On November 16, 2006, FSI convened its annual international conference, A World at
Risk, devoted to systemic and human risk confronting the global community. Remarks by
Stanford Provost John Etchemendy, FSI Director Coit D. Blacker, former Secretary of State
Warren Christopher, former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, and former Secretary of
State George Shultz set the stage for stimulating discussions. Interactive panel sessions
encouraged in-depth exploration of major issues with Stanford faculty, outside experts,
and policymakers.
“When I was a child, the world was a simpler place,” stated
Stanford Provost John Etchemendy. “What has changed is not the risk, but the number
and complexity of problems that face the world today.” The complex challenges of
the 21st century require that universities change, as well. The International Initiative,
led by FSI, was launched “to identify key challenges of global importance and to
contribute to their solutions by leveraging the university’s academic strength and
international reach.”
Invoking Jane and Leland Stanford’s desire to educate students to become useful,
contributing citizens, Etchemendy said, “We can best serve that mission today by
producing graduates well-versed in the complex problems of a world at risk and
willing to make the difficult choices that might lead to their solution.”
“It has been acutely apparent to us at FSI that we must actively engage a world
at risk,” stated FSI director Coit D. “Chip” Blacker, “risk posed by the growing number
of nuclear issues on the international agenda; the insurgency in Iraq; global poverty,
hunger, and environmental degradation; the tensions of nationalism versus regionalism
in Asia; infectious diseases; terrorism; and the geopolitical, financial, and ecological
risks of the West’s current energy policies, especially its voracious appetite for oil.”
Introducing three Stanford luminaries, Blacker said, “One of the remarkable things
about Stanford is the privilege of working with some of the outstanding intellects
and statesmen of our time. Warren Christopher, William Perry, and George Shultz
tower among them.”
“As Stanford University’s primary forum
for the consideration of the major international
issues of our time, we at FSI are
dedicated to interdisciplinary research and
teaching on some of the most pressing
and complex problems facing the global
community today.” – Coit D. “Chip” Blacker, Director, Freeman Spogli Institute“The Middle East has descended into hate, violence, and chaos,” said Warren
Christopher, the nation’s 63rd secretary of state. “It really is a dangerous mess.”
Discussing the Israeli incursion into Lebanon, the war in Iraq, and Iran’s regional
and nuclear ambitions, he said the U.S. has aggravated these threats by “action and
inaction.” Nonetheless, the U.S. remains the most influential foreign power in the
region. “We must not give up on the Middle East,” he said. “We have to return to
old-fashioned diplomacy with all its frustrations and delays.”
“We live in dangerous times,” stated William J. Perry, the nation’s 19th secretary of
defense and an FSI senior fellow. “Last month about 1,000 of our service personnel
in Iraq were killed, maimed, or wounded; the Taliban is resurging in Afghanistan;
North Korea just tested a nuclear bomb; and Iran is not far behind. China’s power
is rising and Russia’s democracy is falling.” As Elie Wiesel wrote, he said, “Peace is
not God’s gift to its children. Peace is our gift to each other.” Comparing major
security issues of 1994 to today, Perry assessed the nuclear arms race, North Korea,
Iran, and Iraq. He noted that the Clinton administration had eliminated more than
10,000 nuclear weapons and urged that the work continue, because “the danger of
terrorists getting a nuclear bomb is very real.”
Citing North Korea’s 2006 missile and nuclear tests, Perry said he was concerned
that a robust North Korean nuclear program will stimulate a “dangerous arms race
in the Pacific” and increase “the danger of a terrorist group getting a nuclear bomb.”
“Iran is moving inexorably toward becoming a nuclear power,” Perry said. “We are
facing new dangers,” he concluded, “and we must adjust our thinking accordingly.”
“The world has never been at a more promising moment than it is today,” said
George Shultz, the nation’s 60th secretary of state. “All across the world, economic
expansion is taking place. The U.S. is giving fantastic leadership to the global
economy.” For Shultz, the imperative is to prevent the security challenges “from
aborting all these fantastic opportunities.”
“The Middle East has descended into hate,
violence, and chaos. The U.S. remains the
most influential foreign power in the region.
We have to return to old-fashioned diplomacy
with all its frustrations and delays.”
– Former Secretary of State Warren ChristopherU.S. leadership should inspire the world, Shultz said, advocating four initiatives.
We should aspire to have a world with no nuclear weapons. We should take a
different approach to global warning, based on the Montreal Protocols. “This is a
gigantic problem we need to do something about and can do something about,” he
said. We should build greater understanding of the world of Islam. We must combat
rising protectionism. The postwar system reduced tariffs and quotas, promoting
trade and growth. “The best defense is a good offense,” Shultz stated. “We need a
lot of leadership in that arena.”
Plenary I, chaired by Chip Blacker, examined systemic risk. Elisabeth Paté-Cornell,
Burton and Deedee McMurtry Professor and Chair of Management Science and
Engineering, discussed how scientists measure risk, asking what can happen, what
are the chances it will, and what are the consequences? “The good news is that the
worst is not always the most certain,” she noted. Citing challenges of intelligence
analysis, she said, “Certainty is rare; signals are imperfect; there is a tendency to
focus on one possibility (groupthink) and underestimate others; and it is difficult
to assess and communicate uncertainties.” “Success is not guessing in the face of
uncertainties,” she said. “It is describing accurately what is known, what is unknown,
and what has changed.”
Scott D. Sagan, professor of political science and director of CISAC, examined “Iran
and the Collapse of the Global Non-proliferation Regime?” The crux of the issue,
Sagan noted, is the emergence of two dangerous beliefs, “deterrence optimism” and
“proliferation fatalism.” In Sagan’s view, too little attention has been given to why
Iran seeks a nuclear weapon. Arguing that U.N. sanctions are unlikely to work and
military options are problematic, Sagan said a negotiated settlement is still possible
if the U.S. offers security guarantees to Iran, contingent on Tehran’s agreement to
constraints on future nuclear development. As Sagan concluded, “Instead of accepting
what appears inevitable, we should work to prevent the unacceptable.”
Siegfried S. Hecker, CISAC co-director, tackled the challenge of “Keeping Fissile
Materials out of Terrorist Hands.” Although nuclear terrorism is an old problem,
today there is easier access to nuclear materials, greater technological sophistication,
and a greater proclivity toward violence. The greatest risk, he said, “is an improvised
nuclear device built from stolen or diverted fissile materials.” “Given a few tens of
kilograms of fissile material, essentially a grapefruit-sized chunk of plutonium,” he
stated, “terrorists will be able to build and detonate an inefficient, but devastating
Hiroshima- or Nagasaki-like bomb.” The most likely threat is a so-called “dirty
bomb,” he said, which would be a “weapon of mass disruption, not destruction,”
but still able to cause panic, contamination, and economic disruption, making risk
analysis imperative to mitigate its consequences.
“We are facing new dangers and we must
adjust our thinking accordingly. As President
Lincoln said, ‘The occasion is piled high with
difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion.
As our case is new, so we must think
anew, and act anew.’” – Former Secretary
of Defense William J. PerryTurning to human risk, Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota’s
Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, addressed “Pandemic Influenza:
Harbinger of Things to Come?” “The risk is one that a pandemic is going to happen,”
he told a riveted audience. Comparing the great influenza of 1918 with the pandemics
of 1957 and 1968, he noted that pandemics have differed in season of onset, mortality
rates, and number of cases. Avian influenza has a 65 percent mortality rate and
could affect 30–60 percent of the world’s 6.5 billion people, producing 1.6 billion
deaths worldwide and 1.9 million deaths in the U.S. Inevitably, mutation will reduce
its lethality.
“It is not a matter of if, just when and where” the pandemic will strike, said
Osterholm. Noting that vaccines will not be available in numbers needed, he argued
for measures to safeguard families, communities, and essential infrastructure, such
as police, firefighters, and health-care workers. Just-in-time inventory practices, he
said, have increased vulnerability to disruptions in food supply, transportation,
equipment, and communications, making it vital to plan in earnest, now.
Plenary II, chaired by FSI deputy director Michael A. McFaul, assessed risks to
humans from “Natural, National, and International Disasters.” Stephen E. Flynn, Jeane
J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a trade and
transportation security expert, decried the “artificial firewalls between homeland and
national security.” The Hart-Rudman Commission of 1998 warned of a catastrophic
attack on U.S. soil, yet we did not rethink national security even after 9/11. We must
approach security as a transnational issue, with no clear “domestic” and “international”
lines, he urged. More than 65 percent of critical infrastructure is privately owned and
has been given inadequate attention by federal authorities. Hurricane Katrina exposed
the vulnerabilities. “We face more threats from acts of God than acts of man,” Flynn
stated. We need to move from a concept of “security” to one of “resiliency,” he said,
greatly improving our ability to withstand a man-made or natural disaster.
David G. Victor, FSI senior fellow and professor of law, addressed three faces of
energy security: oil, natural gas, and climate change. Oil prices are volatile, future
fields are in places difficult to do business, and the global supply infrastructure is
vulnerable, posing the risk of a one- to six-month supply disruption. For Victor, who
directs FSI’s Program on Energy and Sustainable Development, the big threat is less
supply than a potential demand-side shock, driven by the U.S. and China. Europe
relies on an unreliable Russia for 25–30 percent of its natural gas needs, making it
imperative to switch to cheaper, more reliable LNG from North Africa and the Middle
East. Oil and gas price volatility has driven further dependence on coal-fired plants,
with dire consequences for carbon emissions. New coal plant lifetime emissions,
Victor said, are equal to all historic coal emissions, making it critical to invest in
advanced technology to protect the environment.
“The world has never been at a more
promising moment than it is today. All
across the world economic expansion is
taking place. Poverty is being reduced
dramatically as China and India expand,
along with Brazil.” – Former Secretary
of State George ShultzPeter Bergen, CNN terrorism analyst and producer of Osama bin Laden’s first
television interview, offered the dinner keynote, “Successes and Failures of the War
on Terrorism Since 9/11.” Assessing negatives, Bergen noted that al Qaeda continues
to carry on attacks from its base in Pakistan; Afghanistan is beset by instability; more
than 20 million Muslims in Europe remain dangerously un-integrated; bin Laden
has not been apprehended and continues to inspire followers through terrorist
attacks; Iraq is an unstable breeding ground for jihad; and anti-Americanism is on
the rise. Enumerating positives, there has been no follow-on attack on the U.S.; the
government has made the country safer; many Muslims have rejected jihad; plots
have been foiled and suspects apprehended across the globe. Weighing whether
fighting the terrorists abroad has made the U.S. safer here, Bergen was equivocal:
The U.S. can identify and eliminate only so many people and cannot stay in Bagdad
forever. A network of educated, dedicated terrorists remains, he warned, capable of
bringing down commercial aircraft or deploying a radiological bomb.
