Archive for the ‘Topics’ Category


IE University holds the No. 43 position in the IHT report on universities where employers intend to recruit in the future.

IE University holds the No. 43 position worldwide in the International Herald Tribune ranking of the main universities that employers intend to recruit from in the future, and which have the best graduates. The ranking is based on the opinion of 2,200 CEOs and top-tier executives from 1,000 companies in Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, the US and the UK, about the best 150 universities in terms of employability. US universities Harvard and Yale lead the ranking, followed by Cambridge and Oxford in the UK. There are 2 Spanish universities in the top 50, Navarra University (34) and IE University (43), which further consolidates IE University’s position in this second edition of the international ranking. Nineteen of the top 50 universities are in the US, 19 in Europe, 9 in Asia and 3 in Australia.

International Herald Tribune drafted the report in collaboration with consultancy firms Emerging (France) and Trendence (Germany), with a view to analyzing the opinions of top international executives about the quality of universities in their respective countries and continents, as well as other world regions. Some of the main findings are that recruiters hire graduates in universities which are in close contact with the corporate world and whose students gain professional experience during their studies, and companies attach greater importance to the development of social skills such as the capacity to do presentations, motivation and teamwork, than to theoretical knowledge. 

 “At a time when the employability of future graduates is more important than ever it is very satisfying to see that recruiters worldwide have once again shown that they have a high level of confidence in our students,” said Salvador Carmona, Rector of IE University.

 In order to examine issues like the challenges universities face in terms of demand in a globalized world,  the strength of emerging markets like Asia or the Arab world, and innovation in teaching methods, IE University organized the conference on  Reinventing Higher Education which took place this week. Participants included experts from international institutions like Oxford University, Brown University, the World Economic Forum, Wikipedia, Alexandria Trust and the British Council.


IE School of Arts and Humanities cordially invites you to attend a roundatable discussion on the topic of the 2012 United States Presidential Election.

The US presidential election is by far one of the world’s most important political events and only occurs once every four years. The discussion will cover current issues in the presidential campaigns, the directions in which the candidates are developing their strategic communication platforms, and the multiple perspectives of the American public as well as of our expert panel. The round table panel will be: IE Professors José Ramón Montero, Daniel Kselman, and Andrew Richards (Center for the Advanced Study in the Social Sciences, Juan March Foundation)

The event will be held on Tuesday, October 30th, 2012 at 17:30 – 19:00 In room M-001, at IE’s campus in Madrid (C/ María de Molina, 27)

Please RSVP to confirm your attendance


Al Qaeda is unpopular, yet takes advantage of failed governance, chaos throughout Muslim world

By Bruce Riedel

Resurgent Al Qaida: Affiliates attack the US consulate in Benghazi (top); Ansar al Dine insurgents on the move in Mali (below)

Last year on the day after US forces killed Osama bin Laden, the group he founded was seen by some as on its last legs. No more. While under siege by drones in Pakistan and increasingly in Yemen, Al Qaeda not only received a new lease of life from the Arab Awakening, but has created its largest safe havens and operational bases in more than a decade across the Arab world. It’s not a popular movement, but its ideology, organization and lethal power promise to be a long-term challenge to the world.

Since President Barack Obama came to office in 2009, there have been almost 300 lethal drone strikes in Pakistan flown from bases in Afghanistan, most of which targeted Al Qaeda operatives. Along with the raid on Abbottabad, the offensive has decimated the group’s leadership in Pakistan, putting it on the defensive. Its new leader, Ayman Zawahiri, works from hiding and is fighting to survive.

But Al Qaeda is not alone. Allies in Pakistan, like Lashkar e Tayyiba, the group that attacked Mumbai in 2008, or the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban, are under little or no pressure. LeT and the Afghan Taliban, focused as they are on non-Pakistani targets, still enjoy Pakistani intelligence patronage, even as the ISI fights the Pakistan Taliban. The capacity of some of these groups, especially LeT, to cause global mischief, even provoke a war in South Asia between India and Pakistan, is undiminished. Three of the five most wanted on America’s terrorist list, Zawahiri, LeT’s founder Hafeez Saeed and Taliban leader Mullah Omar are in Pakistan. Only Zawahiri is hiding, the other two enjoy the ISI’s backing. Zawahiri, too, likely has powerful protectors.

Like the rest of the world, Al Qaeda was surprised by the revolutions that toppled dictators in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen. Its ideology of violence and jihad was initially challenged by the largely nonviolent revolutionary movements that swept across North Africa and the Middle East. But Al Qaeda is an adaptive organization. It has exploited the chaos of revolutionary change to create operational bases and new strongholds from one end of the Arab world to the other.    

In North Africa, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, AQIM, a franchise of the Al Qaeda global terror organization, has successfully aligned itself with a local extremist group in Mali named Ansar al Dine, or Defenders of the Faith. Together they’ve effectively taken control of the northern two thirds of Mali. Now they’re destroying the Islamic heritage of the fabled city of Timbuktu, much as Al Qaeda and the Taliban destroyed Afghanistan’s historical treasures in the years before 9/11. Read more…

Bruce Riedel is a senior fellow at the Saban Center in the Brookings Institution and adjunct professor at the School for Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.

As published by Yale Global on October 22, 2012.


The US faces many pressing issues in the near future. But none of them got much air time on Monday night in the debate between President Barack Obama and his challenger Mitt Romney. Instead, the two candidates appear stuck in the Bush worldview, and reveal a global power on the decline.

By Gregor Peter Schmitz

Obama’s best line was his claim that Romney didn’t understand the nature of a modern military. “You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military has changed.”

Ed Luce, the sage Financial Times columnist, knows from his country’s own history all about the decline of global powers. A Briton who loves America, Luce has sought to provide the United States with well-meaning counsel, most recently in the form of a book with the whimsical title “Time to Start Thinking.” The tome is nothing less than a 320-page appeal to the US to finally face up to future strategic challenges inherent in a rapidly changing world order — so that America’s decline might remain but a horror scenario.

After the 90-minute-long foreign policy debate on Monday night between US President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger Mitt Romney, several questions remain unanswered. One, however, has been cleared up: Neither Obama nor Romney have read Luce’s book.

The two contenders for what is likely the world’s most powerful office left little time for thinking — either for themselves or for the television audience. And they failed to adequately address the new challenges facing the wobbly global power America — climate change, for example, which was left unmentioned in presidential debates for the first time since 1984. Or the rise of Asia. Or even the lack of domestic investment in infrastructure and education.

Most of all, however, in the debate in Boca Raton they declined to discuss how they intend to address the country’s central foreign policy conundrum: Americans no longer want their country to be a global police force, but they still want to continue believing in American exceptionalism.

Trapped in Bush’s World

Instead, viewers were witness to a phenomenon that Luce had likewise predicted: Romney and Obama exchanged carefully prepared platitudes as though they were trapped in a world order created for them by White House predecessor George W. Bush.

The two adversaries talked about Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and the broader Middle East. And they of course also engaged in the petty discussion as to who visited Israel or American troops abroad sooner. Read more…

Dr. Gregor Peter Schmitz is a correspondent in the Washington office of DER SPIEGEL. He focuses primarily on the coverage for SPIEGEL ONLINE but also writes regularly for the magazine.

As published in on October 23, 2012.


In Obama’s dysfunctional foreign-policy team.

By Rosa Brooks

Last chance! On Monday, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney square off on foreign policy. It will be the final debate and President Obama’s last major opportunity to convince American voters to give him four more years.

He may not have an easy time of it. In 2008, Obama’s principled positions on the Iraq War, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and interrogation policy helped motivate the Democratic base and send him to the White House with a decisive victory. But that was then. Now, Obama’s approval ratings have plummeted, both domestically and internationally. For most of his first term, they have been well below the historical average for first-term presidents.

Despite some successes large and small, Obama’s foreign policy has disappointed many who initially supported him. The Middle East initiatives heralded in his 2009 Cairo speech fizzled or never got started at all, and the Middle East today is more volatile than ever. The administration’s response to the escalating violence in Syria has consisted mostly of anxious thumb-twiddling. The Israelis and the Palestinians are both furious at us. In Afghanistan, Obama lost faith in his own strategy: he never fought to fully resource it, and now we’re searching for a way to leave without condemning the Afghans to endless civil war. In Pakistan, years of throwing money in the military’s direction have bought little cooperation and less love.

The Russians want to reset the reset, neither the Chinese nor anyone else can figure out what, if anything, the “pivot to Asia” really means, and Latin America and Africa continue to be mostly ignored, along with global issues such as climate change. Meanwhile, the administration’s expanding drone campaign suggests a counterterrorism strategy that has completely lost its bearings — we no longer seem very clear on who we need to kill or why.

Could Obama have done better?

In foreign policy as in life, stuff happens — including bad stuff no one could have predicted. Nonetheless, to a significant extent, President Obama is the author of his own lackluster foreign policy. He was a visionary candidate, but as president, he has presided over an exceptionally dysfunctional and un-visionary national security architecture — one that appears to drift from crisis to crisis, with little ability to look beyond the next few weeks. His national security staff is squabbling and demoralized, and though senior White House officials are good at making policy announcements, mechanisms to actually implement policies are sadly inadequate. Read more…

Rosa Brooks is a Schwartz Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation and a law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center.

As published in on October 18, 2012.

1 61 62 63 64 65 143