paula dobriansky bak
1/22
pension fund for am
MEMBERS
Fred Barnes
Washington, D.C.
Caroline Weil Barnett
Chevy Chase, MD
Charles R. Black, Jr.
Prime Policy Group
Washington, D.C.
Jeff Carneal
Former President of Eagle Publishing
Washington, D.C.
Lindsay Craig
National ReviewInstitute
New York, New York
James B. Culbertson
Former U.S.Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Paula J. Dobriansky
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at HarvardUniversity’s Kennedy School of Government
Washington, D.C.
Frank J. Donatelli ’70
FJD Strategies
Alexandria, Virginia
Juanita D. Duggan
Clarifyd
Arlington, Virginia
Colene Johnson
Paradise Valley, Arizona
Theresa Kostrzewa ’84
Capitol Advantage Associates, Inc.
Raleigh, North Carolina
John Lee ’85
Northern Trust
New York, New York
Derek McClain
Dallas, Texas
M. Peter McPherson
Association of Public & Land Grant Universities
Washington, D.C.
David M. Stover ’77
John William Pope Foundation
Raleigh, North Carolina
Eric Tanenblatt ’87
Dentons
Atlanta, Georgia
Bridgett Gaines Wagner
The Heritage Foundation
Washington, DC
Dean Zarras
Goldman Sachs
Bedford, New York
TRUSTEE EMERITI
Don Cogman
PulsePoint Group
Scottsdale, Arizona
Chapman Cox
Chairman Emeritus,Alliance Defending Freedom
Williamsburg, Virginia
Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.
President of Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana
Neal Freeman
Amelia Island, Florida
Thomas L. Phillips
Newport Coast, California
===
==
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04052018/un-climate-talks-trump-negotiators-bonn-pompeo-bolton-kudlow-foreign-policy/
In Shadow of Trump’s New Foreign Policy Team, U.S. Climate Negotiators Walk a Fine Line
Staunch opponents of climate policy are now advising Trump on foreign affairs, leaving career U.S. diplomats in an awkward spot at the UN climate talks in Bonn.
By Marianne Lavelle
May 4, 2018
all pro climate trump admin gone!
Dobriansky [~ kyoto?]
...The absence of U.S. leadership at Bonn may be keenly felt in the one-day session scheduled for May 8 dedicated to the so-called Talanoa Dialogue, the process to reexamine the commitments that individual nations have made so far. (Fiji, the current chair of the talks, chose the traditional word "Talanoa" to reflect a process of inclusive, participatory and transparent dialogue.)
So far, there are 48 submissions to the dialogue representing the views of 178 countries that are parties to the Paris Agreement, as well as hundreds of submissions by non-governmental organizations, addressing how nations might raise their ambitions. The United States is among about 20 nations that had offered no submission as of Wednesday. (Other large carbon emitters that have not made Talanoa Dialogue submissions include Canada and Brazil.)
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is scheduled to contribute to the discussion this fall in the form of a special report on the science behind a tougher goal, keeping global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. But the national commitments that have been made under the Paris Agreement so far only get the world a third of the way to the goal of keeping the temperature increase below 2°C, as the United Nations Environment Program's "Emissions Gap" reportshowed last year.
"We don't have to wait for the IPCC report to know that we are way behind the curve," said Meyer.
Room for Hope?
Although few observers of the climate talks have illusions that the Trump administration—especially with its new foreign policy team—will offer to set stronger goals to cut carbon emissions, French President Emmanuel Macron's remarks before Congress last week demonstrated that some world leaders still hold out hope that the United States will return to the climate fight in the long run.
"I am sure, one day, the United States will come back and join the Paris Agreement," Macron told Congress. "Let us face it: There is no Planet B."
And when Pompeo, during his confirmation hearing, faced a question on climate change from Sen. Jeff Merkley, (D-Ore.), he replied: "I ... believe the climate is changing, that there's a warming taking place. I'm happy to concede that there's a human component to that. I'm equally prepared to tell you that as we find tools that are effective to prevent the risk to the United States ... the State Department ought to appropriately be involved in them." (In fact, human causes are behind most or all of the observed warming in recent decades, and the risks go beyond what affects the United States. International diplomacy also is needed to address the fact that the U.S. and other developed countries are largely to blame for the warming seen so far, which presents worse risks to nations like small island states that have contributed little to atmospheric carbon emissions.)
One avowed optimist is the Trump White House's former international climate adviser, George David Banks, who had supported staying in the Paris Agreement. He maintains that the hard-line U.S. stand puts the nation in a stronger negotiating position when it comes to the talks now underway. That's because the rest of the world knows the Trump administration is willing to walk away, he argues.
"The Trump administration could not have negotiated the Paris Agreement—it took the Obama administration to do that," argues Banks. "But now that the international community has invested so much political capital in the agreement, the Trump administration has much more leverage than a Hillary Clinton administration would have had in finalizing these points. It's an interesting situation."
But on top of the changes in Trump's top echelon of foreign policy advisers, recent staff turnover at the White House adds to uncertainty around the future U.S. role in the climate talks.
Banks, who served as a climate negotiator in President George W. Bush's administration, resigned from his Trump administration post earlier this year when he could not obtain a security clearance. Trump's top domestic energy adviser, Michael Catanzaro, has also resigned to return to his former lobbying practice. Banks and Catanzaro, both of whom have years of experience working on energy issues, have been replaced by two young newcomers to the field. GOP political operative Wells Griffith, whose only previous experience in energy was a one-year stint in Trump's Energy Department, has been appointed to lead international climate and energy strategy for the White House, while Francis Brooke, a former aide to Vice President Mike Pence who moderated a panel on fossil fuels at last year's climate talks, will take Catanzaro's place as top domestic energy adviser.
Observers also are watching to see if the Trump administration follows through on a plan, first reported by Bloomberg, to nominate Paula Dobriansky, who was a lead climate negotiator under President George W. Bush, as undersecretary for political affairs at the State Department.Dobriansky's past statements indicate that she accepts the reality of manmade climate change, although she favors "collaboration, not coercion," and close partnerships with industry. (When Bush backed out of the Kyoto accord, she gave creditto the oil lobby.)
For the time being, Meyer sees the U.S. negotiating team as significantly hampered by its lack of high-level support and the power to deal. If his assessment is correct, even if the U.S. returns to the Paris Agreement in the future, it may be under rules that it was unable to influence.
"You basically have a loss of leadership," he said. "The [U.S.] team is doing the best they can on the technical rules, but obviously they don't have as much leverage on that issue when they are not playing on other issues. They are negotiating with one hand tied behind their back, and that creates a vacuum that others are trying to figure out how to fill."
PUBLISHED UNDER:
GUK
...But 2007 will also be remembered as the year that climate change rose up the international agenda. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the Nobel peace prize and warned that if left unchecked, the world's average temperature could rise as much as 6C by the end of the century, killing hundreds of millions of people, destroying economies and changing all life.
World governments finally agreed in Bali to work together to try to stave off the worst effects. But in fraught negotiations that concluded last week, the US, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, tried to wreck the talks, was humiliated, then finally signed up reluctantly to work towards a post Kyoto treaty.
The road to Copenhagen, where the concluding talks will be held in 2009, will be tortuous. The agreement failed to set a clear target for the cuts needed globally or in the developed world but it did address deforestation, and technology transfer to poor countries.
The main US beef was with China, emerging in 2007 as a global ecological phenomenon
https://speakola.com/ideas/al-gore-bali-climate-change-conference-2007
Gore: 'Our children will ask, what were you thinking?', Bali Climate Change Conference - 2007
14 December 2007, UN Bali Climate Change Conference, Bali, Indonesia
We, the human species, face a planetary emergency. That phrase still sounds shrill to some ears but it is deadly accurate as a description of the situation that we now confront, and as Dr. Pachauri and his three thousand colleagues in the IPCC have freshly reminded us, the accumulation of greenhouse gases continues to trap more and more heat from the sun in our atmosphere, threatening the stable climate balance that has been an unappreciated by crucial assumption for the development of human civilization.
Just this week new evidence has been presented. I remember years ago listening to the scientists who specialise in the study of ice and snow express concern that some time towards the end of the 21st century we might even face the possibility of losing the entire north polar ice cap. I remember only three years ago when they revised their estimates to say it could happen halfway through the 21st century, by 2050.
I remember at the beginning of this year when I was shocked to hear them say along with others that it could happen in as little as 34 years and now, this week, they tell us it could completely disappear in as little as five to seven years.
One of the victims of the horrors of the Third Reich in Europe during World War II wrote a famous passage about the beginnings of the killings, and he said, "First I came for the Jews, and I was not a Jew, so I said nothing. Then, they came for the Gypsies, and I was not a Gypsy, so I said nothing," and he listed several other groups, and with each one he said nothing. Then, he said, they came for me.
For those who believed that this climate crisis was going to affect their grandchildren, and still said nothing, and were shaken a bit to hear that it would affect their children, and still said and did nothing, it is affecting us in the present generation, and it is up to us in this generation to solve this crisis.
A sense of urgency that is appropriate for this challenge is itself a challenge to our own moral imagination. It is up to us in this generation to see clearly and vividly exactly what is going on. Twenty of the 21 hottest years ever measured in atmospheric record have come in the last 25 years Ð the hottest of all in 2005, this year on track to be the second hottest of all. This is not natural variation. It is far beyond the bounds of natural variation and the scientists have told us so over and over again with increasing alarm.
But because our new relationship to the earth is unprecedented we have been slow to act. And because CO2 is invisible, it is easy for us to put the climate crisis out of sight and out of mind until we see the consequences beginning to unfold.
Despite a growing number of honourable exceptions, too many of the world's leaders are still best described in the words Winston Churchill used in 1938 when he described those who were ignoring the threat posed by Adolf Hitler. He said, and I quote: "They go on in strange paradox, decided only be undecided, resolved only to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent."
I am not an official of the United States and I am not bound by the diplomatic niceties. So I am going to speak an inconvenient truth. My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali. We all know that, but my country is not the only one that can take steps to ensure that we move forward from Bali with progress and with hope.
Those of you who applauded when I spoke openly about the diplomatic truth here have a choice to make. You can do one of two things here. You can feel anger and frustration and direct it at the United States of America, or you can make a second choice. You can decide to move forward and do all of the difficult work that needs to be done and save an open, large, blank space in your document, and put a footnote by it, and when you look at the footnote, write the description of the footnote: This document is incomplete, but we are going to move forward anyway, on the hope, and I'm going to describe for you why I think you can also have the realistic expectation, that that blank will be filled in.
This is the beginning of a process that is designed to culminate in Copenhagen two years from now. Over the next two years the United States is going to be somewhere it is not now. You must anticipate that.
Targets must be part of the treaty that is adopted in Cophenhagen, and the treaty, by the way, should not only be adopted in 2009. I urge you, in this mandate, to move the target for full implementation of this treaty to a point two years sooner than contemplated. Let's have it take effect in 2010 and not 2012. We can't afford to wait another five years to replace the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol.
So, we must leave here with a strong mandate. This is not the time for business as usual. Somehow we have to summon, and each of you must summon a sense of urgency here in Bali...
...I don't know how to tell you how you can find the grace to navigate around this enormous obstacle, this elephant in the room that I've just been undiplomatic enough to name, but I'm asking you to do it...
Just in the last few days, on the eve of this meeting, I have received more than 350,000 emails from Americans asking me to say to you: "We're going to change in the United States of America."
During this upcoming two-year period there will be a national election in the United States. One year and 40 days from today there will be a new inauguration in the United States.
I must tell you candidly that I cannot promise that the person who is elected will have the position I expect they will have. But I can tell you that I believe it is quite likely.
If you decide to continue the progress that has already been made here on all of the items other than the targets and timetables for mandatory reductions; on the hope (and with the expectation) that, before this process is concluded in Copenhagen, you will be able to fill in that blank (with the help of a different position from the United States) then you can make great progress here.
For starters, that means a plan that fully funds an ambitious adaptation fund, to build an adaptive capacity in the most vulnerable countries to confront the climate crisis. It means creating truly innovative means for technology transfer, to allow for mobilising technology and capital throughout the world.
We need a deforestation prevention plan. Deforestation accounts for 20 percent of global carbon emissions - the equivalent to the total emissions of the US or China. It is difficult to forge such an agreement here.
Believe me if I could snap my fingers and change the position of the United States of America, and change the position of some other countries, and make it instantly much easier to move forward with targets and timetables, I would do so in an instant. But if we look realistically at the situation that confronts us, then wisdom would call for moving forward in spite of that obstacle.
I can tell you that there is a growing realisation all over the world - including in my country - beyond these actions that have already been taken that I've described to you. Mothers and fathers, grandparents, community leaders, business leaders, all around the world, are beginning to look much more clearly at what is involved here.
...These are not a political problems. They are moral imperatives, but our capacity to strip away the disguise, and see them for what they really are, and then find the basis to act together, to successfully address them, is what is missing.
The greatest opportunity inherent in this climate crisis is not only to quickly deploy the new technologies that will facilitate sustainable development, and create the new jobs and to lift standards of living. The greatest opportunity is that in rising to meet the climate crisis, we in our generation will find the moral authority and capacity for long term vision to get our act together in this world and to take on these other crises, not political problems, and solve them.
We are one people on one planet. We have one future, one destiny We must pursue it together, and we can.
The great Spanish poet from Sevilla, Antonio Machado, wrote, "Pathwalker, there is no path. You must make the path as you walk." There is no path from Bali to Copenhagen unless you make it. It's impossible given the positions of the powerful countries, including my own, and the instructions from which they are not going to depart, but you can make new path. You can make a path that goes around that blank spot, and you can go forward.
There are two paths you can choose. They lead to two different futures. Not too long from now, when our children assess what you did here in Bali, what we and our generation did here in this world, as they look backward at 2007, they will ask one of two questions. I don't which one they will ask. I know which one I prefer that they ask, but trust me, they will ask one of these two questions.
They'll look back, and either they will ask "What were you thinking? Didn't you hear the IPCC four times unanimously warning the world to act? Didn't you see the glaciers melting? Didn't you see the North Polar ice cap disappearing? Didn't you see the deserts growing, and the droughts deepening, and the crops drying up? Didn't you see the sea level rising? Didn't you see the floods? Didn't you pay attention to what was going on? Didn't you care? What were you thinking?"
Or they will ask a second question, one that I'd much prefer them to ask. I want them to look back on this time, and ask: "How did you find the moral courage to successfully address a crisis that so many said was impossible to address? How were you able to start the process that unleashed the moral imagination of humankind to see ourselves as a single, global civilization?" And when they ask that question, I want you to tell them that you saw it as a privilege to be alive at a moment when a relatively small group of people could control the destiny of all generations to come.
Instead of shaking our heads at the difficulty of this task, and saying "Woe is us. This is impossible. How can we do this? We're so mad at the ones that are making it impossible," we ought to feel a sense of joy that we have work that is worth doing that is so important to the future of all humankind. We ought to feel a sense of exhilaration that we are the people alive at a moment in history when we can make all the difference.
That's who you are. You have everything that you need. We have everything we need, save political will, but political will is a renewable resource.
Source: http://www.irregulartimes.com/gorebalispee...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/dec/17/comment.world
george m
16 dec
We've been suckered again by the US. So far the Bali deal is worse than Kyoto
George Monbiot
America will keep on wrecking climate talks as long as those with vested interests in oil and gas fund its political system
after 11 days of negotiations, governments have come up with a compromise deal that could even lead to emission increases. The highly compromised political deal is largely attributable to the position of the United States, which was heavily influenced by fossil fuel and automobile industry interests. The failure to reach agreement led to the talks spilling over into an all-night session."
These are extracts from a press release by Friends of the Earth. So what? Well it was published on December 11 - I mean to say, December 11 1997. The US had just put a wrecking ball through the...Kyoto protocol. George Bush was innocent; he was busy executing prisoners in Texas. Its climate negotiators were led by Albert Arnold Gore...The European Union had asked for greenhouse gas cuts of 15% by 2010. Gore's team drove them down to 5.2% by 2012. Then the Americans did something worse: they destroyed the whole agreement.
Most of the other governments insisted that the cuts be made at home. But Gore demanded a series of loopholes big enough to drive a Hummer through. The rich nations, he said, should be allowed to buy their cuts from other countries. When he won, the protocol created an exuberant global market in fake emissions cuts. The western nations could buy "hot air" from the former Soviet Union. Because the cuts were made against emissions in 1990, and because industry in that bloc had subsequently collapsed, the former Soviet Union countries would pass well below the bar. Gore's scam allowed them to sell the gases they weren't producing to other nations. He also insisted that rich nations could buy nominal cuts from poor ones. Entrepreneurs in India and China have made billions by building factories whose primary purpose is to produce greenhouse gases, so that carbon traders in the rich world will pay to clean them up.
The result of this sabotage is that the market for low-carbon technologies has remained moribund. Without an assured high value for carbon cuts, without any certainty that government policies will be sustained, companies have continued to invest in the safe commercial prospects offered by fossil fuels rather than gamble on a market without an obvious floor.
By ensuring that the rich nations would not make real cuts, Gore also guaranteed that the poor ones scoffed when we asked them to do as we don't. When George Bush announced, in 2001, that he would not ratify the Kyoto protocol, the world cursed and stamped its foot. But his intransigence affected only the US. Gore's team ruined it for everyone.
The destructive power of the American delegation is not the only thing that hasn't changed. After the Kyoto protocol was agreed, the then British environment secretary, John Prescott, announced: "This is a truly historic deal which will help curb the problems of climate change. For the first time it commits developed countries to make legally binding cuts in their emissions." Ten years later, the current environment secretary, Hilary Benn, told us that "this is an historic breakthrough and a huge step forward. For the first time ever, all the world's nations have agreed to negotiate on a deal to tackle dangerous climate change." Do these people have a chip inserted?
In both cases, the US demanded terms that appeared impossible for the other nations to accept. Before Kyoto, the other negotiators flatly rejected Gore's proposals for emissions trading. So his team threatened to sink the talks. The other nations capitulated, but the US still held out on technicalities until the very last moment, when it suddenly appeared to concede. In 1997 and in 2007 it got the best of both worlds: it wrecked the treaty and was praised for saving it.
Hilary Benn is an idiot. Our diplomats are suckers. American negotiators have pulled the same trick twice, and for the second time our governments have fallen for it.
There are still two years to go, but so far the new agreement is even worse than the Kyoto protocol. It contains no targets and no dates. A new set of guidelines also agreed at Bali extend and strengthen the worst of Gore's trading scams, the clean development mechanism. Benn and the other dupes are cheering and waving their hats as the train leaves the station at last, having failed to notice that it is travelling in the wrong direction.
Although Gore does a better job of governing now he is out of office, he was no George Bush. He wanted a strong, binding and meaningful protocol, but American politics had made it impossible. In July 1997, the Senate had voted 95-0 to sink any treaty which failed to treat developing countries in the same way as it treated the rich ones. Though they knew this was impossible for developing countries to accept, all the Democrats lined up with all the Republicans. The Clinton administration had proposed a compromise: instead of binding commitments for the developing nations, Gore would demand emissions trading. But even when he succeeded, he announced that "we will not submit this agreement for ratification [in the Senate] until key developing nations participate". Clinton could thus avoid an unwinnable war.
So why, regardless of the character of its leaders, does the US act this way? Because, like several other modern democracies, it is subject to two great corrupting forces. I have written before about the role of the corporate media - particularly in the US - in downplaying the threat of climate change and demonising anyone who tries to address it. I won't bore you with it again, except to remark that at 3pm eastern standard time on Saturday, there were 20 news items on the front page of the Fox News website. The climate deal came 20th, after "Bikini-wearing stewardesses sell calendar for charity" and "Florida store sells 'Santa Hates You' T-shirt".
Let us consider instead the other great source of corruption: campaign finance. The Senate rejects effective action on climate change because its members are bought and bound by the companies that stand to lose. When you study the tables showing who gives what to whom, you are struck by two things.
One is the quantity. Since 1990, the energy and natural resources sector - mostly coal, oil, gas, logging and agribusiness - has given $418m to federal politicians in the US. Transport companies have given $355m. The other is the width: the undiscriminating nature of this munificence. The big polluters favour the Republicans, but most of them also fund Democrats. During the 2000 presidential campaign, oil and gas companies lavished money on Bush, but they also gave Gore $142,000, while transport companies gave him $347,000. The whole US political system is in hock to people who put their profits ahead of the biosphere.
So don't believe all this nonsense about waiting for the next president to sort it out. This is a much bigger problem than George Bush. Yes, he is viscerally opposed to tackling climate change. But viscera don't have much to do with it. Until the American people confront their political funding system, their politicians will keep speaking from the pocket, not the gut.
API is bridge from 2 to 3: Cooney
Bush 43 (though a former oil man, like his dad and his VP Cheney) had run against Gore (whom his father called Ozone Man, but lost to him) pledging to act on climate;
Bush pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001.
A briefing note prepared forPaula Dobriansky, [neo-con, Cheney? ; sister?] Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs, ahead of her meeting with Glenn Kelly of the Exxon-bankrolled Global Climate Coalition, states: “POTUS [President of the United States] rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you… Interested in hearing from you, what type of international alternatives to Kyoto would you support?” (cf Brendan Montague).
Doubles down in June on the eve of his first European trip/summit, pledges R&D, science, market based solutions //B41 at Rio. Germans pissed, but CoS/CoC Andy Card says machiavellian ploy to use East Germany to lessen action.
:{
}:
yikes, she's baaaaack pension plan? how many of b2 evil are bacK
One avowed optimist is the Trump White House'sformerinternational climate adviser, George David Banks, who had supported staying in the Paris Agreement. He maintains that the hard-line U.S. stand puts the nation in a stronger negotiating position when it comes to the talks now underway. That's because the rest of the world knows the Trump administration is willing to walk away, he argues.
"The Trump administration could not have negotiated the Paris Agreement—it took the Obama administration to do that," argues Banks. "But now that the international community has invested so much political capital in the agreement, the Trump administration has much more leverage than a Hillary Clinton administration would have had in finalizing these points. It's an interesting situation."
But on top of the changes in Trump's top echelon of foreign policy advisers, recent staff turnover at the White House adds to uncertainty around the future U.S. role in the climate talks.
Banks, who served as a climate negotiator in President George W. Bush's administration, resigned from his Trump administration post earlier this year when he could not obtain a security clearance. Trump's top domestic energy adviser, Michael Catanzaro, has also resigned to return to his former lobbying practice. Banks and Catanzaro, both of whom have years of experience working on energy issues, have been replaced by two young newcomers to the field. GOP political operative Wells Griffith, whose only previous experience in energy was a one-year stint in Trump's Energy Department, has been appointed to lead international climate and energy strategy for the White House, while Francis Brooke, a former aide to Vice President Mike Pence who moderated a panel on fossil fuels at last year's climate talks, will take Catanzaro's place as top domestic energy adviser.
Observers also are watching to see if the Trump administration follows through on a plan, first reported by Bloomberg, to nominate Paula Dobriansky, who was a lead climate negotiator under President George W. Bush, as undersecretary for political affairs at the State Department.Dobriansky's past statements indicate that she accepts the reality of manmade climate change, although she favors "collaboration, not coercion," and close partnerships with industry. (When Bush backed out of the Kyoto accord, she gave creditto the oil lobby.)
For the time being, Meyer sees the U.S. negotiating team as significantly hampered by its lack of high-level support and the power to deal. If his assessment is correct, even if the U.S. returns to the Paris Agreement in the future, it may be under rules that it was unable to influence.
"You basically have a loss of leadership," he said. "The [U.S.] team is doing the best they can on the technical rules, but obviously they don't have as much leverage on that issue when they are not playing on other issues. They are negotiating with one hand tied behind their back, and that creates a vacuum that others are trying to figure out how to fill."
PUBLISHED UNDER:
==
GCC comes up a fair bit in press around FF ceo: ref from unearthed/GP
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4407192-Global-Climate-Coalition-Meeting-2001.html#document/p3/a420404
TOC 9 pp dobrainsky
2001 State Department Briefing for Global Climate Coalition Meeting
"Climate change is a serious problem." :{p. 3:(style="padding-left:4px"):}:
**"POTUS rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you." :{p. 3:(style="padding-left:4px"):}:**
"Interested in hearing from you ..." :{p. 3:(style="padding-left:4px"):}:
Meeting will take place at **API headquarters****:{p. 6:(style="padding-left:4px"):}:**
=
new
https://theecologist.org/**2018/oct/**08/why-did-george-w-bush-pull-out-kyoto-protocol
Despite the huge amount of fossil fuel funding upon which George W. Bush was elected president in 2001, insiders in the monopoly-dominated oil industry remained unsure that he would fight for them - and against climate scientists.
Bush had suggested during his candidacy that CO2 should be treated as a pollutant and, therefore, subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act - even if the international Kyoto Agreement was not economically favourable for America.
Bush’s fence-sitting was strategic: swing states such as Florida were environmentally conscious and speaking out would likely give Democrat presidential candidate Al Gore the advantage.
But, optimistic environmentalists remained hopeful while wary oil-men were worried that it demonstrated a willingness to agree to the broad principles of the treaty.
A Rumoured Speech
Shortly after his inauguration, a rumour circulated that Bush planned to include a line reinforcing his earlier pledge in a forthcoming speech.
Word of the speech reached the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a Koch- and Exxon-funded think tank that helped donate to Bush’s presidential campaign. CEI set to work. As their founder and president, Fred Smith latertold *Newsweek*: “We alerted anyone we thought could have influence and get the line, if it was in the speech, out.”
Despite the think tank’s best efforts, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Christine Todd Whitman testified, on 27 February 2001 at a Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works subcommittee, that she was in favour of regulating CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act.
A week later, she signed a joint statement at the G8 Environment Ministers Meeting which said: “We commit ourselves to strive to reach agreement on outstanding political issues and to ensure in a cost-effective manner the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol.”
The President’s Position
At this, the denial machine set in motion.Haley Barbour, a lobbyist for a utility firm that stood to lose if greenhouse gases were regulated, urged Vice President Dick Cheneyin a March 1 memo to persuade Bush not to align with the “eco-extremism” of those who saw carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
A group of far-right Republican senators wrote an open letter to their new president. In light of Whitman’s testimony, they asked that Bush clarify his position on climate change, “in particular the Kyoto Protocol, and the regulation of carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.”
Aware of the rising tide against her, Whitman went to the Oval Office to fight her case on the morning of March 13. But, Bush had already composed his response, shortly to be sent via Cheney to the senators, which he read to her.
“I do not believe,” read the letter, “that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a ‘pollutant’ under the Clean Air Act.”
Information from the Department of Energy had shown that consumers’ energy bills might be affected, and that this warranted a re-evaluation of his earlier pledge, “especially… given the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of and solution to global climate change.”
Polluter Pull-Out
Whitman left defeated, just as the puppeteer Cheney arrived to hand-deliver the President’s response to the senators.
By the end of the month, the world’s biggest polluter had pulled out of Kyoto.
Whitman, who later said the decision was “the equivalent to ‘flipping the bird’ frankly to the rest of the world,” was the one to deliver the news. “We have no interest in implementing that treaty,” the former New Jersey Governor told assembled journalists.
Though the terms of the treaty would be finalised in Bonn that July, they would be made all but useless, with the world’s largest polluter out of the game.
Years later, freedom of information disclosures revealed the industry’s input to this decision.
A briefing note prepared forPaula Dobrianksy, Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs, ahead of her meeting with Glenn Kelly of the Exxon-bankrolled Global Climate Coalition, states: “POTUS [President of the United States] rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you… Interested in hearing from you, what type of international alternatives to Kyoto would you support?”
This Author
Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist, founder of Request Initiative and co-author of Impact of Market Forces on Addictive Substances and Behaviours: The web of influence of addictive industries (Oxford University Press).He tweets at @EcoMontague. This article first appeared at Desmog.uk.
==
ref
Statement of Dr. Paula Dobriansky, Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Department of State before the Senate Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion Committee on Foreign Relations November 14, 2005
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to address the “U.S.-International Climate Change Approach: A Clean Technology Solution.” During this afternoon’s testimony my colleagues and I will describe the numerous activities that the Bush Administration is taking to support the multiple goals of improving energy security, promoting economic growth and development, reducing air pollution, mitigating greenhouse gases and eradicating poverty. I am particularly pleased to discuss here today Title XVI, Subtitle B of the Energy Policy Act of 2005– which is in keeping with the Administration’s practical, technology based focus to this issue – and to outline our new Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. In his June 2001 and February 2002 climate change policy speeches President Bush highlighted the importance of international cooperation in developing an effective and efficient response to the complex and long-term challenge of climate change.1 The Administration’s international engagement on climate change issues centers on five key ideas, all of which extend from and build on our own experience here in the United States.
First, a successful international response to climate change requires developing country participation, which includes both near-term efforts to slow the growth in emissions and longer-term efforts to build capacity for future cooperation actions. Absent the participation of all major emitters, including developing countries, the goal of stabilizing GHG concentrations will remain elusive. Second, we will make more progress on this issue over time if we recognize that climate change goals fall within a broader development agenda – one that promotes economic growth, reduces poverty, provides access to modern sanitation and clean water, enhances agricultural productivity, provides energy security, reduces pollution, and mitigates greenhouse gas emissions. Countries do not look at individual development goals in a vacuum, and approaches that effectively integrate both near- and longer-term goals will yield more benefits over time....
ref
randy took out watson, long wanted to; dob spoke to API, credit for kill kyoto
Sea Change: Britain's Coastal Catastrophe
By Richard Girling
:{
}:
:{
}:
:{
}:
Paula J. Dobriansky
undersec of state she's lead climate negotiator? (coll p 91) met w/ randol at request of ambassador to sweden designate Chls Heimnold, exxon bd; :{sis at dept of energy exxon lobbyist
}:
Charles A. Heimbold, Jr., born May 27, 1933, is an American businessman and diplomat. His son is American musician Pete Francis Heimbold, of Dispatch fame.
Heimbold was nominated by President George W. Bush as U.S. Ambassador to Sweden on April 13, 2001. He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on August 1, 2001 and sworn in on September 12, 2001 in New York City. Heimbold presented his credentials to King Carl XVI Gustaf in Stockholm on September 26, 2001.
Heimbold previously served as Chairman and CEO of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.
Dr. Paula J. Dobriansky was born September 14, 1955, in Alexandria, VA. She was appointed as Under Secretary, Global Affairs on May 1, 2001, by President George Walker Bush. [1]
Dobriansky can be considered a neo-conservative. She was one of the signatories of the January 26, 1998, Project for the New American Century (PNAC Letter) to President William Jefferson Clinton. [2]
Previously, Dr. Dobriansky served as Senior Vice President and Director of the Washington Office of theCouncil on Foreign Relations, "responsible for managing the Council's office and operations in DC and for leading Council meetings, study groups, and seminars. She was also the Council's first George F. Kennan Senior Fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies."[3] She is also a member of the Trilateral Commission. [4]
According to the official Department of State biography for Dobriansky, she was "unanimously confirmed" by the Senate. Dobriansky's responsibilities include "a broad range of foreign policy issues, including democracy, human rights, labor, counter-narcotics and law enforcement, refugee and humanitarian relief matters and environmental/scientific issues. She has also been designated as the Special Coordinator for Tibet."[5][6]
Dr. Dobriansky has "served as Senior International Affairs and Trade Advisor at the law firm of :{Hunton & Williams:(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}: and as Co-Chair of the International TV Council at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting." [7]
Dobriansky's government appointments include Associate Director for Policy and Programs at the United States Information Agency (1990-1993), Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs (1987-1990); Deputy Head of the U.S. Delegation to the 1990 Copenhagen Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE); Advisor to the U.S. Delegation to the 1985 UN Decade for Women Conference in Nairobi, Kenya; and Director of European and Soviet Affairs at the National Security Council (1983-1984), the White House." She also was Foreign Policy Coordinator for Bob Dole's 1996 Campaign. [8] [9] [10]
Dobriansky received "a B.S.F.S. summa cum laude in International Politics from Georgetown University School of Foreign Service (1977) and an M.A. and Ph.D. in Soviet political/military affairs from Harvard University (1980). She is a Fulbright-Hays scholar, Ford and Rotary Foundation Fellow, a member of Phi Beta Kappa and a recipient of various awards, including Georgetown University's Annual Alumni Achievement Award, the State Department's Superior Honor Award, and Poland's Highest Medal of Merit." [11] [12]
Her father is Lev E. Dobriansky. Her sister, Larisa Dobriansky, has also been on/off in the U.S. government dealing with environmental issues, e.g., active against the Kyoto Agreements.
"Dr. Dobriansky has served on various boards, including the Western NIS Enterprise Fund, National Endowment for Democracy (Vice Chairman), Freedom House, American Council of Young Political Leaders and the American Bar Association Central and East European Law Initiative, and the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy." [13]
"Dr. Dobriansky has lectured and published articles, book chapters and op-ed pieces on foreign affairs-related topics, ranging from U.S. human rights policy to East European foreign and defense policies, public diplomacy, democracy promotion strategies, Russia and Ukraine. For three years, she hosted Freedom's Challenge and co-hosted Worldwise, the international affairs programs on National Empowerment Television. Additionally, she has appeared on ABC, CBS, CNN Headline News, CNN & Company, Fox Morning News, John McLaughlin's One-on-One, The McLaughlin Group, C-SPAN, MSNBC, PBS, National Public Radio, and has testified often before the Senate Foreign Relations and House International Relations Committees." [14]
"Paula Dobriansky was on the advisory board of the :{Independent Women's Forum:(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:and an adjunct fellow at the :{Hudson Institute:(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:." [15]
- Recipient of the 2002 NED Democracy Service Medal [1]
- Former Council member, Center for Communications, Health and the Environment
- Steering Committee, Strategic Public Diplomacy Project [2]
Contents |
Globalize democracy
In the November 17, 2002, article "Democracy Drowned Out" in The Washington Post, Jackson Diehl related the efforts of the George Walker Bush Administration to push for the adoption of an action plan that would commit "110 governments to preserve political freedom in their own countries and spread it to their neighbors." The group of democracy campaigners was led by Undersecretary of State Dobriansky who was credited for the past year with "tirelessly making the argument that terrorism may best be combated by bringing political liberty to the countries that breed extremists."[16]
Relations
- Hunton & Williams law firm -- [17]
- Center for Security Policy
- Trustee Emeriti, Fund for American Studies
SourceWatch resources
- FutureGen
- Project for the New American Century, PNAC, original signer
External links
References
- ↑ Democracy Service Medal, NED, accessed September 14, 2007.
- ↑ Steering Committee, Bipartisan Policy Center, accessed February 22, 2011.
Articles
- Paula Dobriansky, Beginning a New Chapter in Sustainable Development, U.S. Embassy, Italy, April 10, 2002.
- State Department [biography.
- Paula Dobriansky, "Democracy is Vital, Expanding Force on World Stage", U.S. Embassy, Brussels, November 14, 2002.
- Paula Dobriansky, Brookings/Council on Foreign Relations Forum World Summit on Sustainable Development, Uncorrected Transcript, Brookings Institution, Thursday, May 23, 2002.
- Remarks of :{Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham:(style="background-color:#ffcc66;"):}: At the Announcement of the FutureGen Power Plant of the Future Project and the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, February 27, 2003.
Categories: Council on Foreign Relations | Democracy | Neoconservatism | PNAC | United States | US foreign policy | Ambassadors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Dobriansky
Paula Jon Dobriansky (born September 14, 1955) is an American diplomat, public official, and foreign policy expert who served as Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs (2001-2009) and the President's Envoy to Northern Ireland (2007-2009). A specialist in Central/East European affairs and the former Soviet Union, trans-Atlantic relations, and political-military affairs, Dobriansky held key senior roles in the administrations of five U.S. Presidents.Since ending her Under Secretary position in 2009, she has been a Senior Fellow at Harvard University's JFK Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs[1] and was named in 2018 the Vice Chair of the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, the Atlantic Council. On April 25, 2018, it was reported by U.S. media that President Donald Trump intended to nominate her for the position of Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.[2]
- :{:{Background:(style="display:table-cell"):}::(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}:
- :{2:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Career:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{3:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Board Memberships and Honors:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{4:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{References:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{5:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{External links:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
Background
Dobriansky graduated summa cum laude from Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service and earned her master's and doctoral degrees from Harvard University in political-military affairs. She is a Fulbright-Hays scholar, former Rotary and Ford Foundation Fellow, and a member of Phi Beta Kappa. Her late Ukrainian American father, Dr. Lev Dobriansky, was a professor of economics and prominent anti-communist activist who initiated the Captive Nations Week during the Eisenhower Administration.[3]
Career
Government Service
Over more than 30 years, Dobriansky has served in high level, Senate confirmed, government positions. She worked at the National Security Council, the White House (1980-1987) on U.S. policy toward all East European countries and contributed to the crafting of U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union. As Director of European and Soviet Affairs in the Reagan Administration, she played a key role in the formulation of U.S. political and economic policies toward Poland, matters regarding the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and Soviet human rights issues.
From 1987-1990, Dobriansky was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairsand served in that capacity in both the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations.
central am massacres, abrams?!]
:{
}:
In 1990, she was named Deputy Head of the U.S. Delegation to the 1990 Copenhagen Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. That same year, she was appointed Associate Director (Assistant Secretary rank) of the Bureau of Policy and Programs at the United States Information Agency (USIA). And, in 1997, former President Bill Clinton appointed her to serve as a Republican Commissioner on the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy (1997-2001), a Senate-confirmed Commission.
In 2001, President George W. Bush nominated Dobriansky as Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, a position for which she was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In that position (2001-2009), she presided over a wide range of areas including human rights, international narcotics and law enforcement, refugees, oceans, environment, science, health, international women's issues and was the head of delegation and lead negotiator on U.S. climate change policy.
She is credited with having established and led the U.S.-India, U.S.-China, and U.S.-Brazil Global Issues Fora. She was also a staunch advocate of public-private partnerships and was a Founder of the U.S. Afghan Women's Council. In 2007, while serving as Under Secretary, she became the President's Envoy on Northern Ireland, for which she received the Secretary of State's highest honor, the Distinguished Service Medal, for her contribution to the historic devolution of power in Belfast. [1]
Business and academia
After leaving government service in 2009, [END OF BUSH EPIC FOR POLICY FAILS] Dobriansky became a Senior Fellow at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs[4] and later became part of the Center's "Future of Diplomacy" Project.
In January 2010, Dobriansky was appointed Distinguished National Security Chair at the U.S. Naval Academy, where she taught senior level foreign policy courses for three years. During this period, she was also a Senior Advisor at the Bipartisan Policy Center and was co-chair of the Center's Commission on Stabilizing Fragile States. And from 2010-2012, Dobriansky was Senior Vice President and Global Head of Government and Regulatory Affairs at Thomson Reuters, responsible for designing and implementing a corporate approach for engagement in Washington DC and key capitals around the globe. BROCHURE BS]
Earlier from 1997-2001, Dobriansky served as Senior Vice President and Director of the Washington Office of the Council on Foreign Relations and was the first George F. Kennan Senior Fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies.
Board Memberships and Honors
A member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Academy of Diplomacy (including Board of Directors), Dobriansky serves on the Defense Policy Board, the Secretary of State's Foreign Affairs Policy Board, and the EXIM Advisory Committee, serving as Chair of the Subcommittee on Strategic Competition with China.
Dobriansky also serves as Vice Chair of the U.S. Water Partnership (USWP), is on Concordia's Leadership Council, the Atlantic Council's Board of Directors,[5] and Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service Advisory Board. She is on the IDS International Advisory Board, providing the company with guidance on strategy and operations. From 2011-2015, she served as Chair of the National Board of Directors of the World Affairs Councils of America.
Dobriansky is the recipient of various honors such as the Foreign Policy Association Medal for her leadership on the World Affairs Councils of America and has been recognized internationally by Poland, Ukraine, Hungary, Romania, and Lithuania. She has three Honorary Doctorates of Humane Letters, one Honorary Doctor of Laws, and one Honorary Doctor of International Affairs.
References
- ^ "Paula J. Dobriansky". Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
- ^ "Trump to Pick Paula Dobriansky for Top State Department Job, Sources Say". Bloomberg.com. 25 April 2018.
- ^ "Anti-communist Lev Dobriansky dead at 89". The Washington Times. 5 February 2008. Retrieved 16 September 2013.
- ^ Belfer Center Press Release 3 March 2009 (accessed 20 March 2009).
- ^ "Board of Directors". Atlantic Council. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
External links
 |
Larisa E. Dobriansky is appointed deputy assistant secretary for national energy policy at the Department of Energy. Her job will be to manage the department’s Office of Climate Change Policy. Prior to the appointment, she was an employee of Akin Gump, where she lobbied for ExxonMobil on climate change issues. [Mother Jones, 5/2005]
Entity Tags: Larisa E. Dobriansky
Timeline Tags: US Environmental Record, Global Warming
(2001): Energy Department Official Says Bush’s Withdrawal from Kyoto Based on Input from Oil Industry Representatives
Larisa E. Dobriansky, deputy assistant secretary for national energy policy at the Department of Energy, meets with ExxonMobil lobbyist Randy Randol and the Global Climate Coalition, a group formed to oppose restrictions on greenhouse gases. Members of the coalition include ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute. In the notes she prepared for the meeting, she wrote, “POTUS [President Bush] rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you.” [Mother Jones, 5/2005]
Entity Tags: Larisa E. Dobriansky, Global Climate Coalition, Randy Randol
Timeline Tags: US Environmental Record, Global Warming
ambassador Paula J. Dobriansky is a foreign policy expert and former diplomat specializing in national security affairs. She is a Senior Fellow in the Future of Diplomacy Project at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and is Vice Chair of the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council.
From 2010-2012, Ambassador Dobriansky was Senior Vice President and Global Head ofGovernment and Regulatory Affairs at Thomson Reuters.In this position, she was responsible for designing and implementing a corporate approach for engagement in Washington, D.C. and other key capitals around the globe. During this time, she was also appointed the Distinguished National Security Chair at the U.S. Naval Academy.
Ambassador Dobriansky served as Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs from 2001 to 2009. Among her primary accomplishments, she established and led the U.S.-India, U.S.-China, and U.S.-Brazil Global Issues Fora, which advanced crucial work and international cooperation on environment, energy, health, development, and humanitarian issues. Additionally, she was head of delegation and lead negotiator on U.S. climate change policy.
In February 2007, as the President's Envoy to Northern Ireland, Ambassador Dobriansky received the Secretary of State’s highest honor, the Distinguished Service Medal, for her contribution to the historic devolution of power in Belfast. During her more than 25 years in national security affairs, Ambassador Dobriansky has held many Senate-confirmed and senior level positions in the U.S. Government including Director of European and Soviet Affairs at the National Security Council, the White House, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, Deputy Head of the U.S. Delegation to the 1990 Copenhagen Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) and Associate Director for Policy and Programs at the United States Information Agency.
From 1997-2001, Ambassador Dobriansky served as Senior Vice President and Director of the Washington Office of the Council on Foreign Relationsand was the first George F. Kennan Senior Fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies. During this time, she also served on the President-appointed U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy.
A member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Academy of Diplomacy, Ambassador Dobriansky served on theDefense Policy Board and theSecretary of State's Foreign Affairs Policy Board.She is Chair of EXIM Bank's Chairman's Council on China Competition (C4), a Trustee of the Trilateral Commission, on the Advisory Board of Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service and Chair of the Bush Center's Women's Initiative Policy Advisory Council.
She received a B.S.F.S. summa cum laude in International Politics from Georgetown University School of Foreign Service and a M.A. and Ph.D. in Soviet political/military affairs from Harvard University. She is a Fulbright-Hays scholar, Ford and Rotary Foundation Fellow, a member of Phi Beta Kappa and a recipient of various honors such as the Foreign Policy Association Medal for her service to country and leadership of the World Affairs Councils of America and the International Republican Institute's Women's Democracy Network Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Award (2008). She has received other high-level international recognition including the Commander Cross of the Order of Merit of Poland, Poland's Highest Medal of Merit, Grand Cross of Commander of the Order of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas, National Order "Star of Romania", Hungary’s Commander’s Cross Order of Merit and Ukraine’s Order of Merit. She has also receivedthree Honorary Doctorates of Humane Letters, one Honorary Doctorate of Laws and one Honorary Doctorate of International Affairs.
ggl 10 21
Paula J. Dobriansky - Belfer Centerhttps://www.belfercenter.org › person › paula-j-dobrian...
Apr 30, 2021 — Ambassador Paula J. Dobriansky is a foreign policy expert and former diplomat specializing in national security affairs.
Ambassador Paula J. Dobriansky - Atlantic Councilhttps://www.atlanticcouncil.org › expert › ambassador-...
Ambassador Paula J. Dobriansky · Vice Chair, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security · Former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs · Senior Fellow, ...
Paula Dobriansky Defense Policy Boardhttps://policy.defense.gov › OUSDP-Offices › Paula-Do...
Ambassador Paula J. Dobriansky is a foreign policy expert and former diplomat specializing in national security affairs. She is a Senior Fellow in the ...
Paula Dobriansky - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Paula_Dobriansky
Paula Jon Dobriansky (born September 14, 1955) is an American diplomat, public official, and foreign policy expert who served as Under Secretary of State ...
Political party: Republican
Education: Georgetown University (?BS?); ?Harvard ...?
?Background · ?Career · ?Government Service · ?Business and academia
Dobriansky, Paula J. - State Departmenthttps://2001-2009.state.gov › biog
Paula J. Dobriansky was nominated by President Bush on March 12, 2001, unanimously confirmed by the Senate on April 26, and on May 1, sworn in as Under ...
Paula J. Dobriansky - George W. Bush Presidential Centerhttps://www.bushcenter.org › people › paula-j-dobrians...
Ambassador Paula J. Dobriansky is a foreign policy expert and former diplomat in national security affairs. She is a Senior Fellow in the Future of Dipl.
Paula J. Dobriansky - Berkley Centerhttps://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu › people › paula-j...
Dr. Paula J. Dobriansky is Senior Fellow at Harvard University's JFK Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and is Chair of the National Board ...
Images for Paula J. Dobriansky
Ambassador Paula J. Dobriansky to Join Rubicon Boardhttps://www.globenewswire.com › 2021/07/01 › Ambas...
Jul 1, 2021 — Ambassador Dobriansky has served as the Director and Senior Vice President of the Washington D.C. Office of the Council on Foreign Relations and ...
Paula J. Dobriansky | C-SPAN.orghttps://www.c-span.org › person › PaulaJDobriansky
On the C-SPAN Networks: Paula J. Dobriansky was an Undersecretary for Democracy and Gobal Affairs in the Department of State with 61 videos in the C-SPAN Video ...