In the spirit of FDR, a Harvard think tank faces the challenges of the day

A few months ago I happened to meet Jed Willard, Director of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Foundation for Global Engagement at Harvard College, at a program on social media organized by the Canadian consulate in Boston. When we spoke briefly at the consulate I was intrigued by his description of the work of the Foundation, which includes research, programming for students and more, all carried out with the legacy of President Roosevelt in mind.

Recently I had a chance to sit down with him again to talk about the Foundation in his office in Adams House, located in rooms that were home to FDR during his time as an undergraduate at the college. With a light drizzle falling and cloudy skies outside, we sat in front of a fire as it crackled away in the fireplace, discussing the unique role that his think tank plays at Harvard College and the state of the world in general. Over the course of an hour we touched on his work with eastern European nations, discussed American-Canadian competition in the Arctic, and speculated about the likely consequences of climate change. I also got the sense from our talk that one of the central strengths of this think tank is its approach to global challenges, at once focused on individual emerging trends, while at the same time embracing a broad view of the various political, cultural and strategic elements that may be at play in any particular situation.

It will likely come as no surprise to readers of this blog that looking at world issues this way resonates deeply with me – as I have written before, on topics ranging from the Arab Spring to Russian aggression in the Ukraine, to bipartisan politics, that attempting to comprehend (let alone solve) the problems of the world requires the ability to move between the micro and macro, always mindful of nuance, without getting tripped up or waylaid by minutiae. In addressing contemporary points of crisis as well as those that are more foundational, my sense is that Mr. Willard and his colleagues are seeking to foster an environment in which undergraduates, faculty and practitioners can engage with subjects that have both shaped the world as we know it today and likely determine how societies will change going forward. This can only be a good thing.

If you visit the organization’s website I think you’re likely to notice, as I did, that there a number of questions posed, such as, “As national borders fray, are we seeing the ‘reintroduction of geopolitics?" and “How can we understand and defuse the impact of international politics on regional cooperation in the Arctic?” Good questions are at the heart of any intellectual debate worth having, and when the subject is international relations, solid questions are vital not only to the quality of discussion, but in helping guide policy experts and decision-makers faced with choices which will have serious consequences in the real world.

In exposing students to the complexities of decision-making at the global level I think the FDR Foundation for Global Engagement is not only potentially influencing the career paths of future graduates, but perhaps more importantly, helping to prepare them to be better citizens of the world. Given all of the challenges we are facing, from terrorism to climate change to breakdowns to entire regions in turmoil, right now the world could use a few more good global citizens.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

Tending to our own gardens, while the world outside is burning

If the world were perfect, if societies across the globe were free from the ravages of poverty, violence and extremism, if these forces were not constantly pulling at the threads of civil society from Baghdad to Burma, then we could certainly be content to spend our days at home, blissfully ignoring whatever happened beyond our own backyards. And yet, without having fed all the hungry people around us or found a solution to the problem of violent extremism, it feels like more and more of us are nonetheless retreating from engagement with one of the most pressing challenges of our time.

Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about this retreat from public life in the context of the rise of violent extremism and Voltaire’s Candide. In this 18th century French satire the author chronicles the life of the title character as he runs a gauntlet of increasingly violent and absurd scenarios, incessantly abused and harassed by circumstance. Eventually, exhausted by everything he has experienced, he arrives at the conclusion that the best thing to do is to remain quietly at home, tending one’s own garden. Surely there are people who read this book and immediately empathize with the protagonist: perhaps on a personal level, they too feel battered by life, and the idea of retreating into a safe corner is appealing. For others, the themes which drive this work may resonate on a larger scale, offering a compelling argument for American isolationism, borne of a desire to avoid the complexity inherent in international issues and a misguided belief that as long as the United States seems strong at home, all will be right in the world.

If we choose, we can follow the example of Candide, so beset with horror and grief that we turn away from the injustice happening all around us. We can ignore the political upheaval and violence roiling large areas of the Middle East and North Africa, where innocent civilians bear the brunt of chaos wrought by Al-Queda, ISIS and others. We can pretend we don’t know that there are people living in our own cities and towns with hate in their hearts, whose own violent fantasies are fueled by the consumption of racist, anti-Semitic or anti-government social media. This is one path we can take.

We should never forget, however, that we have the power to stand up for the things we believe in, for the people who don't have a quiet place to turn to, who have no garden of their own. In my mind, this is both the nobler, and the wiser, course of action, paying dividends not only in the impact we can have directly on our own communities and in the messages we send to the international community, but in reminding others that they can do the same.

If we want to live in a world where human rights are respected and where the rule of law is upheld then we must avoid at all costs the example of Voltaire’s hapless hero. Those of us with the capacity to help others in need should never let the minor setbacks and distractions of everyday life push us back home, away from the uncomfortable truths, messy reality, and the obligations that come with living in a free society.

Perhaps originally intended as a meditation on the absurdity and cruelty of life, I read Candide today as a call to action for leaders and everyday citizens alike. The choice is ours to make; if we so choose, we can tend our own gardens, ignoring the violent persecution of Yazidis, minority Muslims, Christians and others, but shouldn't we want to live in a world where we expect people not to cut themselves off from debate and discussion? Shouldn't we expect better things from our leaders, from our friends and neighbors?  Shouldn't we expect better things from ourselves?

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

More than just a good story, journalists risk their lives for society

On the evening of Thursday, April 8, four journalists took the stage at the Jewish Community Center of Greater Boston to discuss the increasingly dangerous environments in which journalists find themselves working. Image copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

Professional journalists and the work they do are vital to creating and maintaining healthy societies - even today, when anyone with internet access and a mobile device can brand themselves a "citizen journalist" and potentially reach a world-wide audience, there is an important distinction to be made between a random person who shares information online (which has a different value in its own way) and those who dedicate their lives to seeking out truth, holding the powerful accountable and placing information in a meaningful context.  In a well-run news organization, whether it be print, digital, radio or television, reporters and editors represent the eyes and ears of the people at every level, on topics ranging from municipal politics to presidential campaigns, and in the vast preponderance of cases, they do so in a transparent, professional way.

It has often been said that news is the first draft of history, but in a day and age in which media consumers can go online and find out what's happening in virtually every corner of the globe in a matter of minutes, the media also serves as a mirror for contemporary society. I was reminded of this last night when I attended a program at the Jewish Community Center of Greater Boston, entitled "Journalists in Jeopardy, Risking it All to Get the Story." The panel featured Aaron Schachter  of Public Radio International as moderator, Israeli journalist Amir Tibon (Walla News correspondent), Tracey Shelton (senior foreign correspondent for Boston-based international news group GlobalPost and reporter for The GroundTruth Project) and Joe Bergentino ( executive director/co-founder of the New England Center for Investigative Reporting and former investigative reporter with WBZ-TV).

The program opened with Charles Sennott, co-founder of GlobalPost and founder/executive director at The GroundTruth Project at WGBH, addressing the audience via Skype from Afghanistan, where he was working on a special report on the country more than a decade after he was there to cover the early days of the war following the September 11 attacks. The discussion then moved on to the increased level of threats that journalists around the world face today, not only when covering foreign wars but working within the United States as well.

Aaron Schachter, who donned a flak jacket with the word "Press" emblazoned across the front as he opened the program, noted that when he first began reporting from places like Gaza roughly 13 years ago, that journalists were clearly seen as non-combatants and able to work in relative safety. From the comments of all of the journalists on the stage, though, it was clear that times have changed, as they touched on the murders of James Foley and Steven Sotloff at the hands of ISIS.

It was a stark reminder that in 2015 there are organizations and individuals who are so outside the bounds of what we might call "normal" civil society that no one is safe from their brutality. It is bad enough when ISIS cruelly murders and maims innocent civilians and commits countless otherunspeakable crimes, but their killing of journalists is also a kind of statement about their rejection of international and social norms. In a previous post I made a similar argument about the Charlies Hebdo attack, noting that while I'm no fan of that publication's content, the slaying of those associated with the magazine was a double crime, first and foremost it was a horrific act of violence against those killed and injured, and second, it was an assault on free speech and the organizations which promote it.

Against this backdrop the work that these four and many others are doing is perhaps even more admirable. Whether in the case of Joe Bergentino traveling to Putin's Russia to teach fellow journalists the art of investigative reporting, or Amir risking his life as an Israeli journalist reporting from Syria, or Tracey Shelton traversing war-torn Libya as a freelancer, these men and women are not only recording the first draft of history, but showing us the ways in which corruption, terrorism and social chaos are threatening civil societies around the world today.

The existence of a free and open media is something we take for granted all too often in the United States and in other liberal societies where we assume that reporters will not only have access to high officials and critical information, but will be allowed to do so unimpeded and without fear of death or injury. In many places around the world this is not the case, and even in the United States journalists have been targeted for violence by people with twisted political or ideological agendas.

The four journalists who spoke at the JCC this week deserve our thanks and respect for the work they are doing and the risks they are taking to shine a light in the darkest corners of the globe. In turn, it is our responsibility as citizens not to shy away from the facts they report, no matter how ugly or disturbing. Perhaps if both sides, journalists and everyday citizens alike, can hold up both ends of this bargain we can work together to lessen corruption, stop the killing and restore some semblance of social stability in places like Russia, Libya and Syria, as well as remind people living in the West that a free and open media is one of the core elements of healthy, functional democracies.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

Deal with Iran seems to leave much unsaid, and perhaps even more undone

Details of the agreement struck between Iran and the west are still emerging, but based on what has been reported so far, it's hard not to see this as a victory for Iran, and at best, a temporary reprieve for the U.S., Saudis, Israel and Europe. In looking at the initial reports it seems that Iran will get to keep a significant part of its nuclear infrastructure intact in exchange for agreeing to a more intense inspection regime and the removal of some nuclear materials from the country. It may in fact be many years before history decides whether Secretary Kerry and President Obama have pulled off a brilliant diplomatic victory or merely punted the problem down the road, but perhaps between now and June , when the final agreement is supposed to be reached, we will begin to see indications of what the future may hold.

What really struck me about the early coverage of this announcement is that there was practically no mention of the other terrible things that Iran is apparently free to continue doing without incurring the wrath of the West. I guess as long as Tehran doesn't fight the US on inspections, they'll be allowed to continue to sponsor groups and acts of terror that kill and maim  citizens of the US and allied countries. I realize I'm engaging in a bit of hyperbole here, but only a little - throughout the talks with Iran it has appeared that negotiators have focused solely on the country's pursuit of nuclear weapons and ignored the rest. It's understandable that the pursuit of nuclear capabilities was at the top of the agenda, but why should Tehran get a free pass on everything else?

I'd like to see a real dismantling of the Iranian nuclear program through diplomacy as much as anyone rise, but when the deal made is one that focuses more on removing technical capabilities and less on deterring the underlying aggression behind the program, an important opportunity is lost. The message that Tehran should have taken away from this process is that belligerence and genocidal threats  will not be tolerated - not that the only thing that counts is the number of centrifuges you have and what their stated purpose is.  If the leaders of Iran walk away thinking that this was a matter of technical ability and not one of  the moral calculus modern statehood demands, it will only be a matter of time before they turn their attention once again to acquiring nuclear weapons, in the meantime using conventional forces and political repression to terrorize anyone they can, at home and abroad. 

Over the next few months the world will be watching Iran closely to see how it behaves and whether or not those in charge comply with both the letter and the spirit of whatever final agreement is reached. If they do, I suppose this would be one kind of progress, but the world should demand much more - at the end of the day it's not the centrifuges spinning that represent the ultimate threat to peace and stability, but the ideology and attitude which seeks to direct the products of this process toward destructive ends. Ultimately it is this attitude, this worldview, that needs to be dispensed with. How we can achieve this goal is anybody's guess, but a deal that ignores this deeper issue may prove, in the end, to be no deal at all.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

With AQAP at home in an increasingly unstable Yemen, U.S. is likely to feel pressure to act

 There are probably very few people in America today who are eager to see the US military become more involved in Yemen; The perception among the general public is likely that this is yet another conflict in the Middle East where US interests are not entirely clear. Between  a rocky path to disengagement from Iraq and Afghanistan, to the carnage of the Syrian civil war to the chaotic aftermath of the operation to oust Qaddafi in Libya to the rise of  of ISIS, there are many reasons to be wary of yet another foreign campaign - after all, these are just a few of the most prominent regional issues filling headlines around the world.

And now comes Yemen.

While the sense of fatigue with military involvement in the region is understandable,  I would suggest that the situation in Yemen is neither entirely new, nor divorced from important US strategic interests. Yemen has long been a difficult nation to govern and in recent years has become home to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (commonly referred to as AQAP). Using Yemen as their base of operations AQAP has made at least two serious attempts to attack the United States directly:  once through the use of a suicide bomber (which was foiled by reportedly excellent cooperation between the intelligence agencies of the United States and Saudi Arabia and another time by concealing explosives in computer printer toner cartridges, with the intention of 

blowing up cargo aircraft over US soil.

Effectively combating extremism and terrorism requires a multifaceted approach and  in their analysis, some experts emphasize the role of   law enforcement and intelligence agencies as the most important element in this effort, while others would prefer to rely more heavily on the military, and still others believe that until root causes of social inequality and injustice are addressed we will never make meaningful headway. The reality is that countering violent extremism requires cooperation between actors and agencies at all levels (and in all areas) of society, but there is also a vital need to maintain as much direct pressure on the leadership of these groups as possible, and to deny them access to safe havens. As one radio commentator I heard on NPR put it, it's much easier for terrorist groups to plan and operate when they're not worried about local security forces or the military disrupting their plans or directly attacking them.

For this reason I think leaders in the American national security establishment will soon feel pressed to become more involved in Yemen, since theidea that a group which has a clear goal of attacking the U.S. can carry on its business with a sense of relative impunity is ultimately intolerable. The various conflicts I mentioned at the top of this piece still deserve our attention and are likely to evolve in unpredictable ways, but I wouldn't be surprised if continued instability and violence and Yemen begins to play a more prominent role in  overall US strategy in the region, especially as America and its allies look to blunt the ideological influence and operational capacity of AQAP.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

Public radio and the public square intersect at WGBH in Boston

On the evening of Thursday, March 19 podcast experts, enthusiasts and producers gathered at the WGBH studios in Boston to discuss the rise and influence of this form of media. Image copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

Of my many childhood memories, one that really stands out and has had a major influence on the person I am today is listening to National Public Radio in the car with my parents. I can recall vividly many chilly New England mornings when my father or mother would drive us somewhere and Car Talk or some other show would fill the air inside the car. It's a habit I picked up myself once I got my license and it continues to this day, although I suppose my listening habits have changed over time. Along the way I've added many new shows to my list of favorites, including The Moth Radio Hour, Fresh Air, On the Media and Wait Wait ... Don't Tell Me! For anyone with a range of interests and eclectic tastes, NPR is one-stop shopping for humor and intellectual stimulation.

During my own sojourn through the thrilling (if somewhat financially perilous) world of freelance journalism many years ago I even did a short internship at WBUR in Boston for Here and Now, standing out on the street and recording brief comments from passersby to air at the start of the show. I strongly believe that virtually all of the shows on public radio play a vital and unique role in the health and well-being of civil society at every level, from the hyper-local discussions around this winter's MBTA troubles on WGBH's Boston Public Radio and WBUR's Radio Boston, to issues of national importance on the Diane Rehm Show and All Things Considered.

All forms of journalism are important for civil society, but at a time when newspaper readership is declining and the news that people consume is increasingly customized, homogenized and sanitized via narrowly selected social media channels, radio bucks that trend, something I was reminded of this last night when I attended an event called Boston Talks at the WGBH studios in Boston. The theme for the evening was "The Rise of the Podcast" and featured a number of engaging speakers from the world of podcasting.

There were a few things that drew me to this program, including the fact that I've been thinking about adding a podcast component to this blog. Also, two of the main speakers were the guys from the Fish Nerds podcast, brave souls who have caught and eaten every type of freshwater fish in the Granite State. I'd heard a piece they did on WGBH, and being an avid fisherman myself was intrigued by their epic (if at times slightly nauseating) quest to consume the range of finned denizens inhabiting New Hampshire lakes and rivers, from the undoubtedly tasty salmon to the culinarilly questionable Slimy Sculpin.

These were the two things that peaked my interest in the program, but it was the program itself and the other attendees that kept me there once I arrived - consciously or not, I think the organizers created a format which in some ways mirrored the pace and tone of a well-produced radio show. To wit, in between speakers there were breaks to mingle and meet fellow radio enthusiasts, producers and podcasters creating a fun, congenial atmosphere. This format also allowed for conversations to take place which a more frontal, one-way presentation, would not have allowed - for example I got to meet one of the Fish Nerds and trade recipes for pickled Pickerel, put a face to the voice of Edward B. Herwick III, talk New Hampshire politics with Peter Kadzis and learn a little about the evolution of the highly popular podcast Serial from producer Kerri Hoffman.

As I drove home from the event I kept thinking about some of the things I learned from Sree Srinivasan during a social media seminar at the Harvard Kennedy School last month, not only about the keys to effective tweeting and online engagement, but about the importance of using social media to connect to people and ideas in the real world. It's something I've given a lot of thought to recently and tried to integrate into my own work - both in my day job in the nonprofit sector and with this blog. For me, the Boston Talks event brought together the best elements of all of these things:  I made a couple of new contacts, got a better idea of what goes into a good podcast and stood in a space where radio, social media and "real life" interaction came together in a fun and interesting way.

Such forums are important for civil society because they encourage dialogue and interaction in creative ways, forcing individuals out of their personal media silos and into a kind of "town square" where they can encounter different opinions and perspectives. As someone who has planned (and attended) too many events of every shape and size to count, I think the organizers of Boston Talks have hit on a great formula for which they deserve praise, and I'm looking forward to attending future programs at WGBH.

Oh, and the whoopee pies were pretty good too.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

EdX course has me thinking about Snowden, Wikileaks and online education

One of my side projects this winter has been to try out an interesting course offered through EdX, a join initiative of Harvard University and MIT, which in many ways represents a significant step forward in online and distance learning. Over the next few weeks I'll be posting occasional pieces based on the work I've been doing for this class and reflecting on the overall experience of using this relatively new educational platform. The particular course I'm enrolled in, "Central Challenges of American National Security, Strategy and the Press," is offered through the Belfer Center For Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government being taught by Professors Graham Allison Derek S. Reveron and David Sanger, along with a dedicated group of teaching assistants who review the assignments and lead weekly discussion groups via google hangout  for the limited enrollment version of the course that I am taking.

When the course comes to a close I plan to post some final thoughts on the role of projects like EdX in higher education and civil society more generally, but for today I'd like to offer a few observations on the latest topic that we've been asked to tackle in this class, which is the role that leaks have played in foreign policy discourse, from Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers to Edward Snowden and Wikileaks. One thing I've been thinking about a lot is the fact that everything that Daniel Ellsberg leaked in the Pentagon Papers case was essentially historical - granted it was recent history at the time, but nonetheless the documents he brought to public attention did not, from what I can tell, compromise any on-going military or intelligence operations. By the time this information came to light it probably surprised no one that the American effort in Vietnam had essentially failed, having dragged down the Johnson presidency and taken the lives of tens of thousands of American soldiers and by some estimates close to half a million Vietnamese civilians. A strong argument could be made that by sharing the details of the war, as the US government saw them, with the American people, Ellsberg played a role in the long process of national healing which continues to this day in some ways.

In contrast, it's harder to tell what the motivation is behind the dissemination of information shared by Wikileaks, which seems, at first glance, to be less about transparency or adding to the historical record, and more about embarrassing governments and the people who lead them. Substantively, from what I have read, there aren't too many things that have come out which are all that surprising - anyone who pays close attention to the Middle East, for example, is not going to be shocked that Sunni Arab powers in the region are not thrilled with the idea of an Iranian nuclear weapon and would like the US to do something to prevent it.

The case of Edward Snowden is more complicated than Wikileaks, and perhaps falls somewhere in between the Pentagon Papers and Wikileaks, both in terms of the value to civil society as well as the threat his actions likely pose to national security. On the one hand, Snowden exposed serious overreaching by US intelligence agencies which appears to have led to data collection on a massive, unprecedented scale on the activities of American citizens. Whether or not such actions were technically legal, they seem to fall into an ethical and perhaps constitutional, gray area and Snowden's decision to bring these transgressions into the public eye are not without merit. On the other hand, his exposure of other programs which are likely very important in protecting vital US interests, along with his decision to flee the United States, passing through other countries where the data he is carrying has almost certainly been copied by foreign intelligence services, is deeply troubling. 

With Ellsberg we have the advantage of hindsight and some 40 odd years of history to back up the justification for his actions, but with Wikileaks and Edward Snowden that history is still being written. Forty years from now we will likely still be discussing the role of leaks in public policy, civil society and government - whether Wikileaks or Snowden are seen as positive or negative influences remains to be seen.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.