Visiting Germany to better understand the past, as well as the present

In May of 2015 departing German Consul General Rolf Schutte thanked friends and colleagues at a reception held at the Goethe Institute in Boston, Massachusetts. Image copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

In a little more than one week I depart for Germany -  a someway strange thing to write, and perhaps even stranger to contemplate. And yet, this trip feels oddly natural: As someone who has taken on many different volunteer and professional leadership roles in the Jewish community, I figured in the back of my mind that one day I would visit Germany, but I had no idea when or how. Within my own family, my maternal grandparents traveled all over Europe, but as far as I know they never went to Germany, while my great aunt Betty, an inveterate world traveler, visited both East and West Berlin. It’s a little embarrassing to admit, but I don't know whether any of the family members who stayed behind when my great-grandparents came to America survived or perished in World War Two or the Holocaust - I do know that sometime in the 1920's or 1930's the last letters from those who remained in Eastern Europe, written in Yiddish and describing conditions of desperation and poverty arrived, followed by silence.

So for me, Germany - as well as Poland and Russia and the Baltics - sit in my mind like distant ghosts shrouded in a fog, present, but somehow not quite real. In thinking of these places I am reminded of "A Tale of Love and Darkness," the great, sad memoir of Amos Oz, in which he evokes the vanished Europe of his mother's youth, rendering it as some combination of terra incognita, mythic homeland and blighted landscape.

In most of my work and writing I tend to focus on events in the Middle East and North Africa, sometimes touching on Central Asia and Europe where relevant, but when an opportunity to visit Germany came up, at the invitation of the former German Consul General to New England Rolf Schutte and the German Foreign Office, I jumped at the opportunity to go and see for myself what Germany looks (and feels) like today.  But it's not only this invitation from someone for whom I have great respect and admiration that made me want to go - there are other important factors as well. In my work for the American Jewish Committee, the Israeli Consulate and the Jewish Federation I've had the chance to get to know several representatives, both official and otherwise, of Germany, and in getting to know them I've been struck by the ways in which they connect with the Jewish community are not for show but have real meaning and depth.

The connections that I saw Mr. Schutte and his predecessor, Friedrich Lohr, form with Jewish organizations and individuals, was not merely intellectual, but clearly based on mutual respect and genuine friendship. This was on display at the farewell reception for Mr. Schutte, which was attended by Israeli Consul General Yehuda Yaakov and Israel Arbeiter, a leading figure in the Holocaust survivor community in Boston. As I stood there listening to remarks by friends and colleagues of the departing Consul General, especially those who represented the Jewish community, I was struck by the impact that German diplomacy has had, at least in New England, in furthering German-Jewish relations.

The other thing that makes me feel like I should go to Germany is that there has been a significant revival of Jewish life happening there. I'm sure I'll learn more about the composition and character of this revitalized community while there, but I'm especially looking forward to meeting Israelis who've made their homes in places like Berlin and finding out more about what it's like to be Jewish in Europe today.

When I come back from Germany I plan to write more about the experience and share some of what I saw, learned and felt, and when I'm in Berlin, Frankfurt and Potsdam I'll try to Tweet (@DanielELevenson). I hope that if you find this topic to be of interest that you will follow along with me on social media. I don’t know exactly what I will find when I get to Germany, but I'm looking forward to learning as much about the present and future of Jewish life in Germany, as I am about the past.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

A Review of Anand Gopal's "No Good Men Among the Living"

In more ways than we can imagine, the course of history following the September 11, 2001 attacks and the 14 years of ensuing war in Afghanistan have shaped not only the lives of tens of thousands American military personnel and their families, but those of the people of Afghanistan as well. While events in this far-flung, mountainous nation have drifted in and out of the national consciousness as the extent and nature of U.S. involvement waxes and wanes, for the ordinary people who live in Kabul and Kandahar and any number of small villages, the war that began following the Al-Qaeda assault on New York and Washington is a constant presence.

In his book "No Good Men Among The Living," by Anand Gopal, it is life in this climate of violent instability and its impact on the people of Afghanistan, that takes center stage. While the media has profiled individual Afghans in newspapers and magazines, it is in this book-length exploration of the lives of three individuals doing their best to survive, that we get a sense of what it must be like to live life perpetually at the edge of ruin. At its core, this is a book about survival in every sense- emotional, political, physical and intellectual - in a landscape of constantly shifting allegiances, norms and rules.

It is on this shaky ground that Gopal introduces us to the person who may be the most compelling figure in the book, a woman by the name of "Heela," who sees her life and family torn apart by the war, shattering her comfortable, middle-class urban reality and condemning her to one of rural poverty, misogyny and fear. One of the brilliant things about this book is that Gopal humanizes issues by taking us into the lives of individuals, but also manages to tie what's happening on a small scale in someone's life to larger challenges in Afghan society.

One area where he does this well is in regard to the treatment and status of women, highlighting the clash that occurs when traditional ideas and male-dominated leadership structures come into contact (and often conflict) with modern, western ideas about the role of women in society. On this topic, Gopal writes, "For the ancient Pashtun mountain families, anything that marauding rivals could plunder was worth protecting and controlling - and this included women. Females were a family commodity; in some cases mountain clans even tattooed their animals and their women with the sane markings."

By providing historical context, the author helps us to better understand the present era in Afghan life, which is valuable considering that most coverage of the country today tends to lack both depth and nuance. Gopal does a service to his readers as well in offering a succinct overview of the legacy of damage left behind in the wake of the Afghan-Soviet conflict, the ghosts of Russian infantry and Soviet hegemony constantly whispering around the edges of his narrative. It was from the rubble of this earlier conflict that the modern Taliban would build their base of support, providing a sense of order in an otherwise chaotic place. Gopal observes that,  "In times of strife, taliban have usually mobilized in defense of tradition. British documents from as early as 1901 decry Taliban opposition to colonialism in present-day Pakistan. However, as with so much else, it was the Soviet invasion and US response that sent the transformative shock." This is a theme that appears again and again throughout this work, and Gopal presents a credible argument that while the history of the region is rife with violence and instability at every level, that this sequence of events has had a uniquely deleterious and perhaps permanent impact on the country.

Throughout the text he stays focused on the lives of his characters and the ways in which external forces, from senior Pakistani intelligence officials to provincial governors, tribal leaders and the US military influence their lives on a daily basis. This feeling of uncertainty, of being at the mercy of outside powers, echoes throughout the book and is illustrated in his portrayal of a Taliban leader called "Mullah Cable," who earned his nom de guerre by carrying around a whip to hit people he encountered who were, in his mind, engaging in "un-Islamic" behavior. For this man, the thirty years of war which have engulfed his country lead to a dizzying and often dispiriting array of highs and lows as he fought against US troops and endured starvation-level poverty.

None of the people presented in this book are hapless or cartoonish. The genius of Gopal's book is that while he could have easily slipped into stereotypical descriptions or coasted in places, he assiduously avoids such literary laziness, bringing the reader into the darkened rooms and conflicted mind of a widow entirely dependent on her husband's family for her survival, of a former Taliban commander forced back to the battlefield by abject poverty and of an anti-Taliban activist who sought to reform the political structure of his country at considerable risk to his own life. In doing this he humanizes the tragic trajectory of life in a perpetual war zone, bringing those of us for whom the war, and its consequences, seem impossibly distant, closer to the reality of life in Afghanistan. 

His work is also important because it provides a glimpse into a war in which thousands of American and allied forces were killed or seriously injured trying to uproot the Taliban and rebuild the country, all from a different angle than most media coverage. In telling the stories of these ordinary afghans he is contributing to our understanding of this complex and devastating war, and for this he deserves our thanks.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

At the EMK Institute in Boston, Senator Mitch McConnell and bipartisanship

The new Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the U.S. Senate features an accurate replica of the U.S. Senate Chamber. Image copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

Anyone who has read something of the history of the United States Senate probably knows that it is an institution which sees itself as playing a unique role in the history of the country, a place where time-honored traditions set the tone and rules. Recently, an organization devoted to the history and study of this venerable body, the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate, opened its doors in a spacious building on the campus of the University of Massachusetts at Boston, right next to the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. With a replica of the Senate Chamber at its center, the Institute feels like it was designed to accomplish 3 main goals: to honor the work of the Senate, to educate visitors, and to provide a venue for events and programs. 

This weekend I had the opportunity to attend the first event in the Institute's Getting to the Point series, a talk by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky). The senator was introduced by Victoria Reggie Kennedy, President of the Board of Trustees, who introduced him by recounting Senator McConnell's path to becoming Senate Majority Leader. Senator McConnell took the floor next, fondly recalling his late colleague Senator Edward M. Kennedy, offering his assessment that the replica of the Senate at the institute looks remarkably similar to the real thing, and reminiscing about his early days as a young senator.  

In this atmosphere of such intense partisanship it was frankly refreshing to hear a member of the United States Senate speak openly about bipartisan cooperation in a public forum. Senator McConnell talked about his love for the Senate as an institution, calling it the "... place where our country comes together to confront some of its most complex, intractable problems." Such sentiments are as important as they are rare these days, which is to say quite important and all too rare.

Senator McConnell also reflected on the impact that the Civil Rights movement had on his life and decision to continue his pursuit of a career in public service, recounting his experience of being in the room when President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act in 1965 and his decision at the time to invite both Republicans and Democrats to the ceremony.

Toward the end of the event Senator McConnell sat down with New York Times reporter Jackie Calmes to answer audience questions on a wide range of topics. image copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

Overall Senator McConnell's remarks highlighted the degree to which bipartisan cooperation was easier in an earlier era in the senate. In his remarks McConnell also mentioned how in his view the image presented by 24-hour cable news channels, with a strong emphasis on partisanship, makes it seem as though political leaders view their colleagues across the aisle in a completely negative light, which he insisted is not true. In my mind, from the outside it's hard to tell how much the 24-hour news cycle  does distort our image of politics and the degree of partisanship which actually exists in Congress, but I suspect that there is more than a kernel of truth in Senator McConnell's remarks.  At the same time, media reports of partisan gridlock are clearly not constructed out of whole cloth. The program drew to a close with Senator McConnell sitting with New York Times reporter Jackie Calmes and answering audience questions on topics ranging from the Patriot Act and wiretapping, to the national debt and government shutdowns.

Boston has no shortage of august venues or important institutions that host speakers on nearly every topic under the sun, from the JFK Presidential Library next door to university campuses to Symphony Hall. What sets the EMK Institute apart is clearly its focus on the United States Senate and its role as an educational resource designed to encourage enthusiasm for the legislative process and the difference it can make in the real world. If it can achieve this worthy goal it will make a significant contribution to the lives of those who visit; better still, if it can play a role in encouraging bipartisan or non-partisan cooperation on the most important challenges of our time, then its impact will do much more, contributing to the vitality and well-being of our democracy itself.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

When weakness matters more than strength in strategy

Strength, and the perception of strength, (in its many forms) is often a decisive factor in international relations. We see it in everything from discussions around trade and economic alliances to decisions about when and where to engage in armed conflict. In these equations, perceptions of weakness are just as important as perceptions of strength. We know this implicitly when comparing and contrasting nation-states as well as stretegies, and it's expressed explicitly when analysts, journalists and decision-makers look at situations like Russian aggression toward the Ukraine and attribute the success of the former, at least partly, to the "weakness" of the latter.  Catching up on the news yesterday out of the Middle East I was struck by two pieces, one in the Times of Israel and another in the Washington Post, which focused on the ways in which perceptions of weakness, as opposed to strength, can play a greater role in strategic decisions by regional powers.

The first thing I read was an opinion piece in the Washington Post by Professor Daniel W. Drezner of Tufts University and The Brookings Institution,  in which he considers recent pronouncements by Iranian officials about the rather shaky state of affairs in Saudi Arabia. As Drezner correctly notes, the Iranians are not the only ones worried about the long-term stability of the House of Saud, a top-heavy monarchy which has long maintained control and relative peace within its borders by quietly appeasing extremist elements internally and playing an out-sized economic role globally. There is no love lost between Iran and Saudi Arabia (or between Iran  and the Gulf Countries, for that matter), with the each nation consistently fearful of the growing influence of the another. In this sense, Iran's playing up the weakness of its rival/enemy Saudi Arabia fits neatly into the narrative of this larger conflict.

Since 1979 Iran has often sought to play a meedleseome role in the stability of neighbours, demonstrating a marked proclivity for covert action, both directly and through proxy groups such as Hezbollah - they're also prone to outbursts of hyperbolic rhetoric and the occasional display of naval power, as well as in the last decade devoting considerable resources to the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Attempting to foment instability is nothing new for Tehran, so perhaps along with the aforementioned bag of dirty tricks, bluster and nuclear ambition, they are adding something else to the mix: open efforts to encourage instability within Saudi Arabia by attempting to shift global perceptions of the monarchy there. Personally, I don't think such a strategy will be the decisive factor in the downfall of the Saudi regime, when and if it does happen. Nor would I call bombastic statements by Iranian  officials to a particularly novel or sophisticated tactic, but if it does become a  standard tool of Tehran it will be one more facet of Iranian hegemony that other regional powers, as well as the West, will have to take into account in assessing Iranian actions and intentions.

The second piece focusing on "weakness" which caught my attention was Mitch Ginsburg's analysis of the current situation on the Israel-Lebanon border, published by the Times of Israel. Ginsburg examines the balance of tension between Hezbollah forces and the IDF, in which events in Syria, as well as the strategic goals of Tehran, play a role. Citing analysis from  senior Israeli military officers that recent restrain on the part of Hezbollah is attributable to the group's primary patron, Iran, which worries that a war between Israel and Hezbollah would weaken the latter to the point where it could not serve as an effective deterrent against a potential Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. In this case, it is not rhetorical accusations of weakness that have the potential to lead to greater regional instability, but the actual weakening of Hezbollah, which could lead to additional risky action, such as their apparent efforts to lay a mine targeting IDF patrols over this past weekend. The possibility also exists that Israel will take advantage of the fact that Iran is restraining Hezbollah, along with the loss of many Hezbollah fighters in Syria, to launch a more thorough assault on the group in southern Lebanon.

However one looks at the calculus of power in the Middle East there are always innumerable factors to take into account. Very often the focus is entirely on the perceived strength of a regional power - how many submarines does country "x" have? How good is the air defense system if country "Y" ? These are important questions, but we must also look at weaknesses, both real and perceived, and the ways in which these views and analyses are actively used by rivals and enemies, if we are to have a clear picture of the region.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

HBS Conference considers MidEast conflict through lens of economic engagement and civil society

For decades - centuries really - visionaries and mad men have wrestled with how to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East. Some have tried force, others diplomacy, but I have long thought that one of the more important aspect of any successful peace effort between Israel and the Palestinians will require not merely the cessation of hostilities, but a normalization of relations. This is certainly not a unique suggestion, but it is one that often gets lost in the discussion about security fences, rockets and land. One key element of normalized relations will be economic engagement, something that a group of Harvard graduate students highlighted at the Prosperity for Peace conference, held at Harvard Business School this weekend and co-sponsored by the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University, McKinsey & Company, Harvard Hillel, the Government and Public Policy Club at HBS, The Boston Consulting Group, the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University and Combined Jewish Philanthropies.

Opening the conference was former Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers, who focused on the importance of the US remaining engaged in the Middle East, despite the multitude of vexing and complex challenges in the region. Summers argued that America has a vital stake in the future of this part of the world for a number of reasons, including his belief in the importance of Israel's right to exist as an independent Jewish State, the growing cultural influence of Islam around the globe and world-wide economic concerns about energy.

Former Harvard University President Lawrence H. Summers was the opening keynote speaker at the Prosperity for Peace Conference held at Harvard Business School on April 26, 2015. Image copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

Although Summers highlighted the positive influence that greater business and economic engagement can have on the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians, he adroitly noted that such efforts can only succeed in an environment in which the physical safety of citizens on both sides can be assured. Summers also spoke about the importance of connectivity in bolstering civil society, an idea which may at first seem obvious, but which, in my own experience, is all too often forgotten by civil society actors in their rush to raise funds, steer policy and control how particular issues are covered by the media.

This idea of connection and dialogue is critical to the long-term health of any civil society, and by extension, to the peace process. It serves as a reminder that, as Summers noted, in many ways the relationships (or lack thereof) which underpin the peace talks may play more of a decisive role in the potential success of efforts toward peace than the technical details surrounding the issues themselves.

One of the nice things about the conference was the diverse group of attendees it attracted and the range of speakers who addressed the audience, including Maryam Faghihimani, the daughter of a major religious figure in Iran who talked about what it was like to grow up in an upper-class, religiously conservative family. She told the crowd about the relentless stream of anti-Israel propaganda she was exposed to as a child and young adult, commenting,  "After being exposed to such propaganda, how could one not hate this other country?"  She went on to chronicle how she had experienced her own intellectual awakening as she sought out access to information and ideas from the wider world, including her shock when she discovered during a trip to Lebanon that Iran in fact did support Hezbollah, despite everything she had been told to the contrary. Faghihimani closed by reflecting on all of the things she had been able to achieve in her life, telling the audience she is not pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian or pro-regime, but pro-democracy.

Bassam Eid and Joshua Hantman were among the panelists at a discussion on frameworks for cooperation around energy, the environment and the law, at the Prosperity for Peace Conference at Harvard Business School. Image copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

After the opening speakers I wandered over to a panel session looking at Frameworks for cooperation around energy, the environment and the law. The panel of experts for this session was comprised of Professor James K. Sebenius of Harvard Business School, former director of the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group Bassam Eid, Director of the Business and Environment Department at the Peres Centerfor Peace Edan Raviv, Dr. Tara Shirvani of the World Bank and Joshua Hantman,  Director of Corporate Affairs for Cynergy Investments Ltd.

Raviv talked about the challenges he faces in his work encouraging business cooperation between Israeli and Palestinian companies on a very practical level, from securing financing to understanding tax laws to determining where potential partners can meet in person.  He also touched on the ways in which business collaboration has become more difficult in the last decade, as Israelis and Palestinians have had less and less contact with each other, both at a societal and an individual level.

Bassam Eid offered interesting insights into current concerns in Gaza, including his very negative view of the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement. He said emphatically that he does not want to be part of a movement to destroy Israel, citing the vital role that Israel plays in providing both employment opportunities and badly-needed supplies to Gaza, touching on the lack of substantive contributions by Arab leaders.

There are several elements which pose a threat to the potential success of events like the one Raviv described, including the lack of media coverage of such efforts in the Palestinian media, a point echoed by Eid, who was also openly critical of Soda Stream's decision to move out of the West Bank, which had the effect of putting hundreds of Palestinian employees out of work.

But all was not doom and gloom - a number of panelists highlighted the intense interest in both sides for greater business collaboration and connection, which I take as a positive sign. The challenge which remains, though, is finding ways to practically connect potential partners, something that Raviv noted the Peres Center was able to do by organizing a major trade show that drew both Israeli and Palestinian participants this past summer.

In an afternoon session at the Prosperity for Peace Conference at Harvard Business School an afternoon session featured a panel of experts discussing the intersection of education, business and co-existence. Image copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

Sir Ronald Cohen also addressed the conference,discussing his his belief in the importance of trying to influence the peace process by looking at the conflict through an economic lens, taking into account the relationship between support for extremism and conditions of poverty, as well as the vast potential for economic growth within the Palestinian Territories.  From his remarks it was clear that Sir Ronald believes that the political leadership on both sides represent an impediment to peace, based partly in their own stake in maintaining the status quo. 

He also told the audience that he felt the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was seen as a litmus test within Israel as to what might happen if Israel were to withdraw from the West Bank, and given the outcome of the Gaza withdrawal, Israeli leaders are scared of what might happen if Israel withdrew from the West Bank.  In this, I agree with him - given the results of the Gaza withdrawal, which included the violent political ascendancy of Hamas, rocket attacks on Israel and the tunnels - I don't think too many responsible Israeli leaders would come anywhere close to replicating the same conditions in the West Bank.

"If we can't leave war to generals, then we can't leave peace to politicians," Sir Ronald Cohen noted, making a good argument that in order to achieve peace, forces outside of the political establishment need to play a role in moving the process forward.

Philanthropist and thinker Sir Ronald Cohen discussed ways that building economic ties and encouraging business collaboration between Israelis and Palestinians can contribute to peace at the Prosperity for Peace at Harvard Business School. Image copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

In many ways this was the message I took away from the conference – that in this long-simmering, sometimes explosive, perennially intractable conference, there is not only room, but perhaps a need, for a greater role on the part of civil society actors. I do think there is something to be said for wider participation in the peace process by leaders in business, education and other fields, (on both sides of the conflict) but I’m personally not optimistic that these sectors of society will play a decisive role in the final push to peace. In highlighting the contributions that these groups can make to normalization of relations, the organizers of the conference have drawn attention to the roles that they can play: humanizing the other, encouraging greater historical understanding, creating economic incentives to avoid further armed conflict.

This is important, but unless and until the official representatives of both the Palestinians and the Israelis are able to reach real agreement, civil society actors are more likely to improve the lives of individuals or small groups, as opposed to societies as a whole. This does not mean we should ignore NGO’s and educational institutions and business partnerships that reach across national and cultural divides, indeed, far from it – but perhaps we should see their efforts as vital resources kept in reserve for the day when a political solution is reached. Viewed this way, the work that is being done at the level of civil society has an important symbolic value, representing belief in what’s possible, as well as a practical value, banking goodwill and relationships between Israelis and Palestinians that can lead the way to normalized relations down the road.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

The Ground Truth Project offers an innovative approach to covering international news, and structuring media

With a packed auditorium at WGBH studios in Boston, the Ground Truth Project officially launched, hosting a panel of journalists from the worlds of print, photo journalism, radio and new media. Image Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

Last night I sat in a darkened auditorium at WGBH radio in Boston, and listened as a panel of journalists talked about their chosen careers, the important role that genuine empathy plays in quality reporting, and their collective sense of excitement around the Ground Truth Project, a new non-profit media organization co-founded by Charles M. Sennott and Gary Knight. In his opening remarks Sennott outlined the driving idea behind the Ground Truth Project, which is that in order to really cover global events and their impact on communities, reporters need to get out into the world; trying to capture the essence of a breaking story, let alone an on-going complicated saga like the turmoil in the Middle East, simply does not lend itself to armchair journalism. 

The panelists onstage, who ranged from relatively rookie reporters to veteran foreign correspondents, opened by sharing something about what drives them to do the work they do, and how they hope that the Ground Truth Project will influence coverage of world events.  One major theme that emerged from the conversation was the centrality of humanizing important, but otherwise abstract, issues, such as the impact of climate change or what it’s actually like to be displaced by the war in Syria. Throughout the evening the importance of being able to feel empathy as a route to greater understanding of the human impact of events came up repeatedly.

From left to right: Charles M. Senott, Deborah Amos, Joel Simon, Lauren Bohn and Ben Brody. Image copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

"I wanted to cover the people that were involved in the events, and not the events themselves," said NPR reporter Deborah Amos, who opened the conversation by talking about her own experiences covering conflict, and how she tries to see what's happening around her at a profoundly human level, always keeping in mind that when it comes to reporting on people displaced by conflict, that "...they had lives before they became refugees."

Joel Simon, Executive Director of Committee to Protect Journalists spoke next, telling the audience, "There is less press freedom today than there was twenty years ago... How could that be?" Simon went on to note that historically journalists were safe because they possessed a kind of unique utility in sharing information, a status which social media and other modern technologies have eroded. I was also glad to hear him highlight the importance of trying to see this new technologically-infused media landscape, in which professional journalists as well as activists (and others) play a role, as clearly as possible. Lauren Bohn, Ground Truth Project correspondent, echoed this last sentiment, and shared her belief that in an age of information overload that it is more important than ever for journalists to figure out the most effective way to reach audiences.

Although time ran a bit short and the crowd didn't get to hear too much from photojournalist Ben Brody I recommend checking out his work as part of the Foreverstan project, a comprehensive look at the change in Afghanistan in the period following the September 11, 2001 attacks and offers an unflinching look at the difficult reality faced by ordinary Afghans in 2015. Another panelist I would have been interested in hearing a bit more from was Coleen Jose, a reporter who has covered events in the Philippines by seeking out the perspectives of individuals whose lives have been impacted by natural disasters and other events.

With "Foreverstan" the Ground Truth Project offers a comprehensive look at events in Afghanistan over the last 14 years, telling the story of the impact of so many years of conflict on the lives of ordinary Afghans.

One thing that really struck me about this endeavor is the way that the Ground Truth Project partners American journalists with local aspiring and established journalists in places like Burma, not only to tell compelling stories but to improve the skills of up and coming reporters around the world. In this way, what Sennott and his colleagues have set out to do has the potential to make a significant contribution to coverage of international news, as well as strengthen civil society in places where violence, state-sanctioned or otherwise, threaten to silence the media.

The Ground Truth Project has an ambitious agenda as well as a number of impressive backers and partners, but ultimately, as is the case with all non-profits, the success of this project may hinge on its ability to attract and retain donors. If the staff and leadership are successful in doing this, they may very well play a key role in ushering in not merely a new revenue model for media outlets, but change the structure of news-gathering entities entirely. It may take a while before we see if this model is successful, but if the Ground Truth Project can gather enough momentum I think it will continue to gain supporters and play an important role in influencing the future of journalism both at home and abroad.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

Facing society and history, we should expect more from our presidential candidates

Things are picking up in New Hampshire and Iowa, various contenders are grabbing headlines, and it seems like with each passing day attention is shifting more and more from the Obama administration to discussion of presidential candidates and 2016. To some extent this is can be positive - anything that citizens engaged and thinking about the process of democracy is a good thing in my book - but I think there is a downside as well to this early embrace of the next presidential contest. It also has the potential to encourage a "kick the can down the road" mentality at a time when there's no shortage of domestic challenges and foreign threats which need to be addressed.

This hyper-focus on the passage from one administration to the next is perhaps the most visible (and odious) result of living in a society where the 24 hour news cycle reigns supreme, with the rise of social media acting as a catalyst. The expectation of instant (and constant) information is only part of the issue, though - a more troubling aspect of this mentality is that it reflects a lack of willingness or ability to engage with substantive issues over a sufficient period of time to adequately address significant challenges to America's vital interests, from an increasingly aggressive China and Russia to political fragmentation in the Middle East.

While the current political and media atmosphere does little to encourage a holistic, long-term approach to key issues which span multiple presidential administrations or congresses, I do think that if someone could successfully apply this mindset to problems like climate change, failing critical infrastructure or any of several international disasters currently unfolding, that change could happen. Such a significant shift in approach to problem-solving would need a major figure at the forefront of the effort, though, which is why I would personally like to see the 2016 candidates for president embrace the idea that if they win they'll see themselves as playing an important collaborative role in making change, as opposed to an independent agent acting on the stage of history.

Of course the pursuit of the presidency lends itself neither to humility nor political generosity - in fact, we tend to celebrate the opposite in our potential presidents, especially during the primary process when contenders are pushed and pulled in the direction of extremes. Such polarization on the campaign trail creates an even more partisan mood in the country, making discourse around controversial topics all the more difficult and truncated. This is a problem, because angry, short conversations, are not the way to solve generational, long-term challenges. If anything, this mode of engagement tends to make things worse.

I know there are people out there who are calling for candidates to make iron-clad statements on specific issues, but in 2016 I for one would like to see a change in how aspirants for the highest office in the land think about their own role in society. Perhaps if we, the voters, send the signal that what we are are really looking for are facilitators with vision,  rather than lone heroes or heroines riding in to save the day, progress can be made. It's a tall order, I realize, but I think given the  challenges that we currently face, this change will have to happen one day to ensure that this great experiment in liberal democracy continues for generations to come.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.