. I am currently working in Michigan. Hi, Nicole. And I’ve been working with an NGO on COVID-19 response, and I read an article recently that made me realize that NGO leaders are still disproportionately white. So I’ve moved away a little bit from the international sector. My story is I had a child and I don’t want to travel so much anymore and I’m transferring my skills. But most of these NGOs were trying to work with marginalized communities, but the person at the head is almost always a white man because, you know, we partner with others. And I like all the leaders. And I’m going back to when I was in law school, and every single person who was able to take a public interest job that paid, like, 20,000 (dollars)—this was in the ’90s but still—very hard to—they had rich parents, not middle class. I mean, you know, well off. And I feel like there’s a big—the whole free internship or the internship that doesn’t pay living expenses in D.C., I feel like that’s a huge barrier to some of the real policy-oriented public interest work entryways—gateways. So maybe this isn’t the right forum. Some international work is better paid. But I think even in some international NGOs, you know, you got a kid volunteering to work for free and write a brief because, you know, someone can pay their rent. I feel like it might even start there where you kind of have to go corporate and you can’t follow some of those regular career paths because you’re really—well, you could have tons of loans or you could really—you just really can’t afford it if you don’t have someone who, as much as they want to, can give you that initial boost. So is there something—I mean, in my opinion, I think jobs should pay more and should pay enough to live where they are, even internships. On the other hand, now that I’m switching careers, I want to be able to do free work. But I have a lot of seniority and I can pick up consulting work to pay my bills. A new kid out of college can’t. LAMB-HALE: You know, I think there are more opportunities to find—to support these—(audio break). You know, interestingly, you know, there are more paid internships on the Hill than there used to be. I think there’s a recognition that, you know, there is that barrier for economic diversity. But, you know, often there are grants that are available—you have to do some research to find them—that help support living expenses for entry-level jobs, you know, internships. So I hear you. I mean, it is a very difficult issue and I think it does contribute to what we’re talking about, kind of a lack of diversity as you get more senior because of where everyone starts. If someone is starting on third base versus someone who’s starting, you know, on first or no base, it’s harder. But I think that there are, increasingly, opportunities through foundations and other organizations to help to ease some of that, that financial disparity. GAYLE: Yeah. And I think, you know, we have intentionally shifted a lot of our funding of the nonprofit sector to support organizations that are led by people of color, and so I think part of it is being very deliberate about that. And that doesn’t mean there are, you know, still really great NGOs that are headed by, you know, white leaders and, you know, if that’s the right organization that’s fine. But we’ve been very explicit about really trying to support organizations and particularly if they’re working in communities of color to support organizations that are led by people of color. And, you know, there’s lots of them and there are a lot of people-of-color organizations who don’t get as well funded. And there was just a couple of research studies out Bridgespan Consulting Group and an article in the Stanford Social Innovation publication that looked at this, how the disparity between funding for white-led organizations versus organizations of color with really good documentation about how organizations of color who went—led by people of color, if they went in for a grant application what—the paces that they were put through versus white colleagues. And so, you know, it’s there. You know, one of my colleagues referred to it as philanthropic redlining because there is a real tendency to think that the caliber of leadership is different if it’s white-led versus people-of-color-led. So I think it’s another one of these issues where we’ve got to start demystify, breaking down the barriers, and getting this information out there, and then starting to make some deliberate choices to fund organizations that are led by people of color. GARCIA-NAVARRO: Any thoughts, Raj? SHAH: No, I agree. I mean, I think exactly that they said. GARCIA-NAVARRO: OK. I think we’re coming to the end. We only have a couple of minutes left. So I’m just going to thank you all for joining today’s virtual meeting and thank you, of course, to our panelists for this very important discussion. And please note that the audio and video of today’s meeting will be posted on the CFR website. Thanks again. LAMB-HALE: Thank you. Bye-bye. GAYLE: Thanks. GARCIA-NAVARRO: Bye. (END)

AYRES: Good morning. Good morning. It’s great to see so many people here today. I understand we have a full house. That’s terrific. We have what I am certain is going to be an excellent discussion for you this morning on the topic of the Future of Democracy Around the World. So welcome to this morning’s meeting, part of the 2019 Conference on Diversity in International Affairs. My name is Alyssa Ayres. I’m senior fellow here at the Council on Foreign Relations. And my focus is India, Pakistan, and South Asia. I will be presiding over this discussion. Now, you all know the drill. You’ve got the bios of our panelists in your speaker packets. I’d like to ask you to take a look at their bios, because we have three extremely impressive diplomats here. And normally I’m not supposed to go into detail about people’s bios, but I really want to emphasize we’ve got an extraordinary depth of expertise. So I want to make sure that you’re all aware of who is speaking with us this morning. At the very far right we have Ambassador Jendayi Frazer. She has held very senior positions in Africa foreign policy, senior director for African affairs on the NSC, assistant secretary of state for African affairs, ambassador to South Africa, extremely experienced. We have Julissa Reynoso, who is extremely experienced, former ambassador to Uruguay, former deputy assistant deputy secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs, deeply involved in politics as well, as your bio notes. We’re happy you’re able to join us. We also have Uzra Zeya. Uzra and I worked together at the State Department, so I’m very happy that she’s able to join us today . Uzra was a career foreign service officer. She has served all over the world. She also served for more than a year as the acting assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, and labor. She’ll be able to tell you about that experience. And she’s now chief executive officer and president of the Alliance for Peacebuilding. So I have gone on a little bit longer than I normally would on the bios front, but please make sure that you read about the backgrounds of these very talented women, so you’ll understand exactly what depth of expertise they’re bringing to our conversation today. So let me start things off by asking Jendayi, we had a conversation yesterday to talk about sort of commonalities and where we think this conversation on the future of democracy in the world should go. I’m going to ask each of our panelists just a little bit about the state of the field as they see it in the regions they cover or thematically around the world. So, Jendayi, tell us from your perspective what you think the state of democracy is, from the part of the world that you focus on. FRAZER: Sure. Thank you. Thank you very much. And good morning to all of you. It’s a great pleasure to be here and also to participate in this forum of really quite exceptional women. Normally when I’m in Africa, I’m on a panel like this and it’s one woman and, you know, five or six men. So it’s great to be here with unanimous, you know, representation of women in foreign policy. So specifically on the question of the state of the field in Africa, of course it’s difficult to generalize because the continent is so diverse, with 54 different countries, you know, and so many different societies, ethnic groups, you know, languages, et cetera. But I think that we can find some broad trends. And so what I would say is normatively democracy is still—has hegemonic aspirations and hegemonic acceptance across the continent. This is seen from the point of view of the African Union which has its charter on democracy, human rights, that has been basically brought into force in 2012, as adopted in 2007. And it’s also seen not only in terms of that continental institution, but I think you can also see it on the street. African—the population median age is about nineteen years old. Very young people. It’s a continent with majority young people. The average of African presidents is about sixty-two. So there’s a big diversity there. And you can see that there’s an active participation of young people pushing for accountability of their governments. This is demonstrated, of course, in North African by what I call the North African spring. I don’t know why people call it the Arab Spring, since it started in Tunisia, you know, Egypt, Libya. Now you see Algeria and Sudan also falling—regimes—long-standing regimes falling to the demands of civil society and young people in the street. You also see it from the perspective of southern Africa, where you had not really the street but the party almost having a coup d’état against long-running regimes like that of Robert Mugabe. And even some accountability, from the party, again, in South Africa against Jacob Zuma. And so when we look at the trends in Africa, it’s really—I would say that there’s still a prevailing aspiration for democracy. The practice, however, is very different. You’ve had pushback against constitutional democracy in the form of term limits. You know, the changes to term limits—about ten or so countries in recent times, in 2000, have changed their term limits to either get rid of them or to extend them. At the same time, there’s about eight or nine countries that have rejected efforts to change term limits and have actually kept their constitutional order as it is, mainly two-term limits. I’ll conclude by just saying if you look at the broad trends of the democracy in Africa, in the 1960s, after independence, you really had basically two systems which were adopted. One was multiparty democracy, following sort of the Western liberal model. And then one-party socialist states, with the view there being that African countries were so diverse and they needed unity coming out of independence. And so they would have more of a socialist one party—not authoritarian necessary but finding democracy within the one party. That was the nature of the debate coming out of the independence period. Of course, it also reflected the East-West dynamic from the end of the Cold War. Then if you go into the ’70s, when the economy started to fall you had a rejection, almost, of democracy in the form of attempted coup d’états or successful coup d’état leading to military rule. That trend of the ‘70s, and authoritarian regimes—one-party authoritarian regimes. That trend shifted in the ’80s, particularly at the end of the ’80s with the end of the Cold War, and you had a return, again, to participatory multiparty democracy. Not a perfect democracy, because many of these elections are contested, some of them are very flawed, but nevertheless there’s a degree of competitive electoral politics there, and participation from civil society. So the ’80s, you get back to a dominant model of multiparty democracy, into the ’90s—really the end of the ’80s-’90s. And then in 2000 you continue to have, as I said, this normative hegemony that democracy—a multiparty democracy is preferred by society and accepted by political leadership. But the threats to that have been the term limit question. And now, into the end of the 2000s—so, you know, going into the next decade, 2020s, you have the China debate around whether—in fact, if you want to have fast economic growth, you need longer terms. These four- and five-year terms of competitive democracy disrupt economic growth and development. And so maybe China’s model of a one-party state with twenty-five-year terms, et cetera, looks more attractive. And so that, I think, the nature of the debate right now. And of course, with China’s push into Africa, economic push into Africa, strong economic push, that model becomes more of a debate. But if you actually look at political polling done by Afrobarometer, you’ll see that the majority of African citizens still prefer a U.S. model of development to the Chinese model of development. That’s—that poll was done in about 2017. But the trend is definitely another approach to governance being—and development—being that of China. AYRES: Thank you. Julissa, how does the state of the field look from a Latin American perspective? REYNOSO: So in the case of Latin America, you have several factors at play in terms of democracy, and human rights, and stability generally. For the most part, most countries—again, they’re diverse—it’s a diverse region. But the Caribbean is in that mix as well. Most countries have had stable institutional democratic processes over the last several decades. You have exceptions to that, right? So you have the case of Venezuela, that’s a recent—a relatively recent phenomena of deterioration and kind of parallel governments. And what that may look like is still a work in progress and very much active. You have the case of Nicaragua, where there has been essentially manipulation of the constitution for purposes of having one president reelected again and again, with a very weak opposition. And the most prominent one, the case of Cuba, which has been in place for many decades. And there has been, however, not every strong, authoritarian government is consistently that way. There are nuances. And in the case of Cuba you did have a change in leadership over the last couple of years. And obviously the death of Fidel Castro generated certain movement within the party. So you do still have the Communist Party very much running the place. And rules that are extremely regimented and with very little freedom for public debate. And then you have other places where you do have manipulation of the constitution and questionable election processes. Places like Haiti, which is—which is constantly—a place like Haiti is constantly—you know, you never know what’s going to happen one minute to the next. You might see some stability over a year or two, but then something breaks and there is chaos, and then you have instability from within the government or an attempt of manipulating the voting, et cetera. The Dominican Republic, the neighbor, where I’m originally from, not necessarily in the news because of that but definitely a place where the constitution has been changed over the last decade several times for the convenience of the ruling party, and reelection, reelection, reelection. So there is—there are nuances. You have the extreme cases, more historic and more sort of publicly known. And in the press—in the press here in the United States, again, I argue, significantly because of the domestic—the U.S. domestic component that is very much relevant when you talk about Latin America, probably more than any other part of the world. When you talk about Latin America you talk about people who also live here, right? And people who have family here, or residence, or have deep connections and send money there, and have businesses there, et cetera. You don’t have that fluidity of borders and transnational relationship like you might have with other parts of the world. So in the case of Cuba, you know, Venezuela, even Nicaragua, you have a prominent, you know, significant population of folks who are related to those countries who obviously have say and interest in seeing democracy, stability, and human rights, and the like, in those countries, and are very active domestically here—make it a point of doing so. You have places like Mexico, and the Dominical Republic, and other Central American countries with not only issues of democratic order and what we consider, you know, bread and butter elections, and things like that, but also deep institutional weaknesses related to rule of law and insecurity that are, you know, affecting our domestic policy because people are fleeing their countries and coming here. So and then it becomes an internal immigration issue, an identity issue of, well, who is the United States, and who are all these people coming here, and who are these people? And they don’t look like, you know, what the U.S. should be. So there is that dynamic that is really I think not necessarily an election issue—which is, I guess, what maybe people want a basic notion of what democracy should look like, but really a matter of the role of the state in protecting—in citizen security and protecting your physical well-being, right? And I think for the most part, in many instances, in many of these countries—especially in Central America and parts of Mexico and even, gosh, in Venezuela and Colombia where, you know, you still have rampant violence, are questioning whether the state can really do that, and what should these states do to improve their mechanisms of protecting people. But also, how do people feel safe in their country and really represented by the folks who they elect and ensuring that they have their best interests in mind. That creates a whole set of dynamics and, you know, parallel, you know, folks fighting back, more violence, and turbulence within these countries, but also questions of the authority and the legitimacy of the state. Related to that, you have people just leaving, which is what we’re seeing here effecting the United States and our domestic policy on the border, and obviously coming by flight as well. More south of the region, of Latin America, you have countries that are—you know, don’t have those direct links as much with the United States, but have historically gone through significant shifts, very much towards democratic stability. But, again, you have an element which is very prevalent in Latin America right now, and such as most, but not all, countries, which is these anti-corruption movements that are really pushing back on historic power-grabbing and irregularities, and all types of illicit acts by government people and elites. And you saw that—we’ve seen that. We’re still living it from places like Argentina all the way to Mexico, with the most kind of prominent case being in Brazil with the really kind of role of the judiciary and role of the prosecutors in pursuing organized crime linking government officials directly with extraordinary organized bribery schemes and the like. And that toppled a government. You have presidents in prison. You have—specifically President Lula, who years ago was the model of the progressive movement and wave in Latin America, but also did such—made such a tremendous effort to reduce poverty in these countries, which still have significant inequality issues. From there to Argentina, where you have open indictments against the president who, by the way, has immunity because she’s a senator and is trying to become president again. So but that touches many of these countries with very, very, very few exceptions. So in any event, just in summary, there is no consistent kind of message or you can’t put all these countries in easy cubicles or easy boxes. There is—but, however, we can say that there is a civil society component that is important. The role of judiciary has become very prominent, in the prosecutors and fighting crime and pushing back on the role of elites and just doing whatever they want—in coordination, I must say, with the U.S. government, the role of the U.S. Justice Department here in coordinating these efforts. Again, this relationship between Latin America and the Caribbean, the United States, can’t—it’s extraordinary how much they coexist, and cooperate, and work together. From the judiciary and the federal government to the very basic coordination and coexistence of regular citizens and people who live here. So from the anti-corruption, rule of law issues to the—to the despair of people fleeing violence, these are things that are really questioning and touching state institutions and democracy as we know it in a lot of these countries. AYRES: Thank you. Uzra, an I turn to you and ask you to speak a little bit about the state of the field as you see it, whether from some of the regions that you have worked in or from the perspective of democracy more broadly? ZEYA: Sure. Sure, no and I’m delighted to be here in front of such a dynamic and diverse audience. I have to say that. I’ll speak from my own experience over two decades, working primarily in the Middle East, in South Asia, in Europe, but also from the perspective of leading an NGO network which is focused on ending violent conflict and sustaining peace throughout the world. So for me, when I consider the state of democracy, and building on what Julissa and Jendayi shared so eloquently, I think it’s easy to be pessimistic when you see closing space for civil society, when you see elected authoritarians on the rise. But I’m an optimist by nature. So I want to share a few takeaways from my own experiences that I think can be helpful if we are making an affirmative decision that we believe that the advancement of democratic principles by locally led actors around the world can create a more just and peaceful world. So my first takeaway would be, I think there is a tendency to over-focus on electoral processes as the be-all, end-all definition of democracy. Obviously that’s an essential element but, you know, a democratic society is not one man, one vote, one time. And I have seen this situation play out—I mean, I think Jendayi and Julissa, you know, very aptly described multiple circumstances where electoral processes are used—or an electoral victory can be used, constitutions manipulated, term limits removed, institutions of government co-opted in such a way that while you may have a regular electoral cycle, you no longer have a truly democratic society. So I think for all of us, you know, there’s an imperative to really focus on those building blocks, much of what has been discussed already. Checks and balances in terms of institutions of democratic government. We mentioned rule of law. Absolutely critical. A meaningful legislative-executive branch balance and divide. But perhaps most importantly, freedom of association that allows a vibrant, robust civil society that includes young people like you holding government accountable, because you can have elections every four, five, ten years. But if you do not allow civil society to thrive and drive change, you are really not going to achieve what I think, you know, the vision is of a truly just, inclusive, and peaceful world. So from my own experience I think, in government but also outside government, we need to look beyond electoral processes to a broader definition of a democratic society. The second point I would make is it’s not a one-size-fits-all approach. And certainly our American two-party model is truly the exception in the world. In my own experience, I was in India in 2009, where there were 1,049 political parties competing in their parliamentary elections. It’s almost mind-blowing. You know, you can imagine at an embassy, as a political officer, just trying to keep track of that. But I think it—(laughter)—you know, and I didn’t. (Laughter.) It was hard to name all of them until I met a member of the government—it was a coalition government—who confessed to me that he didn’t know the names of all the parties in his coalition. It’s that complex. So, again, when we talk about what democracy is, again, I would bring up the word locally led solutions. You’ve got to allow countries to define that, reflecting their own traditions, their own histories, their own modes of consensus building, and not imagine that it’s going to be a mirror image of what we have in the United States and that, in fact, what we have here is rather unique and different compared to the more common model of multiparty, multi-stakeholder, even regional, geographic divides that just aren’t quite reflected in our system. And the third and final point I would make is that, you know, the advance of democracy for Americans, it’s not just a nice to do. I mean, this is really a vital matter of our national security. And I think the point I would make is that, you know, authoritarian systems can look very stable and very strong. But as far as a long-term investment, you know, let’s go down the list of Mubarak, Baby Doc, Mobutu, the Shah Reza Pahlavi, and Ferdinand Marcos as examples of, you know, very close, long-standing U.S. allies that eventually the collective denial of rights, the corruption, the brittle nature of single-party rule was simply untenable. So while it seems as though one could take an approach, this doesn’t matter to me because I need to think about my own country, the outward effects of the demise of democracy or failed political transitions have catastrophic consequences far beyond borders. And need I mention just three cases in the Middle East right now? Syria, Yemen, and Libya. Where Syria, we have over half a million civilians killed. There is not an accurate toll. Yemen is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis at the moment. And the Libya crisis continues unresolved since 2012. All three cases, sadly, are failed or struggling political transitions where there was a window of opening. And in the Yemen case in particular it’s a very sad story, where there was a U.N.-led political process, there was an effort at—there was a transition from a long-standing leader. But we are all dealing with the consequences now. So, again, the idea that it doesn’t really matter to me I’m going to focus on what’s happening here, I think that’s—that is a short-sighted assessment. So for me, all of this means, you know, there is a strong national security case but also a moral case to support the advancement of democracy and just and inclusive societies. I think we have to take a long view and be willing to accompany for the long road. And with that, with humility, let’s look at our own country and look at how long it took for our own country to get beyond the scourge of slavery, and millions of Americans enslaved, half of the population disenfranchised, and realistically it was only in my lifetime that we have seen a full exercise of voting rights in our country. And with that, I think we can’t, you know, wash our hands and say that one country’s transition is failing because ten years in it isn’t achieving a level of inclusion and engagement that we see in our own country, but we really need to be able to accompany. And my final point on that would be, that takes a serious investment in diplomacy and development. Just one statistic I will share with you all, the field of work that my network supports, peacebuilding, it’s a spectrum of nonviolent action—everything from development, humanitarian relief, human rights capacity building—to sustain peace but also end violent conflict. That is only collectively 1 percent of overseas development assistance worldwide. If we were to double that number for the thirty-one most fragile states—states on the brink of becoming the next Syria or Yemen—the cost savings would be $2.94 trillion in terms of wars averted. So, you know, there is just a hardnosed cost argument one can make towards making that investment. The final piece, I would say, for that diplomacy to be successful, it’s got to be diverse and it has to include people like you as the next generation driving that forward. AYRES: Wow, thank you. (Laughs.) I am supposed to now open it up for Q&A. I wanted to ask each of our panelists to think a little bit about the future of democracy. But let’s hold that, because I want to make sure to get all of your questions in and we’re already at 10:30. So why don’t we go ahead and invite participants to join the conversation here. I’m supposed to remind everybody that the meeting is on the record. Please wait for the microphone. We have people with microphones who will bring it to you if you raise your hand. Stand, please. State your name and your affiliation. And, by the way, please limit yourself to one question, and keep it concise. No speeches, just a question. (Laughs.) So do you have any questions? Yes, over here. Q: Hi. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Quscondy Abdulshafi. I am peacebuilding and governance researcher. My question is particularly with Africa, where you see a new very strong alliance between Chinese corporations and kleptocratic governments where exploitation of natural resources and minerals play a very strong role in foiling the violent conflicts and atrocities. So I just—I’m from Sudan, and I see how much the U.S. sanctions has played a very strong role on—(inaudible)—the state from committing further violence and helping people to peacefully change the government. So thinking in that angle, I see what—where do you see the new role for, in a sense, the U.S. Department of Treasury in doing individual and corporate sanctions for those in institutions that are related to the conflict are, minerals and conflict-related investments? How do you see this in the future? And what kind of perspectives do you see that could play a role in stabilization and promoting the democracy in fragmented states? Thank you. AYRES: Thank you very much. So a question on sanctions. FRAZER: Do you want to take it? ZEYA: Jendayi, do you want to go first? (Laughter.) FRAZER: I want you to go first. ZEYA: OK. I’ll take the—I’ll take the first part. On the sanctions question, you know, I would say, having been an American diplomat, you know, over twenty-five years, I’ll admit, you know, I think there is a really different perception within the U.S. government or within, let’s say, transatlantic government and public opinion with respect to sanctions. I view sanctions as a very effective tool, short of war, to try to compel a change in behavior. And I think with respect to conflict minerals, you can make a case that it cut off a method of fueling further conflict. But it can only work if you have a partnership or a collective—either, you know, a U.N. Security Council Chapter 7 enforcement action, or a likeminded effort with respect to denying, you know, access to the market of a certain product that is produced or fueling violent action. I mean, in my own lifetime, you know, as a college student, it was a strong supporter of the divestment movement with respect to South Africa. And I think that is, you know, certainly not taking any credit for the struggle that was led by the South African people, but I think that is one of the instances you can point to where sanctions did play a positive pressure role in pushing for a necessary change. But that’s just from my on perspective. FRAZER: Sure. Maybe I can take up the question of Sudan specifically. Yes, you’re quite right that the Chines role in Sudan, and I would say more broadly in Africa, is one in which they claim that they’re not interfering in domestic affairs. And they’ve taken a position, therefore, in which they’re working often with the regime. In Sudan, in particular, not only were they taking oil out, but they were putting a lot of arms in. They were, you know, trading a lot of arms in Sudan. And so clearly they were supporters of the regime, whereas the United States has historically been in opposition to the Khartoum government for a number of human rights issues and terrorism issues as well. But of late, in—I think it was in 2017—we had taken sanctions off, there was a roadmap for Sudan to get out of the grip of the United States. And there are some who argue that the effectiveness of the demonstrations in Sudan of ousting the president Bashir, had a lot to do with the failure—the restraint of the Khartoum government to crackdown on those demonstrations, given that they were also at the same time trying to further reduce sanctions with the United States. They’re in this roadmap process in which they needed to show greater restraint. Yet, they were dealing with a civil uprising and not able to take the brute force—it’s not to say that they weren’t still, you know, picking off civil society leaders and members, et cetera. So that dynamic was definitely there. What I would argue is that on the extractive side, China and the United States are not absolutely different, right, especially historically, right? So that most of the two-way trade between the United States and Africa is actually still in the extractives, just as it is with China. We are more—we have been more nuanced about our promotion of democracy, and human rights, and civil society because we don’t take this position of non-interference. We do interfere. In the past, we’ve interfered both diplomatically as well as through our statements. And then we can perhaps go too far when we start taking more extreme measures like we look, from my perspective, in Libya. So I do agree with you that sanctions is a tool that gives us perhaps not as—not as robust, but probably a more effective approach to putting pressure on regimes and on individuals. Certainly from our civil society, there continues to be a push—and in our government—to use economic sanctions and smart sanctions particularly to bring pressure. We used those—that pressure against the government in Zimbabwe. We obviously—we had so many sanctions on Sudan that over years—you know, the Clinton administration, the Bush administration, the Obama administration—you know, we had so many sanctions that we didn’t even know how to get out of them. I mean, our Congress has put so many sanctions on that there was a whole interagency process to figure out what would the government actually have to do to get out of these sanctions. Some of them didn’t have an out. They just had—you know, they didn’t specify what the government needed to do to change. But with these smart sanctions, I think they’re effective, but I also worry about them a little bit, because when you can’t unroll them, then they also become a barrier to actually getting change in the government. Or if you put them on specific individuals who have significant power, it also can entrench them. So none of these tools of diplomacy can be utilized individually as the right tool. It’s a matter of how it’s nuanced and how it’s worked diplomatically. So I think that’s the most important point. And I’ll put—I’ll say that without senior diplomats and without experienced diplomats, the use of these tools becomes less effective—much, much less effective. And I’m saying that because I do feel that the State Department in particular has been hollowed out in terms of its serious senior diplomats who can use these tools in a very nuanced fashion. So, yes, clearly sanctions work. Individual sanctions also put pressure. But they could also be counterproductive. AYRES: Other questions? Over here, yes. Q: Hello. My name is Nabila (ph). I am from Ecuador. And coming from Ecuador, I can definitely identify with what some of the panelists have said about democracy. My question is, what strengths can a country develop to improve their democracy from—and then defend it from both inside and outside threats? And when is outside intervention needed? Is outside intervention beneficial? When? Thank you very much. AYRES: Some of the big animating questions of U.S. foreign policy. Julissa, would you like to try that one? REYNOSO: Well, I mean, in every democracy has its challenges. We’ve seen it here. How do you make sure—how do you preserve a certain level of stability, or at least a minimum standard of whatever it is that we consider democracy? I think obviously empowering the—I’m a big fan of the separation of powers. And so one of the great things about this country—and I think the countries that I’m—in Latin America and all over the world that you really have stability, is these are countries that have institutions that are strong, but also independent, because you can have one institution that’s very strong and then does whatever it wants. But in the case of United States, we do have extremely preserved, independent, and respected by the citizens institutions. And as a lawyer, the judiciary, the courts are essential, I think, to preserving democracy. One thing is setting it up. Making sure—you know, having elections and having a democratic process, if you will, of electing leadership. But the other important piece is protection of rights or preserving rights and ensuring that there is a check on the authorities or the powers that are every day exercising that authority. And I think, for me, the courts are essential. Obviously civil society, broadly defined, but who protects what—what branch of government can essentially protect the civil society and minority views within that civil society? Again, the courts are key. So not to overemphasize it, but definitely having an independent judiciary that has its own kind of means and processes of deliberating and protecting minority voices and different points of view and critiques are, I think, critical to really preserving long-term some form of robust democracy. So I’ll leave it at that. AYRES: OK. Next question, here. Q: Thank you. Earl Carr, representing Momentum Advisors. I work in New—I’m based in New York City, working in the private sector. Oftentimes in the private sector we often talk about short-term—you know, what is the return for investors. How best should organizations like yourselves engage with the private sector? And how to get better buy-in from the private sector to further and strengthen democratic institutions? AYRES: Well, I think Jendayi and Julissa are both in the private sector. REYNOSO: I’m in the private sector, yeah. I haven’t been in government in a while. (Laughter.) Do you want to start, Jendayi? FRAZER: No, you go right ahead. (Laughter.) REYNOSO: OK. I mean, look, I think we all served abroad in some—these ladies longer than I did. But the private sector—U.S. investments and presence abroad are key to what we do, to what we did as U.S. diplomats. Obviously a big component of the United States’ presence abroad is capital. And that presence and that ability to, you know, discuss—present the United States not only as a—you know, a power of politics, and doctrine, and ideas, is definitely well-complimented by a power that actually can help you, country X, with job creation, and the growth, and economic prosperity. So that’s essential for what we do in promoting U.S. interests abroad, is that is a piece that is key. It’s also very important because private sector in the United States by law, again, not just because we’re good, enlightened people—by law also has to have a certain standard of conduct. And so having that certain standard of conduct that is applied not only within the United States but abroad for companies all over the place that have—that have benefit in the United States, be that from tax or some other regulatory matter, helps us set standards for—set the standard for other foreign investors—like the Chinese, like whatever, the Russians, et cetera. So the private sector is key, not only in diplomats don’t what we do but also spreading American power and American standards abroad. FRAZER: Yeah. I guess I’ll add to that. I would say that obviously private sector companies would rather operate in an environment of stability, and the rule of law, and transparency, right? And so we absolutely, as private sector, need that environment, especially for long-term investments. And so we have, I think, a common interest with the U.S. government in trying to promote the rule of law, and transparency, and fairness. Now, I would say that the standards that you’re talking about are important, but they also often hurt American companies—like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, et cetera—because other countries don’t actually implement. And also, the United States, in some coercive ways, I’ll say, goes after major companies. And they’re easy targets when they’re operating in countries like Africa and other places, where it’s very unclear and it can be quite opaque what the rule of law is. And so I think there needs to be a bit of a balance there with our Department of Justice actually working with the private sector, not actually going after the private sector, which undermines our capacity to be competitive in these, you know, emerging markets, is the way I would put it. So, yes, you know, an American presence and an American—and I’m talking about a U.S. government presence—an American positive presence within the countries—i.e., having good, open relations with the government—is going to be beneficial to the American private sector. The private sector often also have networks and ears on the ground in a way that’s different than official America. And so I think that the two, the private sector and the public sector overseas, can work quite well together. It shouldn’t be put in a position of opposition, you know? And I think that in some ways our Department of Justice today, in Africa now I’m talking about, especially as it relates to the Chinese and competition with the Chinese, is actually not helping us. I think they’re undermining us in many ways. ZEYA: If I can just pick up on Jendayi’s point about partnership, I think there are some—a bit of unsung success stories in terms of really a proliferation of multi-stakeholder partnerships that engage the private sector in upholding broader goals on things like fair labor standards. There’s the Fair Labor Association, involves several major American garment manufacturers, coming out of tragedies like the Rana Plaza fire in Bangladesh, which exposed conditions of labor for products that all Americans buy, that there’s a direct linkage between the supply chain but also the consumer base. But here, these are voluntary frameworks where companies are working with the U.S. government, with civil society organizations in the U.S. towards a broader goal. When I was running our human rights bureau, we were able to secure very meaningful participation by companies like Deloitte or Hilton on something called the Global Equality Fund, which is a multi-stakeholder partnership to advance LGBT equality across the world. Similarly, we partnered with Avon International to launch a new partnership countering gender-based violence. So I think there is absolutely an intersection and an interest. And I think there is a very strong base for partnership to grow on, as Jendayi said, and not see it purely as an enforcement or a punitive relationship. AYRES: I saw one back here, in the back on this side. Yeah. Q: Hi. Thank you. Simone Williams, Center for Strategic and International Studies. As we see information being manipulated as a tool to attack democratic states, what do you think can be done to combat this issue to further promote and protect democratic institutions? FRAZER: That’s a great question. AYRES: Yeah. Who’s working on this? Are you—(laughter)—who would like to speak to this one? This is a really specific, emerging issue. ZEYA: Yeah. I mean, I would be happy to address that. I have worked on that issue from different angles, both in government and in the private sector. I do think this is—this is a challenge for democratic societies, and particularly our own, with respect to the First Amendment and in preserving our core democratic principles, but also ensuring that information is not manipulated or presented in a deceptive way that is basically one form of cyberwarfare against our country. So they’re in—I do think, you know, there’s a very concerted effort and dialogue between government and the leading players in Silicon Valley in terms of—and a strong element of public pressure. I would say where—you know, where we are right now in 2019, I think, is very different from where the United States was in 2015. I worked—my last overseas assignment was in France, where I would say public opinion and public demand on issues of privacy is just way ahead of where the United States has been for the last decade. But I think we’re catching up. So I think there’s a scope for partnership and pressure, you know, in terms of the major players who are allowing this kind of information to proliferate on their platforms without, you know, let’s say accountability or origin in where it comes from. But within a legal frame we have to be very careful that in a desire to prevent we’re not undermining the very pillars of our own democracy. FRAZER: I just would add to that, just very briefly, it does cut both ways, where you see, and particularly in Africa, where—well, I shouldn’t say particularly. But definitely in Africa, where you see countries during, you know, post-election contestation, let’s put it that way, and they’re shutting down social media, and shutting down the press, in many ways prevent certain messages from coming out which they say can promote violence or ethnic, you know, tension. But in fact, it also shuts down opposition voices. And so it really does cut both ways. AYRES: Yeah. Before I take the next question I’m going to chime in for a half a second, just to note I would encourage all of you to take a look at the role that social media platforms are playing in India’s national elections, which are going on right now. India’s the—I think the largest country userbase for WhatsApp, which is end-to-end encrypted. It means that nobody has any idea what’s circulating. The social media platforms got together in advance of the beginning of the elections and created a voluntary code of conduct. That code of conduct is available. You can download it and read it. It’s on the Election Commission of India’s website. But that may provide something of a guidepost for the future of how the platforms will have to try to be accountable for the kind of disinformation that circulates, while also allowing freedom of expression that’s so important. Next question. We’ll go on this side. Right here in the middle. Q: Hi. Thank you so much. I’m Elizabeth Boyvit (ph). I work for NBCUniversal. But don’t worry, I’m not on the media side. (Laughter.) I’m in cyberthreat intelligence. But my question for you is a follow-up on your point on democracy and national security, and democracy being on of the posts on which, to a degree, stability stands on. Recently we began to see the—almost a disintegration of norms in American politics, polarization, rules on the Senate and House floors being shifted for party—along party lines. So I wanted to ask you what your thoughts were on the effect of maybe the loss of some of the democratic norms in the United States are, and should we be concerned? REYNOSO: I can start. (Laughter.) So I’m more of an optimist than most lawyers are. (Laughter.) I actually—over the last several years, we’ve seen sort of institutions be weakened by elections, by questionable activity, by potentially violating laws, and the like. We’ve seen this movie before in different time periods. What has been interesting—well, this is the time period where we’re living so it’s like, wow, right? But this is not new in this country. But what is interesting is the rise of other institutions, particularly the role of the states and cities, in really countering—really balancing some of the federal activities that are borderline dysfunctional and maybe illegal, right? So I actually have been very impressed by the many states that have been active in claims and both legally but also passing local legislation and laws to protect vulnerable people who are—who have been kind of targeted by the executive branch. And I think that just says a lot about our democracy, and how robust and diversified the powers are, which I think is really unique and extraordinary. And we should all be grateful, but also impressed, I think, by how intriguing and impactful that has been. I also—you also see the rise of all these folks, regular citizens, activating to do all types of things. You know, from forming new types of alliances and groups to running for office at every level. People—women—more women than ever, people of color, all types of folks who have historically not felt that they were part of that group. And now they are really involved in doing it, and getting it done. And so I think it’s a motivating factor, but I also think institutionally as a democracy our democracy is so strong and so diversified in its power that you’ve seen the rise of really interesting institutions and organizations from municipalities, to states, to the office of so-and-so attorney general, going after, you know, wrongdoing, and are seizing moments to protect vulnerable people. So I am not—I think we’re—I think we’re still the greatest democracy around. AYRES: Let me take one last question to take us to 11:00 a.m. Right here. Q: Thank you. My name is Edgar Cruz. I’m an alum for Public Policy International Affairs Program. I’m also in the digital media space in civic tech. My question is if you could give one or two suggestions, actions, demonstrations that I as a man of color can be a more empathetic and ally for women, and specifically women of color in the foreign relations space. AYRES: Would all three like to answer? We can just go down the row. Uzra. ZEYA: One, I commend you for your question and your aspiration. And I would say, I spent a lot career in the State Department, where there is something called corridor reputation. You know, it’s sort of—it’s basically your rep, what people—who do you know? And I guess I would say to all of you, in terms of that who do you know, you know, really try wherever you sit to give a leg up and a helping hand to people around you. But look at getting beyond your immediate circle too. What I find is that with respect to personnel decisions, it’s personnel, but it’s often personal. And you know, to your question, you are woke, aware—(laughter)—and you want to—I know, I’m a terrible mom. My kids would be so embarrassed that I said that. (Laughter.) But I would say, I think you can do that wherever you sit, and wherever your span of authority is. And, you know, there is no initiative at the Department of State that has one owner. It’s always a team effort. But maybe even looking beyond your immediate horizon or the people you usually deal with to bring in those women of color and other people you don’t know, and to make them your network, and to help one another. I think that makes a positive difference. AYRES: Julissa. REYNOSO: I think that’s a perfect answer. I think, again, in whatever space you are, ensuring that you have—you’re open-minded, and not assuming anything about anybody. But when you get to a position where you actually can exercise some power, ensuring that you’re mindful enough to be—to give the opportunity—not only the opportunity, the push, for people who you know haven’t had the greatest or the most robust set of circumstances that others might have. So I think we all have to do that daily, just be really thoughtful and mindful about how we interact with each other, and the assumptions we make about people. But in terms of not only our thought process, but in an affirmative action way give opportunities to the folks who—women of color historically have been the most disenfranchised, most definitely, in our—in our environments and our spaces of decision-making. AYRES: Jendayi. FRAZER: Yeah, I mean, I think that by asking the question you are already there. You know, your mindset is there. I would also say, be conscious in your choices of mentorships. That meaning, you being mentored by others who are more senior to you, and then you mentoring others who are more junior to you. And I would say, make sure that you have a broad, diverse set of mentors and mentees. And then if you do that, I think it’ll beneficial to your career and to others who you interact with. AYRES: Thank you. So this takes us to 11:00 a.m. We’re going to have coffee and breakout sessions immediately afterwards. But will you all please join me in thanking our incredibly experienced panel today? Thank you. (Applause.) (END)