Month: October 2013

Posted on

A Conversation with Steve Coll

By Bryan Thomson

“Even Snowden didn’t understand most of what was on his flash drive.”

In an era when hotly contested NSA leaks have sparked debates over surveillance and the effectiveness and morality of antiterrorism campaigns, journalism has a critical role. On Thursday in Filene Auditorium, Director of the Dickey Center Daniel Benjamin interviewed Steve Coll about journalism in the modern world. Coll, a contributing columnist to the New Yorker and the Dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University, argued that journalism is going through an extreme transformation in the face of new technology, changes in policy, and massive data drops from self-proclaimed martyrs, whistleblowers and exiles like Assange and Snowden. Coll himself in researching for his books Ghost Wars, Private Empire: Exxon Mobile and American Power, and The Bin Ladens: An Arabian Family in the American Century, has experience working with ‘closed organizations,’ where data can only be obtained by “chipping away” from the outside. In researching the Bin Laden family, Coll found that the secrecy of the family and Saudi Arabian governments meant that foreign court documents were the only available windows into the family’s past. Coll’s methods of research and compilation – his firsthand experience observing the lives of Saudi Arabia’s new superrich and creation of a multigenerational tale of the Bin Ladens – exemplifies traditional journalism.

The modern world of media looks to be filled increasingly less with journalists like Coll, and more with those like Julian Assange. Organizations like Wikileaks opt to post all information, regardless of consequences. Instead of searching for patterns and investigating one item at a time, more people are prioritizing transparency over exploring questions of public interest.

Not only has the face of journalism changed, but the conditions under which the media operate have as well. Coll contends that until recently, journalism had followed a relatively static set of rules and procedures that favor anonymity and eliminate prior restraint, as were legalized by the Supreme Court in their decisions in NYT v. Sullivan (1964) and NYT v. United States (1971). Coll contends that the Obama administration and Attorney General Holder have ‘eviscerated’ freedom of the press by refusing to allow outlets to protect their sources. The largest change to the previously stable system, though, is that journalists are being asked to determine if their work contains sensitive materials. What does this responsibility mean for the future of journalism?

Posted on

New directions in German politics

By Kristy Choi

On October 15th, former US Ambassador to Germany Philip Murphy came to speak at Dartmouth as part of the Walter Picard lecture series. During his lecture he discussed the results of the recent German national elections and the importance of the political and economic ties between the U.S. and Germany. He spoke fondly of his time working with Director of the Dickey Center, Daniel Benjamin, in the State Department and about his conversations with faculty of the German Department at Dartmouth the previous night.  He joked about feeling like he had just left the witness protection program because he felt out of touch with America after having been in Germany for so long.  He strongly urged students to travel and spoke highly of the foreign service as a career.

During the lecture which was entitled, “The New Shape of Germany,” Ambassador Murphy spoke about how in the 80s, “Berlin loomed large.”  He spoke about two myths that have permeated since the fall of the Berlin wall:

1. Because the wall is no longer there, the world is safe and uncomplicated.

2. America is not as close to Germany as it used to be.

In addressing these issues, he emphasized two key areas of interest:  the security sector and economic sector.   The security arc for Germany played out mostly as expected in that Germany eventually rebuilt its military power and later helped lead in the NATO mission to Kosovo and the invasion of Afghanistan.  However, the economic arc was not as predicted.  Germany “stumbled, it reformed, and then it soared.”   Much to the world’s surprise, Germany outpaced its European peers to become the central hub of European economic activity.

This new geo-strategic shape has made Germany instrumental in the global economic crisis and crucial as an ally of the United States. Ambassador Murphy felt strongly that Germany would continue to back the Euro, but not at any price. Germans would be willing to act, but only if they feel like everyone was playing by the same rules.  He felt this not only reflected the Greek bailout, but the approach they have taken to every decision in the wake of the global recession.  However, Ambassador Murphy also recognized that they are already deeply entrenched in the bailout process, likening it to being halfway across a river, “there’s no going back.”

Ambassador Murphy noted that the world was rife with challenges.  They may not have been the same challenges envisioned thirty years ago, but nevertheless they exist.   While the risks associated with these challenges are substantial and it may take longer than hoped to meet them, Ambassador Murphy is ultimately optimistic about the future and he is adamant in his convictions.

Posted on

Dinner Discussion with General Mattis

By Feyaad Allie

mattis

Last Friday evening, General James Mattis, retired commander of US Central Command, sat down for a dinner and discussion with members of World Outlook. From this experience, I gained invaluable insight into different viewpoints regarding American policy in the Middle East.

Not surprisingly, General Mattis was called upon to speak about the current situation in Syria. He emphasized that when considering any intervention; the US government must articulate specific goals. He contended that a lack of defined objectives makes it difficult to even consider intervening, no matter the circumstances – leading to questions about the moral imperative in the case of human rights abuses. Mattis responded that since America is not fiscally stable, it is difficult for human rights issues to be a top priority. He asserted that intervention would require cutting domestic costs or borrowing more money from Beijing, both of which are undesirable. Though I didn’t entirely agree with the General’s lack of emphasis on the moral arguments in his assessment of Syria, I did think he offered valid points to consider. The Syrian crisis is a delicate situation and warrants careful thought. The dinner with General Mattis reaffirmed for me that there is no ideal way to handle the conflict.

Other points of interest from the discussion were General Mattis’ justifications for continuing US involvement in the Middle East: 1) US allies, such as Israel and Jordan; 2) the presence of oil; 3) the existence of violent extremism; and 4) the US’ ability to facilitate peace talks. These reasons highlighted the importance of remaining engaged with the Middle East.

Overall, the dinner discussion emphasized the necessity of US involvement in the Middle East and the complexity of issues in that region.