For nearly six decades, the Atlantic Council has convened, amplified, and advocated around the most pressing issues facing our world. There have been many challenges—from the brinksmanship of the Cold War, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the horror of 9/11, to the myriad disruptions facing us today. All the while, this institution has identified the trends that will shape our world and provided wise counsel in the face of radical global shifts.

It is for this very reason the Atlantic Council has launched the Adrienne Arsht Center for Resilience.

In these turbulent times, it is vital to address the interconnected, constantly changing threats and disruptions of our era.

Crafting a Resilient World: A Strategy for Navigating Turbulence serves as the foundational document of the Center. Resilience builds value and capacity in a community or system before a crisis or disruption occurs. In these turbulent times, it is vital to address the interconnected, constantly changing threats and disruptions of our era. The Adrienne Arsht Center for Resilience will do that by convening multiple stakeholders—from business, government, academia, civil society, journalism, and international organizations—to play a role in strengthening society’s capacity to respond, recover, and grow from disruptions.

This report warns that there is a gap “between resilience as a theory and as a practice.” It examines the challenges facing today’s international order and suggests how resilience can help manage these gaps. This paper—like the new Adrienne Arsht Center for Resilience— seeks to bridge the divide “between resilience as an intriguing idea and its application in practice.” An ambitious goal, undoubtedly, but one fully in keeping with the Atlantic Council’s mission to forge a common community of business and civil society leaders, cutting-edge experts, and policy makers to transform innovative ideas into lasting action.

Resilience should become a tool to unite diverse communities and individuals around a common goal: finding solutions that enable us to face disruptions head on, and bounce back better, quicker, and stronger. We are delighted to launch this new Center.

This report makes clear that resilience is needed now more than ever. We face disruption on a grand scale—and not only from technology. Open any newspaper and you will read about the unprecedented movement of people around the world, scientists warning of major environmental shifts, new actors reshaping the world’s governance, and the massive impacts of automation and globalization. The postwar international order—built on liberal principles including the rule of law, free trade, and international peaceful conflict resolution—is now under unprecedented strain.

Resilience is a roadmap to meet disruption, minimize damage, restore stability, and come back stronger.

Resilience is the capacity of a community to meet disruption or shock by minimizing damage and quickly restoring stability, while also using the experience to develop strategies for future challenges and opportunities. The forces pummeling us today may be greater than ever, but so is our capacity to adapt, mitigate, and manage them in the future. Resilience is a roadmap to achieve this: to meet disruption or shock head-on, minimize the damage it causes, restore stability quickly, and come back stronger, learning from the experience.

How exactly to imbue individuals, communities, societies, nations, and the international system with the ability to respond, recover, and grow from disruption? This is the purpose of the Adrienne Arsht Center for Resilience. This report—the founding document for the Center—identifies key components of resilience, and creative and impactful ways of advocating for resilience policy. The Atlantic Council’s newest center is dedicated to ensuring resilience is not just a useful idea, but a practical tool.

So, what does a resilient response look like? It begins with the understanding that communities must promote engagement and interaction long before any incident occurs. Resilience is impossible without building the necessary social trust. These communities understand that the world is interdependent, that they need to work across intellectual and institutional boundaries. Resilient societies recognize that an effective response to disruption requires the dismantling of stove-piped replies—multiple actors, from multiple sectors, and with multifaceted expertise must work together cooperatively to ensure they bounce back quicker, better, and stronger.

Resilience will lead to the devolution of more power to a variety of actors like cities, which would then be incorporated into global governance discussions. We need to build mechanisms to forecast how the future will unfold, and invest in avoiding “existential” disasters such as pandemics, ecological collapse, and mitigating the downsides of disruptive technology. Multinational challenges like climate change must be tackled at multiple points of entry, with local actors addressing their causes and impact while states debate responsibility and cost. Emerging powers should be given the opportunity to influence the rules of the game, while fully aware of the cost of not abiding by them.

This restructuring is pivotal as globalization, technological change, and ongoing financial risk ensure that disruption—with all its advantages and pitfalls—will continue for the foreseeable future. And those left behind by technological and economic change are making their voices heard. Across the West, disenfranchised voters are turning to leaders espousing populism and nationalism, seeking to stop the forces they deem responsible for upending their way of life. A dynamic, resilient society will include local, national, and international institutions working together to ensure that the benefits of progress are shared, and will empower citizens to succeed.

The central tenants of resilience are interdependence, foresight, prudence, trust, and scale. To make these issues tangible and actionable, the Adrienne Arsht Center for Resilience will employ a diverse toolkit of events, publications, and outreach strategies. These include studying past experiences to understand the successful (and unsuccessful) components of resilience; forecasting the future; developing resilience-based strategies to address real problems using tools such as scenario-gaming; and convening resilience networks from multiple sectors and across the globe. The Center will rely on the arts and storytelling to make resilience come alive, and on original research to give clout to policy recommendations. It will work with leaders from government, civil society, and the private sector to understand where the stumbling blocks are in implementing resilience policy, and how to overcome them.

The Adrienne Arsht Center for Resilience will provide the positive frame, the empirical substance, and the inventive messaging to turn resilience from a theory into a workable proposition. The Center’s mission must be to cultivate resilience as an antidote to the turbulent times in which we live.

We are living in a time of great uncertainty, one that offers both great possibility of a better world and great risk of a worse one. We stand at a crossroads between quantum-scale gains and chasm-sized pitfalls, between enormous hope and grinding fear, between sunny optimism and disquieting doubt. Our time may not be entirely unprecedented, for history is replete with tales that mix the good with the bad. On the positive side—life, courage, wisdom, compassion. On the negative—strife, ignorance, cruelty, injustice.

Yet, it is fair to claim that we face something new in human history. Our power over both ourselves and the planet we share with all other living things is unprecedented. So, too, is the speed at which our world turns over. More speed and more power have given us greater turbulence, not more predictability. Dynamism and risk, not stability and control, appear to rule the day.

Ever faster and more furious disruption, therefore, has become the hallmark of our time. Disruption can be a positive, the result of technological marvels and innovative ideas that give us new markets, greater riches, and expanded horizons. However, our world also is beset by all too many negative disruptions: financial meltdowns, instant pandemics, terror attacks, monster storms, refugee crises, worker obsolescence, cyber breaches. To Andrew Zolli and Ann Marie Healy, these shocks arrive “at a quickening yet erratic pace, usually from unexpected quarters, stubbornly resistant to prediction.” ¹ Disruption, heretofore an almost magical word in our lexicon, is more rightly defined as having both downsides and upsides.

When the international system works as it should, it manages and contains negative disruption while, at the same time, enabling positive disruption. If the international system fails to perform this critical function, the resulting turbulence can threaten to tear civilization—from the global level down to the local—completely asunder. We live in one such time. The international system in which we have lived since 1945 appears brittle rather than strong. Its norms, institutions, and pathways are all under assault.

Resilience is the antidote to turbulence. The basic idea behind resilience is that we can maintain ourselves in the face of shocks, recover from the worst effects, and gain in the process. The fear of chaos, combined with the hope that we can overcome it, has led us to embrace resilience as a means for navigating our world. Resilience captures the imagination precisely because it offers hope during a time of great uncertainty.

This essay examines resilience as a concept, a strategy, and a practical tool. It places resilience at the center of our great task: how to thrive despite living in unsettling times. To that end, the essay first examines resilience as a tool for use in our quickening world, one that is necessary if we are to prosper well into the future. It then places resilience within a world context, with an emphasis on how brittle the international system is becoming. Resilience thinking will help us understand and overcome this system’s limitations, ranging from the assumptions we make about how the world works to the institutions we have built and managed in order to run it, to the paths that we can pursue in order to survive within it. Lastly, this essay makes the case for the Atlantic Council’s newly minted Adrienne Arsht Center for Resilience, a center of excellence that we believe will become a powerful voice in translating resilience thinking into practical and effective action around the world.

This document is based on research conducted by Atlantic Council staff over several months in 2016 and 2017. In addition to canvassing the core literature on resilience, Atlantic Council staff, together with Meeting Street Research, conducted a series of in-depth interviews (IDIs) with resilience experts and practitioners and with global leaders across a variety of fields, including government, the military, academia, business, and the creative arts. Their input proved invaluable in crafting the findings contained in these pages.

Anne Hidalgo, Mayor of Paris and Chairwoman of the C40, addresses the conference of mayors dedicated to combatting climate change.

This century’s great challenge will be to find a way to navigate a fast-moving, interdependent, and turbulent world. What if one cannot forecast with high probability when the next crisis will occur, what it will look like, from where it will come, or what its exact effects will be? What if our fate is not entirely in our hands, because we are tied to everything else through complex webs of interconnection? What if, because of those ties, an event on one side of the world is transmitted to the other with astonishing speed? How can one survive and prosper in such a world?

Resilience provides an answer. Resilience is elegant in theory because it helps explain why some people, cities, systems, institutions, and countries are more capable of absorbing shock, recovering quickly, and emerging stronger when compared with others. Resilience is useful in practice because it offers a guide for anticipating and managing risk.

Resilience, in short, helps us both to understand our world and manage it as well. Resilience assists in understanding why diminutive Singapore is a global success story, or how New Yorkers gritted through the aftermath of 9/11, or why responses to natural disasters around the world have been so varied in their effectiveness. Resilience thinking also leads to better practice. It can assist us in anticipating risks and perils that we have yet to face, while putting us in position to take advantage of opportunities when they arise. If we are smart, resilience will be a powerful tool in service of ourselves, our societies, and ultimately, the global governance system.

So, what is resilience? While there are many definitions, we rely upon one that emerged from the IDI process. According to this consensus of experts, resilience is “the capacity of a community or system to meet disruption or shock by minimizing damage and quickly restoring stability, while also using the experience to develop strategies for future challenges and opportunities.”

As this definition suggests, resilience is a character trait more than anything else. The key word in the definition is “capacity”—the idea that we have within us the ability to anticipate and rebound from shocks. One’s capacity to be resilient is not set in stone for all time. Rather, as Judith Rodin has written, “resilience isn’t inborn.”² Resilience is something that people and societies build over time, in anticipation of shocks. Fragility and brittleness are resilience’s opposite. Those terms refer to individuals or societies that are less capable or even incapable of coping with adversity, up to and including recovery from catastrophic events.³

Those who write about resilience repeatedly emphasize the point that resilience is a trait that we ought to burnish for our own good. Resilient individuals and societies cannot defeat risk, which they cannot entirely control. Catastrophic hurricanes, massive terror attacks, international conflicts, and swiftly moving pandemics will occur in the future, but their exact timing, shape, and location will remain unknown.

Resilience builds value long before bad things happen. This is Judith Rodin’s point when she uses the term “resilience dividend”: resilience is “about achieving significant transformation that yields benefits even when disruptions are not occurring.”⁴

To this capacity argument, we should add one essential caveat. Building capacity requires a durable and sustained focus on the machinery of resilience. This focus can occur only if leaders possess the desire to invest their time and attention and that of the institutions and societies that they lead. Absent the will, capacity cannot be built, and resilience cannot fulfill its promise.

Resilient individuals, cities, institutions, and societies share a number of characteristics in common. These characteristics are strengths and are worth discussing in some detail.

Over the past seventy years, the international system has been built upon a set of principles, including the rule of law, the peaceful settlement of territorial disputes, and free and fair trade, all of which were designed to prevent great power conflict while spurring economic growth. While these principles were not always adhered to in practice, by and large they did succeed in transforming the world. It is true that many dark corners remain on the globe today. Nonetheless, it is fair to say that our era has been more prosperous, more peaceful, and more just than any previous era in world history.

Unfortunately, the international system that gave rise to this postwar transformation is unraveling. As outlined in Mat Burrows’ seminal Atlantic Council futures study, Global Risks 2035, the world of 2035 might not enjoy the benefits of a peaceful and liberal world order.⁹ Rather, the major powers might become increasingly discontent with one another. Non-state actors, restive and assertive, might increasingly disrupt the interstate system for their own ends. Climate change will threaten livelihoods. Emerging technologies, their contours barely foreseeable to us now in 2017, will throttle societies across the globe, for better and for worse.

In other words, the conditions that have kept an ever-faster and more complex world within tolerable, even beneficial, grounds are shifting under our feet. We are losing a core stabilizing mechanism, namely the global governance rudder that has steered the world since 1945. Looking ahead, we might very well be in for less certainty with increased risk, for greater acceleration with more turbulence, for more dynamism with less stability.

Global Governance Architecture

In 2015, the Atlantic Council released a strategy paper, Dynamic Stability, which laid out in detail how the world is changing and what the United States with its allies and partners should do in response.¹⁰ Among other things, this paper made the case that running the world in the twenty-first century will require reforming the architecture of global governance. That architecture has served us well, but like any aging structure, it now requires an update.

The world’s interstate governance institutions, to borrow a phrase, were built to fight the last war. This is almost a truism. in the world today, including the United Nations (UN), International Monetary Fund/World Bank, and NATO, were created shortly after World War II. These institutions reflected the lessons that the world’s leaders took from the previous decades. They also reflected the power structures that existed then, as in the case of the UN Security Council’s five permanent members (United States, Russia/Soviet Union, China, France, United Kingdom).

The trouble is that the world has changed dramatically. A shifting interstate power constellation has made it difficult to maintain the standing of multilateral institutions. One illustration was the formation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in 2015. Led by China, the AIIB was set up as a multilateral development bank outside of the IMF/World Bank system altogether. Widely interpreted as another sign of China’s growing frustration with western institutions, the bank arose, at least in part, because of steadfast US opposition to voting reform within the IMF/World Bank system, which tilts heavily toward the United States.¹¹

Running the world in the twenty-first century will require reforming the architecture of global governance.

Another difference is that the challenges are very different now compared with the 1940s. In 2015, the Atlantic Council’s Frank Kramer and two colleagues, Hans Binnendijk and Dan Hamilton, published a report on NATO reform. NATO was established to square o against a traditional foe, using traditional instruments of warfare, and oriented around a traditional objective, which is territorial defense by a standing army. Yet, the nature of warfare has changed, and NATO is now at risk. NATO has few means of dealing with hybrid warfare, nor with a variety of non-traditional threats such as refugee crises. NATO needs an explicit strategy rooted in resilience, one that would refocus the organization’s attention on non- traditional threats. NATO needs to forge new partnerships with new actors, including cyber security agencies, border control and law enforcement agencies, as well as private sector companies.¹²

While non-state actors—non-governmental organizations (NGOs), firms, terror and criminal groups, cities, religious organizations, and so on—have always been a part of the global landscape, their activities cannot be ignored. Many of these actors also have built a kind of parallel global governance architecture, one dedicated to addressing some of the same problems that nation-states attempt to solve. This architecture lies almost entirely outside of the interstate system.

Cities are among the most powerful examples of non-state actors deserving of a more significant role in world a airs. Cities are a natural home for resilience because cities are not abstractions. Rather, they are real things on real maps, sitting along coastlines, rivers, deltas, at the base of mountain ranges, in valleys, and upon deserts. Cities therefore are sites of disruption. Natural disasters are called “disasters” precisely because they strike where lots of people live, which most often means in cities. Terrorists work their infernal trade in cities, because that is where people, institutions, and symbols (e.g., the World Trade Center) are found.¹³ Economic shocks ripple through cities—new industries are built in some, old ones are shuttered in others, booms and busts are felt in just about all of them.

Increased flooding threatens a growing number of homes across the globe every year.

But the world’s cities also have become agents in global a airs, self-aware participants in the workings of the world. As the most important nodes in the global economy, city governments compete with one another for investment, skilled workers, and much more. Cities send large delegations abroad in search of financial and economic partnerships, much like national governments do, often creating durable transnational networks in the process.¹⁴

This much is to be expected. Increasingly, however, cities also see themselves as political actors in global governance. Transnational, city-centric networks dedicated to solving various global problems are now common. The most famous is the C40 Cities network, which was formed in 2005 and which now consists of more than eighty of the world’s largest cities representing a quarter of the world’s GDP and nearly a tenth of the world’s population. C40 focuses on climate change.¹⁵ Another, younger and slightly less famous case is the Strong Cities Network, which was formed as a “global network of mayors, policymakers and practitioners united in building social cohesion and resilience to counter violent extremism in all its forms.”¹⁶

These cases illustrate an important pattern. Local leaders—mayors, primarily, often from the world’s biggest cities—become frustrated with the international system’s inability to solve some big problem that affects them. These leaders understand that their cities are important components within the world system, hence they must be involved in global governance if they are to control their own fates.

Yet, states do not integrate cities into their management of world a airs. For years, the Atlantic Council has emphasized the need to bring cities into the interstate system, with some impact¹⁷ (the State Department’s capstone document, the 2015 Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, highlighted the roles that cities should play in global affairs, and reflected the Atlantic Council’s work in making its case).¹⁸ But despite some signs of progress, it is clear that states are reluctant to treat cities as partners, to the detriment of both.

Globalization and Technological Disruption

Over the past seven decades, the modern, consumer-oriented economy has expanded to include nearly the entire globe, encompassing both the world’s most populous countries (India, China) as well as the smallest. Globalization has helped to lift billions of people out of abject poverty while shifting the economic and geopolitical fortunes of entire world regions. However, globalization is a dynamic force in the world, generating great turbulence across and within economies. On balance, globalization is a net benefit in economic terms. But, it creates losers in addition to winners, and shows little loyalty to community or nationality. Going forward, globalization’s upward trajectory is not a given, as protectionist and populist currents gain traction.

Technology makes the globalization story even more vexing. Technologically-based disruption has been with us since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, creating entirely new economic sectors while at the same time destroying established ones. While this type of disruption has always roiled society, the difference now is that technological change is taking us into deeply uncharted waters and at breakneck speed to boot. Futures full of nimble robots, genetically enhanced humans, and quantum computers of unbelievable power no longer reside just in the minds of science fiction writers. These things will soon be with us, their impact destined to be profound even if their exact consequences are unknown.

In the coming years, these tensions might become even more acute. Globalization and technological change together will speed up disruption, rather than slow it down. Alec Ross, author of The Industries of the Future, argues that globalization is about to enter a “next wave” of technologically driven change that will create profound transformation across the globe.¹⁹ Brand-new winners and losers will be created everywhere. As Mat Burrows puts it, “technology spares no one.”²⁰

Overlaid against these sources of turbulence is the risk of another global financial meltdown. The 2008-2009 financial crisis, the worst of its kind since the 1929 New York stock market crash led to the Great Depression, drove home the point that the global financial system does not run on benevolent autopilot. Rather, the system’s fiendish complexity and massive scale, combined with fragmented oversight, means that it needs to be made more resilient if we are to avoid another crash. Those who study the financial system point to more consistent regulation of banks across national boundaries, better data on financial transactions, improved understanding of complex financial instruments, more transparency in the shadow banking system, and—if crisis hits—better coordination of policy responses among central banks.²¹

Environmental Thresholds

Roughly a decade ago, a group of scientists and historians coined a succinct phrase, “the great acceleration,” to neatly bring key features of the modern world together under one conceptual umbrella.²² As the term implies, during the period since 1945 in particular, human activities have become unprecedented in their scale, speed, and novelty. In a global system largely created and then managed by the United States and its allies after World War II, human endeavor of every type has exploded, outstripping everything that came before it.²³Hence the term great acceleration: if it feels like history is speeding up, that is because it is. While the great acceleration has brought enormous and often beneficial change with it, there is one big problem. Ever-faster speed means that we are engaged in a headlong rush into the future without much awareness of the consequences.

Environmental shifts have led to extreme weather patterns and major topographical changes across the planet.

Nature is providing a poignant case study. What was once the province of quiet scientific inquiry is now becoming obvious to everyone: we are living on a rapidly changing planet. Humankind’s collective rush to acquire wealth and riches has come at a colossal price, in the form of ecosystem changes at planetary scale. As evidence, scientists point not only to climate change and its effects but to the erosion of other global systems as well: to forests, fisheries, habitat, hydrology, soils, coastlines, and many others.

Scientists warn that we can expect sudden and irreversible shifts in natural systems at some point in the future, perhaps even in the short run.²⁴ A team of scientists, recently publishing in Science magazine, argued that overshooting limits “could inadvertently drive the Earth System to a much less hospitable state.”²⁵ Their dry language obscures a genuinely terrifying scenario, wherein the planet’s various life-support systems go haywire, dragging ourselves and everything else into a new and far less pleasant reality.

The IDI process showed that there is a gap between resilience as a theory and as a practice. Interviewees consistently raised this distinction, between the concept of resilience as a sound idea yet its lack of application at the societal and international levels. In other words, to the experts the demand for resilience is clear, but the practice lags far behind.

Politicians and policy makers intuitively understand resilience and find the idea compelling. However, too often the idea does not come equipped with tools that leaders can use to solve the practical challenges that they face. For the concept of resilience to fulfill its promise, it will require organizations that help translate the concept into workable terms.

For this reason, the Atlantic Council is launching the Adrienne Arsht Center for Resilience, which aspires to become one of the world’s premier organizations working in this arena. The Center will fill the gap between resilience as an intriguing idea and its application in practice.

The Center’s mission is as follows:

“The Arsht Center for Resilience advances approaches that promote the abilities of nations, cities, and individuals to respond effectively to disruption, understand and manage complex, interdependent systems, and thrive in today’s unpredictable global environment.”

The mission prioritizes finding workable solutions to real-world problems. Elected officials, company and NGO heads, policy makers, and practitioners of all kinds do not need convincing that resilience is a worthwhile frame. Rather, they need resilience-based solutions to the challenges that they face.

No one can say with complete certainty which challenges will rise to the top of the global list in the future. We can expect upheavals of all kinds in the years to come, ranging from climate change to pandemics to terror attacks and technological disruption. The IDI respondents identified a set of challenges that are deserving of the Arsht Center’s attention, including the international system, climate change, global health and pandemics, terrorism and violent extremism, cyber security, migration and refugees, energy and infrastructure, and global finance. While the Center’s work will not give equal weight to every one of these risks, at the same time it is not built with the goal of becoming a one-issue institution. It aspires to become as known for the development of resilience thinking, strategies, policies, and useful practices as for the depth of its expertise in specific issue areas.

Peter Engelke is a senior fellow within the Atlantic Council’s Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security. His work involves assessing global trends and designing strategic responses for policy makers around the world. His diverse portfolio includes topics ranging from grand strategy to regional futures to natural resources and urbanization.

Dr. Engelke has held positions at the Stimson Center and the Georgia Tech Research Institute, where he co-authored his first book, Health and Community Design. His second book, co-authored with John McNeill (The Great Acceleration, 2016), is a history of the world after 1945. Dr. Engelke is a former Bosch Fellow with the Robert Bosch Foundation in Stuttgart, Germany. He holds a PhD in history from Georgetown University and is on the adjunct faculty at Georgetown’s School of Continuing Studies. Dr. Engelke currently resides in Geneva, Switzerland.

Adrienne Arsht is a renowned businesswoman and philanthropist who has taken a leading role in promoting artistic, business, and civic growth in the three cities she calls home: Washington, DC, New York, and Miami.

After a career as a successful lawyer and entrepreneur, Arsht moved to Miami in 1996 to run her family-owned bank, TotalBank. Under her leadership as Chairman of the Board, TotalBank grew from four locations to fourteen with over $1.4 billion in assets. In 2007, she sold the bank to Banco Popular Español and was named Chairman Emerita.

Arsht’s passion for Latin America and the issues confronting the region led her to found the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center in 2013 at the Atlantic Council. She currently serves as Executive Vice Chair of the Atlantic Council, and in 2016, founded her second Center there—the Adrienne Arsht Center for Resilience.

When asked why now is the time for a center focused on resilience, Arsht said “we are at a critical moment of increasing global disruption. We must promote the abilities of communities and individuals to thrive in today’s unpredictable world. By using creative and artistic methods to showcase lessons learned from past crises, the Adrienne Arsht Center for Resilience will help societies bounce back better, faster, and stronger.”

To inform the work and vision of the Center, we have assembled a task force of esteemed leaders from industry, government, and civil society organizations. Task Force members provide input, guide the work of the Center, and servf as ambassadors of our mission. The Task Force for the Adrienne Arsht Center for Resilience includes:

Adm. Thad Allen, Commandant, United States Coast Guard (Ret.); Executive Vice President, Booz Allen Hamilton

Mr. Donald A. Baer, Woridwide Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Burson-Marsteller

Mr. Francis Bouchard, former Group Head of Government and industry Affairs, Zurich Insurance Company; Managing Director, Hamilton Place Strategies

Dr. Esther Brimmer, former Assistant Secretary for internationai Organization Affairs, US Department of State; Executive Director and CEO, NAFSA: Association of International Educators

Dr. Anita Chandra, Director, RAND Justice, Infrastructure, and Environment, RAND Corporation

Mr. Edward Davis, former Police Commissioner, Boston Police Department; President and CEO, Edward Davis LLC

The Hon. Paula J. Dobriansky, former Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs, US Department o State; Senior Fellow, Future of Diplomacy Project, JFK Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University

Mr. Martin Edelman, Senior of Counsel, Paul Hastings LLP

Ms. Shiloh Fetzek, Senior Fellow for international Affairs, The Center for Climate and Security

Dr. Stephen Flynn, Professor of Political Science', Co-Director, Kostas Research Institute; Director, Center for Resilier Studies, Northeastern University

Dr. Kathy French, General Neurosurgeon/Pediatrics Specialty (Ret.)

Ms. Sherri W. Goodman, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), US Department of Defense; Public Policy Fellow, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Judge Alice Hill, former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Resilience Policy, National Securit Council; Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University

Dr. CJ Huff, former Superintendent, Joplin Schools; President, The CJ Huff Group

Dr. Jane Holl Lute, former Deputy Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, President and CEO, Council CyberSecurity

Mr. Franklin D. Kramer, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Affairs, US Department of Defense; Distinguished Fellow, Brent Scowcroft Center on international Security, Atlantic Council

Ms. Nancy Lindborg, President, United States Institute of Peace

Gen. David H. Petraeus, former Director, Central Intelligence Agency; Chairman, KKR Global Institute

Mr. Robert Pullen, Executive Producer, Nouveau Productions

Adm. James Stavridis, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), NATO; Dean, The Fletcher School, Tul University

Judge William H. Webster, former Director of Central Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency; former Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation; Chair, Homeland Security Advisory Council