The outlook sessions, as the name suggests, is about thinking where are we heading, what's happening in 2016 and beyond, and this panel is on global security. We had, as we started the World Economic Forum, a global security context session, and reflecting on a few years that we know had behind us, where we saw two trends developing quickly and dramatically The first trend is the trend towards increased fragmentation, loss of trust, loss of social cohesion. Many societies are unable to deal properly with governance, with maintaining political order and maintaining a sense of being in the same boat, which of course leads to a number of consequences, but in the more extreme version the rise of violent extremism or the option for people with violent intent to capitalise on this fragility, and the opposite trend, which seems unrelated but actually is closely linked, is that we see between key powers on the planet and increasing competition over influence, at times that competition meets the areas of fragility in such a way that we see conflicts that are local, national, regional and global at the same time connected between these two trends. We have a stellar panel with us, and I will introduce them as they give their first intervention. I would like to start with Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary General of NATO. Jens Stoltenberg, former Prime Minister of Norway, has been here several times, but it's the first time he's here as the Secretary General of NATO, happy to have you with us. And one thing that we discussed in the previous session, which I think is very relevant for this one, is what we can call the blurring lines between war and peace, the complexity of actually understanding what is war and what is peace today. And I know you've been thinking about that, that this is very relevant for your job now. What's actually happening, and what is this word hybrid war that we're seeing more and more on the agenda? I think what's actually happening is exactly what you said, that before we had some kind of idea that it was either peace or war, but now more and more countries are living in a state which is in some way in between. And that is about this blurring line between war and peace. We see it when we have frozen conflicts, many places in the world. We see it when we have hybrid warfare, as we have seen for instance in Ukraine. With a mixture of military and non-military means of aggression, with deception, with overt and covert actions, and of course also terrorist attacks is also a part of a mixture of peace and war, and especially when it comes to cyber warfare, it's actually possible to wage war in a time of peace. And this is really creating some new challenges for all of us, and especially for NATO. Because we have to be agile, we have to be prepared, we have to be ready to be able to respond to a much more complex and difficult security environment. And what we see is to the east of the alliance, we see a more assertive Russia, actually using hybrid warfare in Ukraine, and to the south of the alliance we see turmoil, terror, non-state actors posing also a great threat to all allied nations. And NATO is responding, and it's also great to sit there together with Secretary Ash Carter, because the US is leading, and it's great to have Secretary of Defense, which is so focused on the transatlantic bond, which NATO represents. Så, så, our challenge is to respond to a more fragile and more dangerous security environment. I will move further to Ash Afghani, the president of Afghanistan, old friend of the forum, and a person occupying probably one of the most complicated jobs in the world, but still keeping an optimist approach. You are in just in the middle of much of what we're talking about, and Afghanistan, unfortunately for the people of Afghanistan, has been there quite a while in this intersection between fragility and competition. What have you learned? What are the things you will tell us about the security outlook from here and into the near future? Thank you. Well, the first thing is we need to understand that we are dealing with medium-term challenges, not short-term challenges, because if the challenge is not defined in the correct horizon term, we cannot put together strategies for containment and for overcoming. Second, terrorism morally reprehensible has become a sociological system. We need to understand it as an ecology where there's both competition and cooperation. Third, it has a distinctive pathology, and it is directed towards theater. The attack on Paris, Istanbul, the rest. What's the purpose? To prevent us from freedom of travel, to make us suspicion of our neighbors, to call in to question the very bond between the state and the citizen where the state protects the citizens. And lastly, it has a morphology. It changes very fast. It learns the techniques are transferable. In this environment, what is the other side of the ledger, the state system is weak. We are very privileged, and I'd like to thank both the Secretary General and Secretary Carter. The international level of understanding is remarkable, and let me pay tribute to all the men and women from 40 countries, but particularly from the United States who paid the ultimate tribute. We honour them. But the regional dimension is missing in action. Unless all the states in the region realise that this is a common threat, and we need to get the rules and we need to cooperate with each other, we will be exacerbating. What cannot be permitted is for states to behave like non-state actors or to sponsor malang non-state actors. Last point. We are a people of resilience, and we will overcome. Afghanistan will be the barian ground of Daesh and all the rest of them. Don't challenge us. We have a proverb. Revenge is sweetest when it takes place a hundred years. Before we go on, what do you see as the prospect for getting this regional alignment to deal with issues which are fundamentally transporter and can only be dealt with when countries cooperate? The first issue is at the global level the news is good. 40 countries under the very able leadership of the Secretary General and Secretary Carter have renewed their commitment in Afghanistan. Uncertainty is an enemy. Last year part of our problem was that we had uncertainty. We had a year horizon. Once we have extended the horizon and the staying power has determined strategies can be focused. Second, there is the question of differentiation. We need to differentiate each of the elements, each of the drivers of insecurity and be able to deal with them. Thirdly, it is absolutely necessary to focus on the people. We cannot have corruption. We cannot have mismanagement. We cannot neglect the poor in the excluded. Anything that perpetuates misrule, bad governance, or exacerbates poverty in here, markets are missing. The greatest missing element in the strategy of counterterrorism is the role of the market. Our greatest weakness is weak market institutions and prosperity cannot be generated just from top down. It needs to be done with functioning institutions of the private sector. My message to the private sector is you can be great partners in this effort to create stability through creating prosperity. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Let's move, let's stay in Asia, but move to the Southeast Asia, to Singapore. Deputy Minister Tharman, quite to the contrast of where Afghanistan comes from, Singapore is one of the most stable countries in the region. But you are not immune to the challenges that you are seeing, and we were just discussing even in Singapore.  We have every major religion. The largest is only one third of the population. We have every major religion that is at conflict with another globally, within our 720 square kilometers. For us, multiculturalism, multi-religious compact has been part of our identity and part of the rules of the game from the time we became a country. Because if we didn't have it, we wouldn't have survived. We wouldn't have survived. But we are not immune, and we are now having to work harder than ever before to preserve that compact, to keep that spirit of peace, tolerance, and more than peace and tolerance, that spirit of respect, that wanting to engage with each other in day-to-day life. The problem will be with us for a long time to come. I think we can't be wide eyed about this. It will be with us, because even with the vast majority of Muslims in our region, not just in Singapore but in our region, with the vast majority finding terrorism abhorrent and wanting to live in a multicultural context, even with that being the case, we will face terrorism and that threat for a long time to come. Because 0.01% of 230 million people in our region is 23,000 people. And we know what 23 people can do. South Asia, about 350 million, if you're just taking the Muslims alone and we're not counting the Hindus. That's 35,000 people. So the problem will be with us for a while, despite the fact that the vast majority find it abhorrent against their beliefs and the way they want to live their lives. Plus I think we have to accept the fact that many of those who are being converted to terrorist causes are now coming from the most advanced countries, from western liberal democracies. And we are living with the legacy of decades of segregation and a culture of exclusion. Rules can be changed but culture can't be changed quickly. This problem will be with us for a while and it means that we have to take this as a long game, build resilience. We need to strengthen our defences and that's not just talking about the military, that's talking about the state needs strong powers of surveillance, it needs powers of preventive detention and you need clear rules against hate speech. Those are compromises to preserve the larger liberty of living in an open society. We need some compromises backed by judicial authority of course, not untrammeled state power to preserve the larger liberty of living in a liberal society, open liberal societies. But more than that, far more fundamental, we've got to find ways of integrating people from the time they are kids to the time they are at the workplace, where they live and everyone having that shared hope in the future. That's been central to our strategies and we are working even harder at it. Mixed neighbourhoods are critical. A workplace where you don't have an insider-outsider problem is critical and most of our labour markets globally now still have an insider-outsider problem and it's not, as the economists would say, just about incumbent workers versus new workers. The outsiders are the young immigrants and women and if you're young and an immigrant and a woman, you're completely out. So the insider-outsider labour market is completely at contradiction with immigration and we have to resolve that problem. Neighbourhoods have to be mixed, job markets have to be open and education has to be education for people, kids in the same classroom together. Thank you very much, Deputy Prime Minister. Secretary Carter, can we come back to the phenomenon of hybrid war? How has war changed? I think even over the very few last years war appears as a somewhat different phenomenon than what we used to read about in the history books. Yeah, first of all, I'm in agreement with everything my distinguished colleagues have said here and in another era, in times past, perhaps a U.S. Secretary of Defense or a security official, Secretary General of NATO, we're worried about and committed to preventing and succeeding, if it came to that, state to state conflict and we still face that and the threat of that in many places. The Korean Peninsula is one immediate example but as has been said here and I don't expect this day to end as society grows more complex and interconnected and therefore essentially more vulnerable and as destructive power falls into the hands of smaller and smaller groups of humanity this problem of the few against the many as a security issue, I expect to be with us for a long time and so as I think about the future of the U.S. Department of Defense as I do all the time in addition to current operations, that's going to be a preoccupation of my successors and our job is to deliver security to the people in the face of that fact. Now it kind of has two aspects to it, as has been said. One is terrorism, which is sub-state actors wielding that destructive power. Unfortunately there are also states that use the same instruments and the same vulnerabilities for more traditional purposes and that's true whether it's little green men in Ukraine or as to be blunt about it and something we've objected to actors in China stealing intellectual property and not being apprehended and stopped from doing it. In China to the Iranian government aiding Houthis or contributing to Hezbollah, this kind of thing also that's what hybrid warfare is. There's terrorism, sub-state and hybrid warfare. Both of these are part of the security landscape and we can't be vulnerable to either of those. Now when it comes to state actors one has some more traditional tools available and like our NATO alliance we have to do things differently. We have a new playbook for NATO. It's not going to look like it did during the Cold War days but still has to stand strong for common defense. But I expect this to be part of our responsibilities for a long time. It is what we owe our people. That's why we're here and we can do it. But it's a very different kind of job from the way my predecessors way back needed to do my job and these gentlemen needed to do their jobs. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I think there's a common thread actually in much of what we just heard which is about the destructive power of relatively few people. And I think in the last session in your conversation with Professor Schwab we were touching on technology as a driver of that. And I think we have seen in the book that he referred to we have pointed out exactly this point that technology makes it possible to inflict much more damage without having neither a big army nor a particularly sophisticated organization. And that means that once upon a time if you had the biggest army you were the strongest. So the large army would win over the weak army as long as the other one was not particularly sophisticated in tactics. Now this is changing. And that changes the authority of the state over other people. And I think that's a major development across the board. And I think the other one is exactly this point that I think the President Ghani said first that states taking on elements of non-state actor behavior while at the same time we see non-state actors taking on certain behaviors like states as the so-called self-proclam Islamic state or Daesh. And this of course creates a picture where looking into the fence just by the fence means is increasingly difficult. And what does that mean for the alliance for instance? What does it actually mean for alliance that is basically a military alliance with political masters? It means that we have to adapt and that's really what we are doing and we are actually doing that for some time now. And for instance we have to improve our intelligence. We have to improve our situasjonal awareness. We have to improve our surveillance. To be able to define the exactly when we are under attack. Because in the all understanding of an attack it was obvious. It was some kind of the idea of tanks rolling over from the Soviet Union attacking West Europe. Then it was no doubt at all. But now when we have cyber attacks and when we have different kinds of hybrid warfare, little green men, then just to define when are we under attack. It requires more intelligence, more situasjonal awareness and we will have much less warning time. So one way of responding to this more blurred line between war and peace is increased readiness, special operation forces, more intelligence. And that's exactly what we are investing in. I'm not saying that's the whole answer but that's part of the answer. Another part of the answer is to of course be willing and able to deploy large number of combat forces in big military operations as we have done in Afghanistan, in Balkans and many other places in the world before. But in addition to be able to do that also in the future we are focusing more and more on how can we build local capacity or help countries which are affected themselves to increase their ability to defend themselves. And that's actually exactly what we now are doing in Afghanistan. Because NATO has ended our combat mission. So we now have 12,000 troops in Afghanistan who advise, train and assist the Afghans. Because in the long run it's better than the Afghans themselves to take care of their own security. We support them but they are in the front line. And actually for over one year now the Afghans have taken responsibility for their own security themselves. We will start to train Iraqi soldiers. We give support to Jordan, to Tunisia. Exactly based on the same idea we should project stability not always by deploying our own combat forces but by training local forces, countries in the region and enable them to defend themselves. And therefore it's very inspiring to see the leadership of President Ghani and your tireless effort to make Afghanistan a better place.  President Ghani, the argument that Secretary General Stoltzmer just making is the argument for state capacity and I think that has been your key theme from long before you became president also in your academic background. What could we be better at when it comes to building states that actually deliver not only security but also the social cohesion that the absence of which is the root cause of so many of these problems. And I'm not thinking necessarily Afghanistan but as a global. Well the first thing is really to put the citizen front and center. What are her needs? And I'm deliberately picking my gender right. Because as long as we have exclusion of women we're not going to get stability. It is imperative to understand that if we are going to have peace and we must have peace. It cannot be at the exclusion of our women. Second is to make the efficiency argument. Singapore is a remarkable example of efficiency. But most state institutions are inefficient. And this is not acceptable. Terrorist organizations or learning organizations why are we failing to make state institutions into learning organizations? We are slow. We are bureaucratic in the wrong sense of the term. We are not responsive. We are not adapting quickly. So first point, a lesson of honesty. We need to analyze our weaknesses vis-a-vis the enemy that we confront. And master the political will. Political will is not an abstraction. It's a concrete set of steps to make choices between difficult options. Strategy is not about rosy projections. It is about moving the process forward, generating momentum. The other part of this, regional cooperation is an absolute must economically. We are delighted, for instance, to have a neighbor like Turkmenistan who is wagering on our future. Turkmenistan is just putting billions of its own money to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. That is the type of situation that makes an immense difference. And the other is to learn. Both Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan offer examples of how, from the depths of poverty, that the Soviet, the collapsing Soviet system, lift to them, they've gone towards parts of stability. We need to appreciate and have the clarity of purpose to be able to learn from real examples. And again, he is to engage the citizens in an inclusive dialogue. I found, you know, I'm engaging continuously in town hall meetings across the provinces of Afghanistan. And what I learned in a single town hall meeting in a province is more than hundreds of meetings in Kabul. So government has to be taken out to the public. We need to take risks. If we hide ourselves behind walls, people will say, well, but they are away from us. The way the same way that they cannot build fortresses around our countries, the same way is to open the government. And I think in these regard, capacity can build. The other point, one other point. Capacity is not an abstraction. So a lot of the capacity building programs have been wrongheaded. Because they focus not on what exists. They focus on an abstract analysis of what does not exist. If we mobilize, instead of coming with plans that are made for Norway, we have to come with plans that are deliverable in Afghanistan or Kenya or somewhere else. Then you can really build in Singapore again, of provides remarkable examples historically as to how they built a housing authority from scratch and kept building institution after institution to make this delivery point. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I would like to return to Deputy Prime Minister Tharman. But I also like us to move from this theme of fragility and state weakness to the opposite end of the scale where you have strong states that compete and maybe compete even more. And some of that competition is happening in your neighborhood, not exactly in Singapore, but in the Southeast Asian and East Asian neighborhood where we see a rising China and also other powers trying to balance the rise of China. And some people have argued that these are in principle more dangerous developments that the developments we discussed first if they go wrong. So the point is how do we keep them away from going wrong. Ask you and then also Secretary Carter on that issue. Well, it's just to follow on from your last point. It's a much lower probability event, conflict in the South China Sea or in Asia between different powers. Much lower probability, but if it happens, it has major consequence. Whereas the problem we were talking about earlier of terrorism is not a very low probability. It's a very distinct probability and will also have major consequence for social cohesion for a long time to come when it happens. Asia is seeing a new balance of power. It's evolving year by year, decade by decade, and it's inevitable. Principally because the Chinese economy is now much larger. In fact, it is the dominant trading partner for virtually every East Asian country. It used to be the United States. It is now China. This evolution in the balance of power, especially between China and the United States, has so far been a peaceful rebalancing. It will be uncomfortable at times and especially because we do not yet have trust between the United States and China. And that trust takes time to build. It takes time to build. It doesn't come because we sign agreements. It takes time to build through interaction by testing each other and knowing how we each react and over time knowing that both sides deeply believe in peaceful coexistence. There are from time to time, and this may be inevitable, some unilateral assertions of power without regard to international norms and rules. And every time that happens, we have to shine a light on it and we have to insist on these matters being taken to international courts for international arbitration. That's the role of ASEAN. They are much smaller than the United States and China, and our interests are very deeply for a peaceful balance, a continued presence of the United States and a balance of power that preserves peace in the region. And our role is not just to be neutral, but to be actively neutral. We are not passive, to be actively neutral, which means shining a light whenever there are these unilateral assertions that go against international norms or international law, and requiring that disputes be taken to the international courts. Thank you. Secretary Carter, it's an old military concept to establish facts on the ground. In East Asia now, some actors have taken it to the next step, which is actually to build the ground itself, like building on islands and so on. Balance of power or an upcoming confrontation? Let me address that in one minute. I just want to commend the two preceding speakers, just if I may, on the concept of helping others. That's critical. A critical tool that we have is hardening other states so that they can protect themselves. That, in a sentence, is what we've been working with the Afghan Security Forces with. I'm President Ghani for the idea of agility and efficiency in public institutions. It's really critical, and that's why one of the reasons I'm here, it's critical that we not only be effective, but that we be seen as being effective. Now, I get to Asia and the South China Sea. Everything that has been said is very true. China's rise is a major factor. It is a welcome factor to the United States in almost every way. I'm not one of those people who believes that conflict between the United States and China is inevitable. It's certainly not desirable. I don't think it's likely, but these things are not automatic. You have to work for them. China's rise is, by the way, not the only rise going on in Asia. India's a rising military power. Japan, if you haven't noticed, is a rising military power. And there are others who are doing things, Vietnam, Philippines, and so forth. Now, our point of view on that, the US point of view, is the same one we've had longstanding, which is we welcome that. We've tried to create an environment there, and as I said earlier, I think we were the pivotal factor in making this so, in which over seven decades, essentially, everybody could follow their own destiny towards prosperity. And that includes China, and we've never tried to obstruct China's economic rise in the lifting of hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. We've welcomed that, nor any of these other states we've talked about. At the same time, one has to, we don't want to ruin a good thing, which is a system of peace and stability there. So we intend to stick up for that. We're not separate, we're not dividing the region. We don't seek to ask people to take sides. We do know that people are coming to us increasingly. Why is that? It's because China is taking some steps that I think are self-isolating, that are driving people towards a result that none of us wants, which is people coming to us and then feeling and being excluded. One of those is the one you say. I should just to be clear, China is not the only one that's making claims that we do not agree with. And they're not the only ones that are military outposts and they're not the only ones who are doing it out. We oppose all of that. And for our part, we have said everybody, not just China, but everybody who's doing that should stop and not militarize. And second, for our part, we're going to keep doing what we've always done. We will fly, we will sail, we will operate everywhere international law permits in the South China Sea. I don't care what anybody else is doing. The United States Navy is going to do what it's done. The United States Air Force is going to do it. We will react. And we are reacting. We will make investments that are intended to sustain our military position despite these developments. And we're helping other countries. They're all coming to us for assistance in maritime security. Our alliances are strengthening with Japan, with South Korea, with the Philippines, with other longings. And we're building new relationships. You know, I've been to India, Vietnam recently, and we want to have good relations with them. And we're not asking people to take sides and I respect the position of strong and principled neutrality. The little Singapore which punches way above its weight morally and in terms of influence in that region occupies. And I think their position is basically right, which is we want everybody to keep being able to do what they're doing. We don't want to have to pick sides. America doesn't want to have sides either. You know, at the same time, I think you have to recognize self-isolating behavior. And when China engages in self-isolating behavior, that is what is going to occur. But for our part, and you will see this reflected in the investments, the largest enterprise in the world, as Klaus earlier said it is, namely mine makes in coming years in its budget, and I'm preparing those budgets now, are specifically intended to deal with these challenges. So we will react, but it's not our preferred course to see self-isolating behavior by China. And yes, dialogue is the way to do this, and we hope for a better result. And I actually, and as I said, I'm not somebody who's fatalistic about things. At the same time, we have to work for good results. I look forward to working with all my colleagues in the region, including the Chinese, to get an outcome that's a win, win, win, win for everybody. That's what we've always stood for. Everybody rises. That's our philosophy. Sounds good. Secretary General Stoltenberg, when you either as Secretary General of NATO or your colleagues who are Prime Minister, Defense Minister and Foreign Minister, are discussing where to go. How do you properly judge between the issues, and I'm referring here to Deputy Prime Minister Tharman's point, that there are certain challenges which are there every day. Terrorism reminds of its existence on a weekly basis. And then you have these potential threats which are normally not occurring, which one may end up forgetting because they're not happening, and then only when they happen, you deeply regret that you didn't think about them. How can a political alliance in the proper way think the unthinkable while also managing the ongoing crisis? Well, I think NATO has been quite successful in doing exactly that for more than six decades because we have both focused on managing crisis. And we have been, you know, in Balkans and Afghanistan and many other places, managing immediate crisis here and now. But at the same time we have always had a long-term perspective of both being able to adapt as the security environment changes, but also in a way address the unthinkable, like for instance nuclear war. The Terence to be strong is part of what NATO is doing because we believe that if we stay strong, then we are able to deter and actually prevent war. The reason why we want to be strong is not because we want to fight the war. It's because we want to prevent wars by being so strong that any adversary will understand that any attack on any NATO ally is doomed to fail. So that's the reason why we are adapting. And I mentioned some of that adaptation already, but let me also remind you on the following facts that we have trippled the size of the NATO Response Force. We have established a new spearhead or high redness joint task force, which is able to move on very short notice. We have increased our military presence in the eastern part of the alliance as a response to a more assertive Russia. And we are really focusing now on the new threats in cyber and other kinds of hybrid threats. So actually I've been Secretary General for a bit more than a year, and I'm impressed by the alliance, its ability to adapt, its ability to respond to changing security environment, and that's also the reason why this is a very successful alliance. And at the core of that alliance is the unity, 28 democratic nations. We have different views, we have many discussions, but we are able to then, by consensus, reach agreement, and then there are very strong conclusions when we reach them in a united way. Can I say something that he can't say, but needs to be said? It also takes a really great Secretary General, and he's absolutely fantastic, and we all love following his leadership. Thank you very much. Unfortunately, I think our time is up. If one of you have one final point that you were burning to make, I'll give you one last chance. It doesn't sound like that. I think that's a leading question. What I just want to say, you will see in the program of the World Economic Forum annual meeting and all our other activities that we placed this issue much higher on the agenda than we used to do some years ago. And the reason behind that is not simply that we find it interesting, but we do feel that all these issues that we just discussed are so heavily interlinked with societal development, economic development that you cannot really say anything meaningful about where the world is heading without also understanding the major security trends. And thanks to the four of you for helping us to see that a little bit clearer, and that should conclude this session. Mr. President Gany, remember something, anyway? I think we should just pay a compliment. Partnerships are based on capacity for listening. And here I've had two fantastic partners who've had enormously productive dialogue where we focus on both definition of the problems and their solutions. And indeed under their leadership, we've been able to forge a way forward to see that we are not stuck in the past, but that we really have a pathway to the future. So again, compliments in, let's give them a big hand. Thank you to all of you. Session closed.


Thank you everyone for coming and good evening. My name is Alice. I'm a third year and marks student originally from Brazil. I'm currently in Sao Paulo and I'm the co-director, one of the co-directors of Latin GSAP. Latin GSAP is an interdisciplinary student organization dedicated to the promotion discussion, a reflection of contemporary issues and ideas in Latin America. The overarching theme of this semester in Latin GSAP is authority. Authority refers to the acknowledgement of the existence of oneself through the capacity to recognize the other as such, a singular, a subjective person. Authority is an essential process to achieve empathy, the capacity to put ourselves in someone else's shoes. If we cannot see the other, we cannot respect them, or if we can only see the other as the negation of oneself, we cannot relate. So tonight, collaboration with Professor Nadith, as co-creator, and with support from ELIS, Columbia Global Center Real and Columbia Global Center Santiago, Latin GSAPs wants to kick off the fall semester with a conversation among GSAPs alumni from different programs. Before, during, after GSAP aims to gather alumni with a shared identity of being from Latin America in the United States, but bringing different backgrounds, perspectives, experience in their field. We believe that the panel's experience and knowledge before, during, after GSAP will bring tremendous value to the GSAP community, especially to the incoming students. So I would like to introduce tonight's moderator, Ines Yupanqui from Bogota, Columbia. She graduated from the MSAD program in 2017 and received her bachelor's in architecture at Ponte Fiz University at Haberiana in Bogota. She currently works as an architectural designer at Lesley Guild Architect in New York for three years. Okay, so thank you all for joining us this evening and let's start by introducing our wonderful four panelists. So first we have Luisa Canuto from Campinas Brasil. She graduated from the MR program in 2019 and holds a bachelor in architecture from Ponte Fiz University at Catolica de Campinas. She's currently living in New York and working as a junior architect, co folks architects. Then we have Cecilia Gonzales Rubio joining us from Mexico. Cecilia graduated from the AAD program, the master in advanced architectural design in 2019, and she holds a bachelor in architecture from the University at Iberoma, Iber Americana in Mexico City. She is currently living in New York and working as a collaborator architect at Territorial Empathy. Our third guest is Jose Gerardo Ponteneto from Fortaleza Brasil. Jose graduated from the master in urban design program in 2018 and he holds a bachelor in architecture from the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago. And he is currently living in New York and is an urban designer at HOK. Last but not least, we have Pauline Claremont from Santiago de Chile. Pauline graduated from the master in urban planning in 2019 and she holds a bachelor in architecture from the University at the Chile. She's living in New York and she's an urban planner at HOK. Pauline was also one of the founders and active supporters of Latin GESAP. So now the panelists will share with us what was their experience before, during and after GESAP, what was their perception about GESAP and what made them chose this school over other institutions. Some might share with us what is their opinion regarding some of the questions posed by the Black Student Alliance and what was their reaction to the Eurocentric education at GESAP. And finally, we will also learn from their current experience and how the Latin American background fed into their careers. I would like now to, I would like to give the floor now to Luisa. Thank you so much, Ines. Thank you so much everyone for inviting us. I'm very excited to have this discussion with you today. I'm going to share my screen. Can everyone see me? Can I see the screen? Yep. Yeah, it's good. So, as Ines said, my timeline in relationship to GESAP, before I came here, I finished my specialties in architecture and urban planning and convenience, went to GESAP between 2016 and 2018 and I've been at Cook Fox ever since.  So that was, besides the fact that it's also New York, but you know, that was a guiding factor for my decision to come to GESAP. This project was an institutional project that I did in my last semester. It was about creating a Center for Restoration Conservation over Rainforest Park that was in a highly unequal and segregated area. During GESAP, you know, I personally always appreciated the diversity of international students. I felt that there were a few Latin oriented classes available that everyone would benefit from taking. One of my favorite theory classes was Plastic Modernity, Art, Sculpture and Cinema in Latin American Architecture by Luis Carranza. You know, he was great, very thorough and very passionate. I highly recommend that class. The project in the screen was done on Studio 5 with switchage plants. It was a studio that focused on responding to the damage caused by the hurricanes in 2012 in Puerto Rico. My exploration was about the dissemination of construction knowledge with recyclable materials for the development of an encyclopedia that potentially could be shared and used by the vehicles residents. You know, throughout my time as a student, I always tried to think about myself and how I can make a difference, you know, how I can take action in aspects of inequality and diversity that are very current and very important right now to be discussed. So after GESAP, I've been working at Cook Fox Architects. I met them through the career fair. You know, it was a great match for me. I believe in their mission of healthy, sustainable architecture that goes beyond the environment and imp opposes social and economic subjects. So these are, I'm going to go through some of the projects that have been involved with this past year. This is a two-tower residential complex in Arlington, Virginia. You know, one of the, before every project at Cook Fox, we always look at them and I had to research, you know, so we can learn about the original landscape so we can, you know, respect it and potentially incorporate it into the projects. And this project we looked at, the site is close to the Potomac River, so we looked a lot at the sedimentation and Crystal City has a strong history of masonry manufacturing. That's also something that we've looked at and tried to incorporate into the project. This project, terminal warehouse, you know, the building was originally constructed in 1891. It was a former freight distribution hub.  We had a few remaining true arc and timber structures in the city. So that's, that was very exciting, you know, and so Cook Fox mission was to restore and we use the building as a mixed use office, offices complex. You know, we, you know, always trying to preserve and enhance the strong historic elements of the building. This is an interior view of the project, you know, one, one beautiful aspect of this building is that there's the tunnel, the train track that the train tracks across through the whole building. You know, because it used to be a warehouse, storage warehouse, and, you know, with the project we're hoping to, and it was hidden for many decades under the floor but we're trying to bring the tracks up and you know incorporate some kinetic furniture on it, you know, as trying to remember and value its historic importance. So this project, it's a project I'm currently working on. It's a private residence in Sag Harbor. You know, we were inspired by the local fauna and the you know the oysters and the, and the, the water ripples, you know, the elements of nature to that, you know, helped us inform the formal exploration of the building. You know, so I feel, I feel that as a as a young architect, I I keep trying to think of ways that I could make a difference and improve. You know, and through recent discussions with other colleagues from the office, you know, we've, we've come up with a sort of a, we're calling it just this league where we where we discuss where we think we could make the most difference in one of the oh sorry so this is another another view at the entrance of the project but I just want to say that, you know, education is the basis of all change. So I think it's really important to continue this conversation in these types of events. And that's it. That's all I have to show today. Thank you, Lisa. So we're now moving to Jose. Okay. Can you guys hear me? So, can you see the screen? Yeah. So just to give a little introduction as it was mentioned before. I'm from Brazil. I graduated from the AUD program in 2018. And I've been working as an urban designer in HRK for two years, almost two years now here in New York. I wanted to thank first Latin DCEP for inviting me and giving the opportunity to talk about Latin America. And just wanted to touch upon the theme of this fall, which is austerity, because it's a very fortunate moment to kind of choose this theme, especially because I guess all the polarization that has been going on in Latin America, especially in Brazil, which I think kind of hurts the debate of how we can improve. So let's start with why I came to DCEP and why I chose DCEP to do my master's in urban design. And I think that has a direct relation to where I come from and the challenges that my hometown and my home state face. I guess also my biggest inspiration for after graduating in architecture to focus on urban design was these same challenges. I was mentioned like I graduated in Chicago and then I went back to Brazil to work for a year. And I guess after you go back and you have this background in architecture and urban urbanism, you start looking into the urban, urban relationships of your city in a different way. I guess a more wise way of like looking into things and understanding better. So that's what happened to me when I went back and as you can see this region, northeast region in Brazil is also that is in the semi-arid climate and you can see points of desertification. So this question of wetness and water scarcity in this region is kind of, it's very important. It has brought like a lot of poorness to the area historically and also prompts lots of migration from the north to the stuff of Brazil. So after I went back that kind of caught my attention and I guess was one of the main reasons that I wanted to focus on urban design. So the economy of this area is mostly like small farmers. You have livestock and you have family agriculture. And with all those droughts that happen every season, they have to start looking into another ways of like surviving during these times. It is also like this type of living is very important for our culture and the culture of the northeast. A lot of art has been done to talk about these modes of living. Like lots of books that kind of discourse about what we call the deep Brazil, like this countryside and this, you know, the challenges and these modes of living and the migration as well. So when I wanted to come and do my master's in urban design, I wanted, I looked for a school that kind of had a little bit of this relationship to water. And as you can see the urban design program, led by Kate Worf in GCEPA has historically like being a place where they study water urbanism. These are all the studios from the last years and I had the opportunity to go to Acaba in Jordan, which has similar conditions to the region I come from. It's very interesting to see like the different modes of agriculture that they use there and different ways of living with similar conditions, and it's still different from from my region from where I came from. So these are just some diagrams we used to make just to understand the relationships of goods, relationships of stakeholders, the relationship between water and land, the productive landscapes. So it's interesting to compare that to, you know, the experience that I had back home. And I also had the opportunity to focus on other projects that I was interested on, especially directly related to Latin American which was the question of urban violence. I do studies about planning policies in formal settlements in this case, Medellin for conflict urbanist class. So these things, I mean it was kind of very important that I came to GCEP knowing what my interests were and are. So I could kind of guide myself throughout this the period that I studied there with, you know, the classes that touch upon this Latin American issues. I was talking about doing GCEP, the perception of Latin American practices, and just thinking about the letters that the letters from the Black Student Association and the Black faculty at GCEP. And I made me think a little bit, I less few weeks, and I have been reading more about historically like the question of race in Brazil and, and how it's a very complex issue historically as well. So it's just interesting to see like how, at the same time that there's a lot of similarities in Latin American about inequality, urbanization rate, violence, deforestation, all things that I think all of the countries share. There's a lot of specific things to each country as well. We have different history, different colonization process, different urban structures. So, I guess it's, it's, it's hard to talk about like a Latin American urbanism. I think it could be a generalization a little bit. So I think not being aware of that kind of takes away a little bit from the debate of the urbanism in Latin America. So, I guess there are two things that we shared the same, same issues, but there's this specific things for each of the countries. I also think like there are a lot that a lot of things that we can learn from the urban interventions, the urban actions in Latin America in GCEP as well that maybe we could maybe classes or, you know, the time we study there, we could learn more. I'd like to touch upon this issue of like urban violence, like two different, very different approaches from Medellin on the left and then Rio on the right. On the left, like it's heavily based on culture and connectivity. And on the right, it's heavily based. I don't think we can even say that it's an urban design project. It's more like an urban action of UPPs. It's heavily based on police. And this project on the right has been discontinued. So, I mean, I think there's a lot of things in Latin American that we can learn from and what works and what doesn't work. So after GCEP, I just wanted to leave this quote here. R is local before being regional, but if it works, it would be contemporary and universal. I think this is the thing that I kind of bring that being from Latin American background kind of teaches me in my professional careers that the value of local knowledge, and that has a lot to do with urban design as well. Just how we still have in Latin American this relationship to the local knowledge even in the big in the big cities. And it kind of I think just teaches me of like the importance of interaction interaction with the stakeholders. For example, in this picture you can see how complex our urban systems are, and sometimes it doesn't really matter how much you stay or how much experts we are in certain fields like, I guess the local knowledge and the local people they're always, they are always talking more about these types of systems than than we know so it was something that was touched on in our urban design program in Columbia, but it's, it's something that just being from Latin America. You kind of, you have this direct relation to, you know, to the places that where you come from and, and the reality, the, the reality of like this, those all those complex urban systems. So that's it. That's what I have. Thank you just say, we are moving to with Cecilia. Or, I'm sorry, Cecilia. Hi. Thank you for having me as well. Let me just share my screen. I think Jose, if you stop sharing then we can get Cecilia screen. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so. Can everyone see it. Can everyone hear me. Yes. So, right after I finished, I guess my, my conversation is going to be a little bit of more on the informal side. Right after I finished my undergraduate studies, I worked for a year with an office called the territorial in Mexico City as an architectural researcher, and we were starting the movement of my grand buddies throughout Mexican territory. My role as an architect. I think you're muted, Cecilia. No, I already started. Not the whole time, just like the last two seconds. Okay, thank you. You're good. And so I'm going to go back a little bit. So my role as an architect here was to research my ground routes police stations, immigrant shelters, human trade hotspots, draw cartel territorial claims in order to overlap all of this. And I believe that violence happens there's a systemic organization going on there. That's very intertwined both with government and organized crime. And it's very dependent on this anonymous bodies that cross Mexican territory in pursuit of their American dream. And I'm doing all of this because right here was when I realized that the architects toolkit can be used for much more than just building. And I fell in love with it and therefore I decided to pursue a master's degree. Why Jesus. What brought me to Jesus was that I really wanted to kind of push the boundaries of what I could explore with my architects toolkit. I was very stubborn upon my decision I only applied to Jesus because I really felt that as a school that promotes and welcomes a lot to explore the arena and elongated and just be very playful with it but also very productive. I believe that I great I made a great choice by choosing Jesus up while I was an AD student. I was able to approach architecture through its most speculative lens. And it was great because my background studying architecture in Mexico City was extremely technical. I felt that I was able to complement my architectural background in a more holistic way kind of going through the both to the two extremes and just making a hot pot of both. When I got to Jesus I was really overwhelmed to be very honest everything was super different to what I was used to the amount of work was beyond my conception and I always felt that I was never going to be able to catch up. So what I really took out of my experience there was that I was able to push like boundaries and realize that I'm able to do a lot more than I ever thought so it was incredible and then after I guess that my right now I'm collaborating with territorial empathy. So very similar to my work prior making the decision. Let's see this. Very similarly to my work prior deciding to pursue a master's degree. Right now I'm working with the architects toolkit to tackle social injustice. Right now this is like a small deal that studies where the people left when the pandemic started, depending on their wage and social economical level in the society plus their race and we're doing like a bunch of super interesting studies upon it and interventions on some schools that are very marginalized and whatnot. I guess just like to wrap up I feel that my Latin background again has really helped me to be really interested in projects that tackle marginalized communities because I feel that I was really close to them as a Mexican and just growing with them. Now being here in the United States has really helped me to just feed my toolkit with a bunch of more tools and therefore I'm looking really forward to when the moment comes for me to go back to Mexico to just like keep on doing my own hot pot and bringing stuff that I learned from the US to Mexico and keep on pursuing my own stuff. That's it. Thank you Cecilia. So last but not least we have Pauline. Hi, let me see if I can share my screen. So something happened here. It just happened. No. Give me a sec. Nothing is showing. And let us know if you need us to share a screen, Pauline. Somehow it was working and now it's not. So I don't know. Let me try again. So I'm trying, let me close this and open it again. If not, go ahead and I think you guys have my file. So it's one more time. Something with my PDF I guess. It's on time now again. Portion screen. Now we should be good. And you just share it for me. I don't know why it's not working. Oh, now I think it's working, right? Perfect. All good. Yes, it's working. Perfect. I'm sorry about that. So let me just make this smaller. So, okay. So. Let's see. Perfect. So definitely thank you for the invite. Can you see my notes as well or just my screen? Just my personal screen. All good. Yes. Perfect. Thanks. So yeah, first thank you for the invite. It was interesting to see how you guys kind of made us connect the dots through our past to our future. It was a good exercise actually. So I'll be talking a little bit about my experience in Chile and here in New York. And just like sharing some reflections that I have related to that. So. So I started my career really working with, yeah, working as an architect. I decided to work independently. So I co-founded small studio that we call club architecture with my partner. We started designing and building private and public projects focusing on small business and community facilities. These projects really gave us exposure to challenges like managing minimal budgets, like minimal, like really minimal. And then also time constraints related to bureaucracy as well. And questions on how to create appropriate methodologies to be able to engage communities in the participatory processes. So when you start your office, you kind of start with what you have and then kind of trying to create those methodologies. I'll briefly show you two projects that kind of really shifted my mind from my background to architecture to planning. And those two were the ones that kind of brought me to studying urban planning, but also at G-SAP. So first, this experience, working in a great community spaces for a social housing project in Santiago, where this is a complex of team blocks that provide housing for 250 families approximately. So it's around 800 people. This project was under the umbrella of the national program called Kira Mi Barrio, that probably many people know. And it had two phases. First, the challenge to design a perimeter fencing solution to formalize the boundaries of the housing complex. And second, design the common outer space for each block. In this project, the community engagement participatory process was needed to be able to withdraw and consent occupations and at the floor plan level, as you can see, coloring red in the plan and recover really that space for the community. They recovered that space back. So imagine the challenge. So a key element for this local participatory project was really the continuous communication and engagement strategy with the community and the program at Kira Mi Barrio. Had a very interesting approach to that. They have two professionals in place. So they have someone from social sciences, like a psychology, from psychology or something that around and the community architect that they call. And we were the two professionals in place, not in place, but helping with the technical and the design and also creating the processes for participatory design. So at the end, a group of four people. And this was a very intense process. We met with the community for four months, almost every week. And different timing so people can attend people that are working. So it was a very intense and interesting process. And finally, we were able to sign and approve all these documents by all the stakeholders, like meaning the community, but also municipality and regional planning commissions as well. So from this project, we like to really underscore the importance of the process, the energy and the hope that all neighbors brought to the table with energy. I mean, good and bad, you know, it was, we had fights. It was like, it was an intense process, right? But at the same time, really acknowledging the importance of design to build a shared identity in a community, because at the end, design really has an impact on daily life experiences. And small things are really big things at the end. Like in this case, because of the parametral fencing, people were, and the design that we created with them, they were able to have a number in their block, you know, so just like recognize where is your house. So to be able to take a taxi or take a cab or receive your mail at home, which is something that seems very like small, but at the end it changes their daily life. Same with, as you can see this, the little kid like riding a bike, so we created an area so they can put their trash that was kind of hidden so kids didn't have to engage with trash, like every time they go outside. So very small details, but at the end really make the difference. So this project kind of changed my perspective on how we, architects are really in service of the communities. And sometimes it was frustrating because we had some other ideas and they were a little more, not as conservative, but they were already, for instance. And yeah, we had to kind of like move on from those to really engage with what the community needed at that moment and what they were able to trade, you know. There's an existing fabric of relationship that was already set in place and in four months, you can do so much. The second project that really changed my, my perspective was the green terrace community project. I work as part of the interdisciplinary team for a nonprofit in Santiago and I partnered with municipalities developing a local time adaptation program. This program includes workshop at schools, community meetings to raise awareness and physical interventions as well that were collectively built. And at the end publications to be able to push these interventions to actual climate policies, climate related policies. So this work kind of showed me the effectiveness of working interdisciplinary and the importance of communication in a long-term strategy and how sometimes physical interventions can also be a tiny part of the process. So among those two experiences I decided I needed a different understanding in urban planning processes including funding strategies, policies, community outreach, management and equity issues because at the end these two projects, they are valuable of course, but they're still under the umbrella of Santiago being a very segregated city and that the city where not everyone has the same quality of urban spaces. So let's move on to what happened during GSAP. So I, I finally choose GSAP because of many academic reasons as other mentioned, but also because at that time I was obsessed with New York climate strategy that they were putting up for the waterfront. So I kind of really wanted to live in this city to experience that as a student, as a citizen and engage with the city that was doing that. So during the program I had the opportunity to explore resiliency and international development that were two passions that I had from before, but also I discovered my interest in urban analytics. I think that was a great something that wouldn't have happened without GSAP. Here the first images are showing studio that we had in Gowanus where we created a toolkit for resiliency and we proved different scenarios that we were with the communities and we test them with like art makers that were living there. We also created a beta app. So we kind of tried different tools and we put them together for NISEM, the emergency management office. So they can use it as a prototype to continue this project, but also for other neighborhoods. So that was kind of like a very grounded work and at New York so it was a huge experience. And the other one is an urban analytics project that we reverse engineering famous model to define vulnerability for floating hazards that it's called HACES. And we added new proxies related to social indicators and proximity indicators. So that was experience. So we showed this project in Paris in San Francisco as well. And then this really made me understand that New York and the data availability that has the city, it's mind blowing and allows us to perform very granular and detailed analysis. And this is something that many cities are missing, you know, especially in Latin America. So I'm really looking forward to at some point kind of contributing with this knowledge to be able to develop data accessibility for planners and for communities to advocate as well. So going a little farther from the academics, I wanted to show some Latin GESA pictures actually because my experience at GESA wouldn't have been the same without Latin GESA. I was part of the team that kind of started to talk about that we needed a group and all that. And I see a lot of people in this call that are also in the images. And so these are the first meetings that we have. Here are some others. And it was just great to see how a lot of people were filling that gap of like representation and probably in some programs people had more professors that were from Latin America and in our case we didn't. So I think the conversation was missing and it was great that from the student body we were able to kind of put that together and have everyone coming from Latin America. And I'm also like just taking this slide to thank all the ones that are continuing doing it. And also when we started we had alumni also being very helpful and I remember Agustin helping us put together stuff with the GESA incubator. So I think just kind of like building a network but also a net like a safety net for people that come with a similar background was something very special that we were able to do during the program. So I have two more slides, I'll move very quickly. Yeah, let's see. So after I joined ACOM and I was able to mostly be involved in like we have multiple projects but especially transportation and run planning. So performing data analysis and mapping data for DOT and MTA projects. So we developed site work accessibility analysis and some others for future policy. It's interesting work there and very detailed. So we were mostly with engineers and planners. Then community outreach planner, that's kind of like a second role that I have there. My experience in TIEH has been key to really make me feel comfortable being involved in designing outreach strategies for ACOM projects. In working, now I'm really working in much larger scale, not necessarily at the neighborhood level but I'm working on a design project for the city that seeks to get input and facilitate dialogue amongst stakeholders in all four boroughs. So it's huge. We're creating a lot of workshops and attending multiple meetings with community boards, neighborhood advisor committees. There's a ton of like agencies to really engage. And in contrast to Santiago, I felt that community groups are far more organized and aware of the process of participation. And this is something that of course now is changing in Chile, imagine many other countries as well. So after October, it's completely clear that Chile needs more ways to like engage and promote participation at all levels. So that's something that I'm sure we can continue to discuss and translate. And then even if the scale of the outreach is completely different, I think there are some questions that can be applied, that you can apply to any kind of outreach and participation process. And the questions are just simple. I'm just going to leave them there. Maybe we can discuss later who's at the table. What are the implications of the participation in the outcomes? Is the communications strategy appropriate? And what are the ways to report back and maintain accountability? And these questions are really the challenges of like achieving equity in the participatory process. If these questions are not answered, then we might even not do it right. The last two images are part of the work that I did during COVID. So a lot of projects of the city were free. So I got the opportunity to work inside assessment for alternative facilities. I also kind of a special analysis related to resiliency work. And so yeah, it's been a little bit jumping to different topics, but somewhat all the tools that I got in GESAP have been very useful. And the ones that I previously have in my experience in Chile have been also part of the success in a way. And then moving to my last slide. And I wanted to mention this because I'm doing currently some independent research with friends from Columbia, but especially with friends from Latin GESAP. So it was Laura, Terina, around here. And it's been interesting just to have a space to support each other and cope with the pandemic and crisis and all that, but at the same time kind of discuss and reflect about the unveiling inequalities in this process. So we started doing in the first image, you'll see a study related about the crisis and the relationship with urban planning, mobility and public space. So we did kind of like a historical review. We presented that in Chile in June. And then we created some visual op-eds and visualizations. And we send it to Oculus Magazine and I don't know, it feels like now we might be in a situation that we are obligated to communicate virtually, but at the same time it feels like we might be even more connected than ever. So I'm just going to leave it here and kind of open that as a possibility to collaborate between regions. So now we might be living in the U.S. that the actual channels for communication are probably more open than ever. So I see that as an opportunity. So that's it. Okay. Thank you all for sharing with us the part that you have followed to today and also for taking us on a trip around Latin America through your projects. We have prepared some questions for you, but any of you feel free to jump in and tell us your perspective. So I'm going to start the conversation by asking Luisa and Cecilia, since you both completed your Bachelor in Architecture in Latin America, both mentioned very specific aspects of GSAP when applying to the program. What were your expectations about GSAP? Like I remember that back in the 90s, GSAP was known for its software or technological focus. So I'm wondering, was GSAP known for something specifically when you both were applying to the school? Jump in. I guess in my case, I really wanted to counterpart my very technical approach with a school that would help me understand which ever topic, regardless of how whimsical it could sound, and I feel that GSAP really promotes that and I'm very happy to say that I did find that and I feel it really helped to strengthen my background as an architect for sure. I agree with Cecilia. I don't think I completely knew what I was getting into at GSAP, but I was definitely enamored by the conceptual and the sort of representation as well, that's very iconic. I think that's also an attractor. But I also come from a technical background, so I appreciated the sort of thinking outside of the box, but in a way I feel like my education was a bit superficial, so I feel like my experience at GSAP has made me evolve intellectually a lot. So I'm very grateful for that. Thank you. So since you started in the Illinois Institute, so you have experience in the US, from Brazil, how was your experience in the studio culture between the undergraduate or the graduate school and also between Latin America and the US perhaps the relationship and communication with the critics or peers was different in their undergrad versus GSAP or you feel more comfortable in one school rather than the other. Yeah, I think just going to IIT, it was also like a very technical school. So my feeling was that there was a lack of like urbanism approach to the whole thing. It was very focused on architecture and it was great for me to understand what I think I liked and I did not like. So after I finish although I think it was great it was a great architecture school and very technical and everything but I felt I was missing this kind of this other approach to this more larger scale and the issues of like city and resiliency and all that. So that had a lot to do with my choice to go to GSAP and the urban design program it's led by a landscape architect which is very interesting it's not very usual but I guess that's really important to the approach of this school being more tackling more of those climate issues and as I mentioned like issues of wetness and water scarcity and I think it's like one of the biggest themes today so it's a very innovative school in that sense and I think we had our professors were very diverse which was very good as well so I feel very grateful that GSAP kind of leads the way like tackling those issues. Thank you. So we got a question from Yanis that I think is perfect to start talking a little bit about the experience during GSAP so Yanis is asking can you talk about some exceptional faculty members that inspired or challenged you and helped you expand your horizons and any of you are welcome to answer this question. I think there are several faculty that I kind of got really inspired one is Michael Murphy he's the founder of mass design architecture and I think he graduated from Harvard and the office is in Boston but also I think in Africa he has one office there as well so he's whole architecture office designed to you know deal with these issues of like developing countries so it was one that really inspired me and I guess Jay just in more was one of our urban design professors and he had this approach of being more advocated for like this community issues had like a lot of direct relations to the community you know to inequality so I guess we're two of my professors who really inspired me. In my case the AAD program I had studio with Nerea Calvillo and it was absolutely amazing I guess it was also the fact that it was my first semester there and she had this discourse constantly on just unlearn what you know already and be open to learning in a different way and I feel that was a great introduction to what GSAP came to be the whole year of the program super stimulating and yeah amazing and also Mark Waseuta which I feel for those kind of like the same line he's a co-director of the CCC program so I think he feeds a lot of the topics that he teaches in the CCC program to the AAD program and I think that mix is incredible and super enriching and I would really encourage whoever has the opportunity to take a class with Mark Waseuta yeah I think we're all in agreement that GSAP has very inspiring professor like when I was a student just to give an example Carla Brotsen investigating about death and how there are different options for body disposition and even though it's a very hard topic to talk about I think it's very important now that we face a global pandemic and it's just it's just inspiring to explore different options so Juan Sebastián is raising his hand let's let him ask his question thankiness and thank you to all the panelists who not only were generous with their time but also with their experiences I found a common thread in your presentations since pretty much all of you during your time at GSAP kept bringing cases from Latin American cities and try to bring that kind of perspective into at least for the UP program which I'm a student in seems to be very New York centered at times so I would like to ask you how these work on Latin American cities was received during your time at GSAP what was kind of the feedback that you got how did you feel encouraged to keep pursuing these types of research or do you think there was more that than GSAP as an institution or certain professors could do to perhaps broaden the scope of how we are looking at cities outside the US can jump in that one since I'm the MUP representative I think at least for me I didn't feel that GSAP would not encourage you to work in any city or any region actually the opposite so not even Latin America but like anywhere so I think people take it in two different approaches I had a lot of friends from Latin America working on their thesis and projects in their actual cities or places where they have previous knowledge I think that's a great approach if you want to kind of advance some specific research well my personal approach was the opposite was ok I'm just going to use this opportunity to maybe be exposed to things or I will not have a chance again so I actually took a class that's called African cities which was great with a little bit of the other question as well Pomatipa and she was really trying to make us unlearn as well how we see cities and how we see so from black bodies to actually understanding when we define cities and why and it was a very intense class and after that I think I was also doing my thesis and topics related to oil industry for instance and LNG natural gas industry so finally I jumped in and I did my thesis in Angola so everyone was asking why you are from Latin America and you are doing something in Angola but I think this allows you to explore at the level that you kind of put yourself into so definitely it requires maybe more effort and getting professors from SIPA or from other departments to kind of guide your research or your whatever project you have but at that point I think at least in MUP we didn't have that many professors working in Latin America we did travel to the Dominican Republic though so we had a studio class there that was great and for that one at least half of the group spoke Spanish and half spoke English so I was really impressed to have translating and trying to really make it work for everyone so I think it might really depend on the specificity of your topic city and also what professors are available at that moment in my experience I don't think it was a problem but you could find depending on what your topic and the city so I like that perhaps some of the other degrees are more diverse I felt like there were there was one semester where there were two traveling studios to Brazil which was great so I definitely feel like there were some studios that were Latin oriented that where the majority of the students were weren't necessarily international students so I thought that was a great trend as well with the fact that more American students are interested in Latin American countries you know that's right that's right it's a lot of studios that time one in Colombia as well and then they have also students in Chile twice so yeah there's always something happening like a couple of them in Puerto Rico as well one so moving a little bit to experience also like when you were in GESAP when I was in GESAP in 2016-2017 the conversations in Avery Hall were around the elections and Trump being the president of the U.S. nowadays we're actively discussing COVID and Black Lives Matter I'm curious to know what was the main event or focus in the years that you were students at least for us we have Maria Hiting so it was like hurricanes and floating and really trying to understand that and yeah we're still talking about elections and okay also like speaking from my experience when I was a student I was excited about the diversity of topics that the professor would address in their studios but also about the different generations so for example older generation there is Richard Plants or Bernard Schumi later there is Mabel Wilson or Mark Surumaki and in a more younger generation there is Adam Frampton, Leon Leon Christof Kompach so there have been many changes in the past for years I'm curious to know what was your perception and if you were able to read these different generations and how the different professors influenced your experience in GESAP you're welcome I totally see the difference with that comes with the academic year where these professors were formed let's say and they can really I guess I can see a generational difference but more so I think I felt a difference in the way that they were addressing the topics let's say I feel that there was a group of professors who would try to stay away from the architecture for the human as much as possible which would be kind of the tendency that maybe Andres Hake is following right now but then you have this other super social approach where the mini-scale and the detail is the focus so I think that more than generational difference I would say that I did perceive a radical difference that could be pocketed in how professors approach architecture and they're all radically different and I think it's incredible to have that diversity in one room so Jose based on your interest in addressing your home towns environmental challenges how do you feel G-sub shape the way you practice today or you understand or read Fortaleza I mean definitely G-sub in my time there especially like I mentioned just doing project let's say similar conditions in a way definitely helped me to be more in contact with the issues back home to be honest I wish I was more and I'm looking like I'm planning to be more involved definitely in the near future and the future to issues in Brazil but I guess just the whole process of learning the process of urban design the research and the stakeholders and everything it just helps to read much better those urban systems the relationships that govern how we look to cities it definitely helps me read much better but I intend to really have a closer relationship to projects back home and trying to have some impact in the future in Brazil so the next question is coming from Pauline herself I think it's very important what you're mentioning so go ahead and tell us all the question I was just wondering since Alice kind of introduced panel in the beginning so what's the opinion of the group of like BSA and Black faculty GSAP letters so I think that's something that I would just kind of like to put out there because to me I felt actually very proud that GSAP and the Black faculty members really came out with this letter I think it's super to the point and it challenges the institution not only GSAP but GSAP the topic to many other institutions I can see that in our office as well so ACOM is also going through a lot of conversations, discussions you know so we're starting to talk about the topics about racial discrimination and all that and I'm sure as other people were mentioning in their talks we have similar issues in Latin America so I feel that we are not in the same process but at least we have similar questions that we need to kind of attend and some of them are related to privilege and I remember in Latin GSAP we started talking about these issues a little bit like what's this group for you know it was more like a professional or it's more like to safety network for the people that are coming or what was and I think those questions are always kind of like in the back of our heads at least for me and so I don't know just wanted to like put it out there for others to comment yeah it's a hard one the other day I was discussing with Juan Sebastián that I feel that even though there is racism issues in Latin America or in Colombia it is not in my opinion it doesn't feel as strong as it is in the US and I wondering if it's because it's sometimes hidden by our social economical issues that are probably stronger yeah I was thinking about that a little bit as well specifically in Brazil I use I think we also have if you think about the education in Latin America maybe some countries have the same Eurocentric education and in Brazil we tend to celebrate the mix of races we say and we should celebrate the mix of races in Brazil but at the same time a lot of people just think that these issues are not so present there just because of the mix and everything but I think they are as strong as here we just don't talk much back home I guess because we tend to say oh it's fine we celebrate and everything but the real issues I think people don't don't really talk I don't think Brazil is as peaceful as the citizens think the country is in relation to race and everything so and I think the statement is very interesting because instead of like first proposing you know the school to address something it kind of demands the school to look into their own structure and how that contributes to white supremacy so I think that was like very clever just like first thinking of yourself and maybe your education that you had back home and then you start thinking in a different way of how things work there so at least that's how I took it it prompted me to think how my education was there and then how just thinking about the whole structure how that plays out I think I don't know this notion of like looking to yourself first and seeing how maybe these things are structured yeah I wanted to add up that I feel related to that as well so when all the movement and protest was happening in the United States and seeing how resonate in so many other countries and that I see back at home here in Sao Paulo that there was no like was really little sound and movement about it so I just kept me thinking about like wow like those other countries they are at least voicing and I hear the conversation didn't start so it just in my opinion felt very alarming and that even like living right next to a monument that has like a process with and like indigenous people pulling the boat so like what does that mean and that I live by like 25 years right next to the monument and never ever like question it so I think that was a lot of rethinking I contemplated like all the location that I have during like high school how the history was taught I think it made me really reflect like all what was happening at least like from my background and till now there is a question from Yanis I don't know if I'll just read it do you guys think there is a meritocracy or not do you think the faculty for example or that made its students got their position or their admission because of the color of their skin and are there faculty or students from your experience that were there without deserving it that's that's a tough one I can talk to that but maybe I won't respond to the question because I just wanted to say that I believe that we kind of need to always be analyzing who is at the program, where does it come from and trying to like see our backgrounds just to understand who we are and I think that was something that we were starting to do letting just I mean some of the conversations that I was able to be in and it's interesting I think just because the background that you have and the opportunities that you had to be able to access to apply to Columbia University you're far away probably from many other people that have been left out so it's I don't want to relate to the question directly but I think it's interesting to see the letter and see what are the needs for opening these spaces so we can have more diversity in the program and same for each country I believe so I just wanted to share the information that the students also participate in the admittance process so just for you to think about your question and also a little bit of insight into some of the work that we're doing internally and relating specifically to a coalition that's being generated right now to potentially recommend faculty hiring this is not something that happens at GSAP at the moment but there's definitely interest I can say on the part of quite a few PhD students quite a few M.R.C. students and U.P. students we would love for that process to be even more pluralistic so if you can participate in any way please feel free to reach out yeah perhaps based on what you guys are saying I'm thinking also about scholarships I mean scholarships is just a great opportunity to allow minorities in Latin America or even in this country to get access to such schools and I think that hasn't been mentioned like the access to scholarships and how that can help to diversify the school unfortunately most of the scholarships offered by Columbia are for Americans so that's definitely a challenging situation for us as international students dealing with the cost often we have to look for scholarship programs in our country very difficult to social coming from Columbia and most of the scholarship from our countries require us to go back so after we finish the whatever program we enrolling at least like from here then most of them you have to come back which like it helps with that but then it stops your progress you know I don't know I mean through your presentations and the discussion I heard a lot about the students studios or trips that are done in or to Latin America I'm wondering if you guys think we are well represented because it seems like we are but then there are still we're still a minority and I would like to just know your opinion on that I guess it changes from program to program a lot in which year you're taking your masters in in my case I could say that maybe I was I was in a particular year but in my class there was a big concentration of Latin American people and it was it was great both in as students and as professors maybe it was the program again in my year but I did feel that there was a lot of inclusion of of people from all over the world I I honestly never felt that that Latin American people were a minority in my class yeah I think in the urban design program I think I could relate to that I mean there is diversity I think only I don't know from 53 only 5 or 6 students were American the rest was a lot I have to say a lot of students from from Asia as well but I felt we had a good mix and maybe it's because I mean I don't know I think the urban design program is very it looks it's a forward thinking a lot so I I didn't feel that there was a lack of diversity in my year at least yeah Inia is saying I think it's also important to differentiate that racial diversity is not the same as economic diversity and that they can be intersectional regarding our discussion I totally agree with that but for example in my particular case I got an admission scholarship as a Mexican student to GSAP so I think there is an intersection there yeah and maybe a last question before we wrap up like we are all the 5 of us are here in New York and still trying to absorb as much as possible from the city but do you feel motivated to bring at some point you're not just that you have to go back to Mexico and you're not just going back to New York and GSAP or in New York to your countries definitely that in my personal case is what I'm really looking for that that's I guess my professional and personal goal to go back to Mexico and fit it back to whatever I know yeah I mean same for me sorry go ahead just trying to follow it up on that I believe that we can do a lot of things collaboratively with groups so if you have the right contacts in place and I think that's something that I learned at GSAP a lot of things were happening in multiple regions at the same time and yeah I'm looking forward to be able to work in Chile but also in other regions in Latin America as well so I think there's definitely a lot to do yeah maybe for me it's not so clear my heart definitely wants to go back and wants to make a difference with all of the knowledge that I've gained but at the same time all of the years that I've invested in this I guess I feel like it's two different worlds of the architect in Brazil Brazilian architect and architect in the United States it's not so easy to go back to your country and resume the profession the same I feel like you need to relearn everything in a way when you go back after having been in the United States for so many years so for me maybe it's not such a clear path but definitely think we should do something with all of the knowledge that we've gained being outside is something I was going to say that I have the same the same idea of going back I don't have a lot of experience working there I only worked a year there and I finished my undergrad here then my master's here so I think there is this kind of idea I have this kind of idea of going back and really live more the reality there so I think I will relate to what has been said okay well to all of you thank you so much it was lovely to have you in our first full conversation series and thank you for the people who join us here in Zoom and thank you also for supporting LatinGISAP so we hope to see you in the next event and yeah this is it for tonight I will ask the panelists just to say a few minutes for some last comments but thank you all for coming