In my first full year as Chair of the Carnegie Endowment, I have had the privilege of working with our leadership and our board to define a new vision for our institution that meets the challenges of the new era unfolding before us.Board of Trustees List
As global winds continue to batter and bruise the international landscape, Carnegie is determined to meet this moment with the energy, wisdom, and determination that it demands.
We are 140 thinkers and doers from diverse disciplines and perspectives spread across more than twenty countries and six global centers working together as one network to advance international peace.
Carnegie’s global network seeks to inject local perspectives into policy debates; prevent and mitigate collisions of global consequence; speed up the global policy response to technological, political, and economic transformations; and support new thought leaders in international affairs.
China’s rise is the most consequential geopolitical development of the twenty-first century. Carnegie is leveraging its global network to look at the implications from the perspective of other capitals and to examine the important policy choices they face.
In 2019, Carnegie launched a multiyear effort to study China’s strategic approach to Russia and Eurasia, which could have major implications for regional and global security. In addition, this region is proving to be an important testing ground for Chinese technological and financial innovations—including 5G telecommunications networks and state-backed payment systems that provide alternatives to Western-led standards and institutions.
The extent to which countries in the region embrace these tools could ultimately influence China’s strategic approach to other regions and help shape the way the central geopolitical plotline of our time unfolds. Carnegie’s team—composed of leading experts on China and Russia, and seasoned policy practitioners from Washington, Moscow, and beyond—is shedding light on these hugely important developments and helping decisionmakers craft more thoughtful policies.
In May and July 2019, at the height of the U.S.–China trade war, the Carnegie–Tsinghua Center brought together current and former policymakers from Washington and Beijing to discuss and debate critical bilateral issues and identify potential pathways to reduce tensions and resolve differences. Part of Carnegie–Tsinghua’s flagship track 1.5 dialogue program, this off-the-record exchange aims to reduce misperceptions and keep channels of communication open even at moments of pronounced tensions in the relationship.
In November, a bipartisan group of seventeen senior congressional staff traveled to the Carnegie–Tsinghua Center, in partnership with the Aspen Institute. Over the course of a week, they spoke with Chinese academics and government officials and met with U.S. business leaders and journalists working in Beijing. The delegation probed challenges and opportunities during a time of increasing tensions. Trade, technology, and security dominated the conversations, which were expertly facilitated by Maurice R. Greenberg Chair Paul Haenle, the center’s director. One participant remarked, “This was the most informative and enriching experience I have had in ten years working on foreign policy in Washington.”
Too often, policy analysts focus on aggregate statistics or diplomatic relations between capitals. But companies, laboratories, and people—often located far away from capitals—do the work. In today’s world, what is “local” and “global” often blur together. Crafting smart and sustainable policies requires understanding not just the high-table of geopolitics but what’s happening on Main Street as well.
Carnegie’s Asia Program has launched a new stream of work on these subnational dynamics: what makes economies innovative, how communities connect to one another, and whether and how governments can shape national policies that reflect realities and imperatives in provinces, prefectures, states, cities, and regions. Asia Local/Global uses research and multimedia to reach into places like America’s industrial Midwest or India’s states to inject new perspectives and ideas grounded in the realities of constituents, not just abstract theories of statecraft.