world affairs councils

who goes matters

Why did I consider the World Affairs Council conference in St. Petersburg so good this week? You may well ask yourself if every conference isn’t great to an academic. The answer is absolutely not; for me, many conferences are deadly boring and too often utterly irrelevant to the real world.

Good thing I am retired as I suppose the last line will lead to my professional credentials to attend suspended.

True confession: I have been a fan of world affairs councils, that crucial interface between policy specialists and the public craving information about the world beyond our national boundaries, since I started looking at groups influencing national security policy in the mid-1980s as I wrote National Security Interest Groups. It turns out the councils were 1920s outgrowths of public queries after we became involved in World War I. There are many such groups of various member levels across the country but I had never been to or knew anything about the St. Petersburg group. Years ago, they were all loosely coordinated by the Foreign Policy Association though I did not ask in Florida whether that is still the case.

A former student at the War College gave them my name as they sought a China speaker. I in turn suggested that my husband’s foreign policy interests in China complement my own fascination with internal developments so we could both help them. We were joined with a most interesting Korean speaker from the University of Southern Florida, the conference site host.

I love the fact the councils bring practitioners passionate about the world into direct contact with local citizens of all backgrounds, ages, and interests. It’s especially cool that the councils have always had a soft spot, as I do, for students at all levels who may want to pursue careers in a relevant place around the world or in an office with foreign activities. (once a teacher, always a teacher…)

The councils hold regular meetings to allow speakers to provide updates on major and lesser known topics, thus truly augmenting understanding of the globe. The groups tend to be heavily staffed by volunteers which is even more impressive as it shows people are so committed they give of their own time—their most precious resource—to help others learn.

Additionally, because of the organisations’ foci, the councils also solicit some amazing experts and generally exceptional quality speakers on any topic they cover. Many speakers are diplomats or former diplomats because of those specialist’s vocation and exceptionally deep understanding of the dynamics at work in any location. Many meetings approach a topic through geography (Africanists or Asianists) but there are also growing numbers of discussions about AI, the international law, and other functional topics (for lack of a better term). Speakers invariably are extremely current, informed to the highest degree, and wry in their presentations. It’s not a political science/abstract theory kind of discussion, though every once in a while speakers drift into polysci talks.

it’s also an organisation frequently showcasing women who are so invaluable as foreign policy engagers, often bringing understanding well beyond the traditional political side of foreign relations. St. Petersburg was no exception as about half of the interlocutors I met through this conference, as St. Petersburghers or outside speakers, were women.

There is a misunderstanding, at times, that up-to-date understanding of the current phenomena in the Middle East, as a single example, means that speakers don’t think about history. One of the speakers from Baylor University, a retired diplomat, reminded us that we tend to think of so much in ‘binary’, either/or, terms in this country but the speakers this week frequently did not choose that neat a distinction but discussed topics both using history, contemporary facts, and providing analysis about a range of possible outcomes. The particular speakers most successful at the coucil meetings balance so much to provide a open-ended but still satisfying understanding of options.

It’s rare for me, however, to find all of the panels at a conference interesting. Perhaps I have ADHD (good chance) but I get bored with stuff frequently. I was amazed that did not happen this week. Granted, I was on two panels (Rethinking the Indo-Pacific Security Trends and Rethinking NATO after Ukraine and Russia at War) but I learned a lot from panels on the Sahel, trends in the Middle East, how the world views us, and two fireside chats with a retired combatant commander and a biographer of George Kennan. As I noted to close out my remarks on the second panel late yesterday afternoon, it was a tribute to the quality of the speakers and the topics that so many people were still there at 4 on a beautiful Wednesday afternoon. Seriously? Yes, the audience and some of the prior speakers were absolutely eating it up because they wanted both to learn new stuff and hear how the world is interconnected. And it wasn’t as if they came up with the topics on Tuesday morning!

This particular organisation gets kudos for two innovations I had not seen: they told the audience before each and every session that disruptive behaviour would result in ejection from the event (applaud, applaud) and they had the online and inperson participants submit their questions in writing, though not necessarily in advance. Not every single question got answered but that was a result of time constraints rather than sensorship. Writing them down led to better quality questions than rambling ones at a microphone. As a panel moderator, I took as many as I could give the three panelists time to address but they were extremely thoughtful questions.

That is really the point. World affairs councils tend to draw folks who don’t assume they know everything nor do they, in my experience, want to project ‘gotcha’ as if they can embarrass others as too many academic participants at conferences do. It’s the kind of debate, questioning, curiosity, and recognition we don’t all know everything all of the time that lead to genuine exchanges of ideas. As a result of the particular audiences and speakers, I heard more candour than I have ever heard at a professional meeting. That in particular is a good thing.

If you have the chance and are interested, go to a world affairs council meeting some time. You don’t have to stay for the entire thing: choose a panel that you find intriguing, feel free to ask a question, and soak up the energy of learning that you’ll find. It’s quite refreshing and educational, even for those of us who think we know a bit. If one attends to listen and hear, one learns. What a concept.

This was a gorgeous Buddha in our host’s home this morning. After my recent Bangkok frolic, I am enchanted again with Buddhas when I see them. This one lit up the room, even at 0550.

Thank you for reading ACC today. I welcome any comments, thoughts, questions, or disagreements; that is the nature of the enterprise! I especially thank the paid subscribers.

Be well and be safe. FIN

Cynthia A. Watson, National Security Interest Groups: Institutional Profiles. Greenwood, CT: Praeger Books, 1990.