By Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University
5
11 ratings
The podcast currently has 16 episodes available.
One room. One locked-down camera. One roll of film. A group of famous directors from the 1960s took the challenge: they would make a short film with these parameters plus one more—their dialogue must include the sentence “I Miss Sonia Henie.” The result was a bawdy, ludicrous compilation that became an international classic. It’s featured in a new film retrospective called The Yugoslav Junction: Internationalism in the SFRY: 1958–1988. The Weatherhead Center is cosponsoring this program of short and long films from socialist Yugoslavia, which takes place at the Harvard Film Archive beginning November 9. Today we’re talking to the curator of the series along with two Weatherhead fellows from Bosnia and Herzegovina who will set up the political and cultural background for these rare films, and they’ll discuss three of them— one each from the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.
The curator of the series Nace Zavrl shares his inspiration for putting together the fifty-film retrospective. In fact, one of the original founders of the Harvard Film Archive was Yugoslavian, and Zavrl suspected there might be a treasure trove of socialist-era films in the catalog. He was right.
Damir Kapidžić, political scientist at the University of Sarajevo, notes that an explosion of filmmaking occurred after Stalin and Tito split in their ideologies, and Yugoslavia needed to present itself as a third kind of system, neither socialist nor Western.
Denisa Sarajlic, former Deputy Minister of Civil Affairs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, has studied the power of narratives from the socialist period to the present. She tackles the plots of the movies under discussion and describes the portrayal of women and the social tensions related to Western influences, among other fascinating insights.
Guests:Damir Kapidžić, 2023–2024 Fulbright Visiting Scholar, Weatherhead Scholars Program. Associate Professor of Comparative Politics, University of Sarajevo.
Denisa Sarajlic, Fellow, Weatherhead Scholars Program (spring 2025). Director, SKRIPTA.
Nace Zavrl, PhD Candidate, Department of Art, Film, and Visual Studies, Harvard University.
Host:Jessica Barnard, Program Manager for the Weatherhead Research Clusters on Migration and on Global History
Related LinksThis episode was produced, edited, and mixed by Michelle Nicholasen, Editor and Content Producer at the Weatherhead Center.
Follow the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs:Massachusetts has long been a welcoming state to immigrants and migrant families. In the summer of 2023, its one-of-a-kind “right to shelter” law was put to the test when emergency shelters reached capacity. It was called a humanitarian crisis, and images of families sleeping on the floor of Logan Airport flooded the media. Although it is most noticed on a local level, migration is an ongoing global process that requires a structural response at all levels. In this episode, we speak to a lawyer/scholar, a nurse practitioner, and a city government official deeply involved with immigrant services and policies to better understand the scope of migration, the needs of newly arrived families, and also the varied responses of host communities.
Monique Nguyen directs the Boston mayor’s office for immigrant advancement and explains why the word “crisis” mischaracterizes the realities of global migration. Massachusetts has made a moral and ethical commitment to helping people in need, and her office works to give migrants a pathway to stability and a foothold in their communities.
Nurse practitioner and fellow with the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Maggie Sullivan delivers primary care to families in shelters. She offers a vivid picture of a migrant family’s experience in temporary shelters, and also describes the fortitude and skills individuals bring to Boston.
Attorney and human rights scholar Jackie Bhabha directs the Weatherhead Center’s Research Cluster on Migration, where Sullivan is an affiliate. Bhabha eloquently describes both the theory and practice of helping migrants and immigrants within the framework of human rights. She also provides insights on other countries’ experiences hosting influxes of migrants and the need for preparation and coordination involving the highest levels of government.
Guests:Jacqueline Bhabha, Faculty Associate; Chair, Weatherhead Research Cluster on Migration. Professor of the Practice of Health and Human Rights, Department of Global Health and Population; Director of Research, François-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; Jeremiah Smith Jr. Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School.
Monique Tú Nguyen, Executive Director, Mayor's Office for Immigrant Advancement, City of Boston.
Margaret (Maggie) Sullivan, Instructor and Health and Human Rights Fellow, FXB Center for Health and Human Rights, Harvard University; Board-Certified Family Nurse Practitioner, Boston Health Care for the Homeless.
Host:Jessica Barnard, Program Manager for the Weatherhead Research Clusters on Migration and Global History.
Related Links:This episode was produced, edited, and mixed by Michelle Nicholasen, Editor and Content Producer at the Weatherhead Center.
Follow the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs:People aged sixty-five and older make up the fastest growing population around the world, posing unique challenges to societies. A Harvard initiative called Social Technology for Global Aging Research is founded on the belief that there’s a great potential for technologies and interventions to benefit the elderly, but only if they are developed with a deep understanding of day-to-day life. In the scope of this collaboration, technology for the elderly covers a wide range of needs—from engineering hardware for mobility to designing living environments and even tackling the logistics of meeting friends for tea. It’s an expansive collaboration between Harvard scholars and their Chinese counterparts. We speak with four collaborators who share fascinating examples of their work.
The founder of the initiative, Arthur Kleinman, believes that aging societies represent an unprecedented transformation of the global population that introduces a range of challenges. He emphasizes the need to bring together various disciplines—such as medical practitioners, engineers, and anthropologists, to name a few—to collaboratively solve problems the elderly face in their day to day lives. Much of the team’s research is conducted on the ground in China, where about 30 percent of the population of China will be sixty-five or older by 2050.
Fawwaz Habbal points out the particular challenges of engineering products and services for this constituency, but also highlights the great insights that emerge from using a multidisciplinary approach.
Ann Forsyth discusses the desire of the elderly to “age in place,” and what that means from an urban planning and housing perspective. The locations that may be desirable at one stage in life often change in older age. In China, for example, many older people have moved from the rural areas to the cities, and culturally it’s frowned upon to relocate parents to assisted living facilities.
Designing social interventions can be just as powerful as designing an effective piece of hardware. Drawing on his vast experience with older patients and elder resources, Hong-Tu Chen describes a simple method for fostering connections between children and their elderly parents.
All four scholars share fascinating stories about unintended consequences of new technologies, and surprisingly simple interventions that can have a powerful impact on quality of life.
Guests:Arthur Kleinman, Faculty Associate. Esther and Sidney Rabb Professor, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University; Professor of Medical Anthropology in Global Health and Social Medicine; Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School.
Hong-Tu Chen, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School.
Ann Forsyth, Faculty Associate. Ruth and Frank Stanton Professor of Urban Planning; Interim Chair, Department of Urban Planning and Design, Harvard Graduate School of Design.
Fawwaz Habbal, senior lecturer in applied physics, Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences.
Related Links:Music credit: Cinematic Documentary by Aleksey Chistilin, Pixabay
This episode was produced, edited, and mixed by Michelle Nicholasen, Editor and Content Producer at the Weatherhead Center.
Follow the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs:When the Wagner mercenary group staged a near coup in Moscow in June, it was seen as the greatest challenge to Vladimir Putin’s regime in decades. Though it didn’t come to fruition, it nevertheless exposed some of the fissures in Putin’s ironclad control over the military and the course of the war on Ukraine. Could it be a harbinger of future revolts? How do Russian citizens feel about the continuation of the war? We speak with three scholars of history and political science to find out what this event might mean for Russia’s war machine and for Ukraine’s counteroffensive.
The Wagner rebellion may open the possibility of future revolts, but only if Ukraine’s counteroffensive makes more progress, says Serhii Plokhy. He reminds us of Russia’s past defeats and its pattern of regime change linked to failures on the battlefield.
In spite of its grave losses, Ukrainian morale remains high, says Alexadra Vacroux. But the war is forcing the population to undergo a major demographic shift, which will have a profound impact on the country’s recovery.
Sasha de Vogel gives insight into public opinion in Russia, the consequences for speaking out against the war, and why there is so little civil resistance. She dispels Western myths about the suppression and repression of Russian citizens and believes Putin will keep fighting this war until death.
Finally, the scholars share their opinions on what is needed to end this devastating war.
This episode was produced in collaboration with the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies and the Ukrainian Research Institute, both at Harvard University.
Host:Erin Goodman, Executive Director of the Weatherhead Center
Guests:Sasha de Vogel, Postdoctoral Researcher, Authoritarian Politics Lab, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Former Raphael Morrison Dorman Memorial Postdoctoral Fellow, Weatherhead Scholars Program.
Serhii Plokhy, Faculty Associate. Mykhailo S. Hrushevs'kyi Professor of Ukrainian History, Department of History; Director, Ukrainian Research Institute, Harvard University.
Alexandra Vacroux, Executive Director, Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Harvard University.
Producer/Director:Michelle Nicholasen, Editor and Content Producer, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs.
Related Links:This episode was produced, edited, and mixed by Michelle Nicholasen, Editor and Content Producer at the Weatherhead Center.
Follow the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs:The presidential election in Turkey this spring is shaping up to be the most consequential in decades. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has led the country for twenty years, is facing the staunchest opposition in his career in the form of an unprecedented coalition of six parties, called the “Table of Six.” Their presidential candidate, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, has been widely described as low-key, bland, and uncharismatic. But could he be the perfect person to unseat Erdogan? To get us up to speed on this exciting election, we speak with three Graduate Student Associates whose research takes us into the governance, politics, and culture of Turkey—past and present.
SZ sets the stage by invoking the typical raucous mood of Turkish elections through political songs that celebrate various social identities. Although Erdogan silenced the usual soundscape of elections this year by banning public music out of respect for earthquake victims, music nonetheless has emerged.
How does a leader go from being called a “democratizer” to a “strongman”? Andrew O’Donohue explains how Erdogan consolidated the power of the presidency and weakened government institutions during his twenty-year leadership. He notes there are some signs of weakening support for Erdogan, including recent defections from his party and public protests last year against the conviction of the mayor of Istanbul—and would-be presidential contender— for insulting public officials.
Voter polarization makes it difficult to predict the outcome of the elections, explains Ahmet Akbiyik, and his own research has shown the media landscape is equally polarized. He points out the pitfalls of government-friendly businesses owning powerful entities like television stations, newspapers, and even weapons manufacturing.
The scholars emphasize that Turkey holds a unique geopolitical position in central Asia, as it remains a top trading partner with Russia, but also supplies weapons to Ukraine. It’s also a member of NATO and has been seeking membership in the European Union, so any change of government will have an impact on all these factors.
If Erdogan loses, will he accept the outcome of the elections and let go of power? If he wins, will the elections be seen as fair? Will the one million citizens displaced by the earthquake be able to vote? The scholars debate how the public may respond to the election outcome, and whether or not a new regime can strengthen Turkey’s democracy.
Host:Erin Goodman, Director, Weatherhead Scholars Program.
Guests:Ahmet Akbiyik, Graduate Student Associate. PhD Candidate, Program in Political Economy and Government, Harvard Kennedy School.
Andrew O’Donohue, Graduate Student Associate. PhD Candidate, Department of Government, Harvard University.
SZ, Graduate Student Associate. PhD Candidate, Department of Music, Harvard University.
Producer/Director:Michelle Nicholasen, Editor and Content Producer, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs.
Related Links:The songs featured in this podcast episode include "Hadi bakalım, kolay gelsin," “Bayraktar - Ukrainian War Song,” and “Müslüm Gürses.”
Follow the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs:This episode was produced, edited, and mixed by Michelle Nicholasen, Editor and Content Producer at the Weatherhead Center.
Follow the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs:Green technology has come a long way, to the extent that it can, in theory, be scaled up to solve the world’s energy problems. If this is true, then why does the US lag so far behind in transitioning away from fossil fuels? This episode addresses the politics of climate change by looking at the sources of public distrust. To frame the discussion, three scholars investigate the nature of major economic transformations, the youth movement, and what we can learn from other countries.
Traveling into the heart of US fossil fuel communities, Dustin Tingley reports on the work of his team to uncover the sentiments of the citizens who will be most affected when fossil fuel plants are closed. The common theme is a lack of belief that the government will offer a social safety net when workers lose their jobs and when towns lose their revenue.
Jeff Colgan takes us through some major energy transitions of the past and explains why green energy is different. He also points to strategies citizens in other countries have leveraged to move their governments forward.
Drawing on original research, Aleksandra Conevska explores differences between youth and adult political behavior regarding climate action, and separately on the unintended consequences of green party politics. Ending on a hopeful note, the group explains there are definitely new green jobs on the horizon, especially in the trades, and it’s time to give vocational education more attention.
Host:Erin Goodman, Director, Weatherhead Scholars Program.
Guests:Dustin Tingley, Faculty Associate; Chair, Weatherhead Research Cluster on Climate Change. Professor of Government, Department of Government, Harvard University.
Jeff Colgan, Richard Holbrooke Associate Professor, Department of Political Science and Watson Institute for Public and International Affairs, Brown University.
Aleksandra Conevska, Graduate Affiliate, Weatherhead Research Cluster on Climate Change. PhD Candidate, Department of Government, Harvard University.
Producer/Director:Michelle Nicholasen, Editor and Content Producer, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs.
Related Links:This episode was produced, edited, and mixed by Michelle Nicholasen, Editor and Content Producer at the Weatherhead Center.
Follow the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs:There’s a shadow over World Cup Soccer this year, and it’s become impossible to separate the sports from the politics. Host country Qatar gained notoriety for bribes, exploitation of workers, and antigay laws. In this episode, a group of athletes and scholars take a close look at the concept of “sportswashing” and consider what’s at stake for professional athletes who might want to take a stand against a host country’s civil and human rights abuses.
In his role as an activist, Justin Morrow explains some of the successes of Black Players for Change, an organization he cofounded to address discrimination against Blacks in soccer and all sports. Susie Petruccelli talks about her efforts to challenge FIFA’s wage gap for women players. Sociologist Isabel Jijón gives examples of how sportswashing can backfire for a host country. She shares some feedback from her students about the backlash against athletes who stand up.
High-profile players can bring attention to important issues but also expose themselves to retaliation by their governments. The group talks about the video created by the Australian National Soccer team representing a collective action to speak out against human rights abuses in Qatar. They also consider whether high-profile athletes have a moral obligation to use their platform and influence to bring injustices to light.
Disclaimer: This podcast was recorded on November 10, 2022, before the Iranian national team refused to sing the national anthem at its first game against England; before Iranian soccer player Voria Ghafouri was arrested for his criticism of his government’s crackdown on women’s rights protesters; and before FIFA threatened to ban players who wore rainbow armbands.
Guest Host:Ted Gilman, Executive Director, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs.
Guests:Susie Petruccelli, Global Sports Fellow, Weatherhead Research Cluster on Global Transformations (WIGH). Author and Producer.
Justin Morrow, 2021–2022 Visiting Fellow, Weatherhead Research Cluster on Global Transformations (WIGH). Executive Director, Black Players for Change; Technical Development Manager, Maple Leaf Sport and Entertainment.
Isabel Jijón, Harvard College Fellow, Department of Sociology, Harvard University. Research Consultant, Child Protection and Development Team, UNICEF.
Producer/Director:Michelle Nicholasen, Editor and Content Producer, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs.
Related Links:This episode was produced, edited, and mixed by Michelle Nicholasen, Editor and Content Producer at the Weatherhead Center.
Follow the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs:Lebanon has been called many different things: a gem of the Middle East, a failed state, a geopolitical Gordian knot (or nightmare). Its financial system has recently collapsed, people cannot find basic services, and residents are still recovering from the massive Beirut explosion of 2020. It may be a complex country to wrap your mind around, but our four scholars tell you everything you need to know about daily life in Lebanon: how are people getting by, who is in control, the geopolitics of the region, and the history behind it.
Lana Salman shares a detailed account of daily life in Lebanon, where people must wait hours in line to obtain goods and services. The civil uprising really began back in October 2019, and it was different from others, explains Carmen Geha, because it was so widespread. Citizen protests have continued since then, and have increased in the aftermath of the Beirut explosion in 2020 for which no one has taken responsibility, they note.
After decades of witnessing corruption at the highest levels, the Lebanese may be at a tipping point. Geha and Salman share examples of citizens creating their own organizations to address humanitarian needs, as an alternative to relying on the default sectarian sponsored hand-outs.
To understand the levers of control, Melani Cammett explains the power-sharing structure of the government, and she and Geha emphasize that the current leaders are the unpunished perpetrators of war crimes (“warlords”) from the chaotic, multiparty Lebanese civil war (1975–1990).
Nate George offers important background on the steps leading up to the current financial crisis and describes the geopolitical crossroads Lebanon occupies today in the Middle East. He also explains why Western countries are no longer eager to support Lebanon during the current fiscal crisis.
Lebanon indeed has a complex history and remains an important player in the Middle East. With a mix of anecdote and history, our conversation is a sobering primer on the many layers and realities of Lebanon.
Host:
Erin Goodman, Director, Weatherhead Scholars Program.
Guests:
Melani Cammett, Director, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs; Clarence Dillon Professor of International Affairs, Department of Government, Harvard University; Professor in the Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
Carmen Geha, Visiting Scholar, Weatherhead Scholars Program (fall 2021). Associate Professor of Public Administration, Department of Political Studies and Public Administration, American University of Beirut.
Nate George, Raphael Morrison Dorman Memorial Postdoctoral Fellow, Weatherhead Scholars Program. PhD, Department of History, Rice University.
Lana Salman, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Middle East Initiative, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
Related Links:
Follow the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs:
This episode was produced, edited, and mixed by Michelle Nicholasen, Editor and Content Producer at the Weatherhead Center.
Follow the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs:Pulling out of Afghanistan was the top foreign policy event of 2021. Perhaps overlooked in the collective relief to be done with this twenty-year war is the fact that the US had to negotiate with terrorists to get there. In fact, it ceded an entire country to a violent, extremist group. Throughout history, leaders—including those from the US—have vowed never to negotiate with terrorists, but then reverse course. In this two-part episode, three scholars of history, international relations, and foreign policy discuss historic examples and the complexities of negotiating with violent—even murderous—groups.
While part 1 explores the caveats of labeling a group “terrorist,” part 2 addresses how to negotiate with terrorists without legitimizing their methods or ideology, and address what happens to a nation’s reputation when they give in, give up, or back down in the face of extremist groups. If the US is willing to negotiate with the Taliban, should it also be open to negotiating with Hamas or ISIS or Al-Qaeda? Jytte Klausen points out that if the demands of the adversaries are reasonable and pragmatic, there is usually an opportunity to work together, the operative word being “if.” Annette Idler describes the successful negotiations with the FARC in Colombia as an example of careful planning and evaluation before the actual talks, and emphasizes the importance of understanding the attitudes, opinions and experiences of local citizens in a conflict zone.
The concern that negotiating with groups that use terror and violence will somehow encourage or legitimize their methods does not bear out, according to Fredrik Logevall. He compares the US retreat from Vietnam to that of Afghanistan and finds fascinating similarities, but also key differences, such as lack of public engagement on the latter.
Non-state armed groups are part of the new global security picture, Klausen believes, and she highlights regions that are volatile today, such as India/Pakistan/Kashmir. We should not underestimate the importance of Afghanistan in regional stability, she warns. Since extremists groups are likely here to stay, Idler describes a multilevel approach to incorporating non-state actors into foregin policy strategies.
Host:Erin Goodman, Director, Weatherhead Scholars Program.
Guests:Annette Idler, Weatherhead Center Visiting Scholar, Weatherhead Scholars Program. Director, Global Security Programme, Pembroke College, Oxford University.
Jytte Klausen, Lawrence A. Wien Professor of International Cooperation, Brandeis University.
Fredrik Logevall, Weatherhead Center Faculty Associate. Laurence D. Belfer Professor of International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School; Professor of History, Department of History, Harvard University.
Producer/Director:Michelle Nicholasen, Editor and Content Producer, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs.
Related Links:This episode was produced, edited, and mixed by Michelle Nicholasen, Editor and Content Producer at the Weatherhead Center.
Follow the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs:Pulling out of Afghanistan was the top foreign policy event of 2021. Perhaps overlooked in the collective relief to be done with this twenty-year war is the fact that the US had to negotiate with terrorists to get there. In fact, it ceded an entire country to a violent, extremist group. Throughout history, leaders—including those from the US—have vowed never to negotiate with terrorists, but then reverse course. In this two-part episode, three scholars of history, international relations, and foreign policy discuss historic examples and the complexities of negotiating with violent—even murderous—groups.
Part 1 explores the caveats of labeling a group “terrorist.” Jytte Klausen explains the importance of having an internationally recognized designation, while Annette Idler notes that labels can be used for political reasons such as to garner aid or rally public support. Using Indochina and the Viet Cong as examples, Fred Logevall sheds light on early terrorist tactics. Sometimes violent groups evolve into conventional political actors, as did Sinn Fein, the political faction of the IRA, or the FARC in Colombia. (A few days after this recording the Biden Administration took FARC off the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations because it no longer engages in violence.)
From Nixon, Reagan, and Thatcher to leaders in Spain, Turkey, and China: many heads of state have taken an absolutist position against working with violent groups, only to renege on that promise later. Our scholars discuss why leaders change their minds, and how timing can be a critical factor in determining when conditions are ripe for productive talks.
Part 2 takes up the questions of how to negotiate with terrorists without legitimizing their methods or ideology, and what happens to a nation’s reputation when they give in, give up, or back down in the face of extremist groups.
Host:Erin Goodman, Director, Weatherhead Scholars Program.
Guests:Annette Idler, Weatherhead Center Visiting Scholar, Weatherhead Scholars Program. Director, Global Security Programme, Pembroke College, Oxford University.
Jytte Klausen, Lawrence A. Wien Professor of International Cooperation, Brandeis University.
Fredrik Logevall, Weatherhead Center Faculty Associate. Laurence D. Belfer Professor of International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School; Professor of History, Department of History, Harvard University.
Producer/Director:Michelle Nicholasen, Editor and Content Producer, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs.
Related Links:This episode was produced, edited, and mixed by Michelle Nicholasen, Editor and Content Producer at the Weatherhead Center.
Follow the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs:The podcast currently has 16 episodes available.