Bonus Blog #3: PJ Crowley on "The Right to Know and the Need to Share"

In addition to our virtual lecture from P.J. Crowley, I also attended his lecture on ethics and public relations titled The Right to Know and the Need to Share. Although he echoed several of the ideas he touched on during the televised lecture, he also made some interesting points regarding communication of the U.S. as a whole and how that impacts our policy and standing throughout the world. This was particularly interesting as I think communication plays a huge role in foreign opinions of the U.S. and with the introduction of social media, this role is certainly changing.

In framing this idea of global communication, Crowley introduced the idea that our communication from a government perspective should form a strategic narrative. As the only real constant factor of our world presence is our credibility, we must both inform and develop the perception of the U.S. through the ideas we convey. This all began in the Cold War when everything the U.S. did was in a vast and very public global context. However, as time has progressed to the present day we have lost a sense of our global impact through communication. Crowley felt that in the current climate we overlook the effect of what we say and do on our home front and therefore have lost a balanced perspective and strategic narrative. 

 In recommending action for the future, he felt that we needed economic, social, and political reform while simultaneously increasing global communication. However, this is a tricky endeavor. As the nature of communication changes with such technologies as social media, the efficacy of global communication in fact decreases. This makes it all the more important that we “practice what we preach” and create a dual-pronged attack of both speaking our ideals and displaying them. This then led into some additional discourse on Wikileaks and social media. 

This idea of a strategic narrative, especially from a policy sense, was very intriguing to me. From our lives here in the U.S., I think we lose sight of the effect our policy example has on the rest of the world and how important it is that we convey the right message with both our actions and our words. In completing the final policy brief and presentation, I think we touched on this a small bit but in general I wish that this idea was incorporated into more policy discussions. Yes, U.S. policy is primarily aimed and pursuing the interests and achieving the goals of this country. However, P.J. Crowley’s presentation highlight the fact that while this make be true, we should still be aware of the ripple effect this choices have on the rest of the globe.

Bonus Blog #2: Crisis Informatics Speaker 3 - Ed Happ

In our discussion with Ed Happ, CIO of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, he outlined three main ideas we should walk away from his presentation with: crisis on the current world stage is becoming increasingly challenging, the connections created when responding are becoming more social, and finally working together and collaborating is not an option but an imperative. This provided a fairly accurate roadmap for where his presentation took us in terms of crisis informatics. 

Like Olaffson, one of the most striking ideas Happ presented was how technology now and in the future is completely changing the relationship between the relief workers and those receiving aid. He made many important points regarding the nature of crisis informatics but this really struck me as the underlying theme of where it is headed in the future; in the past individuals were viewed as objects of humanitarian efforts and today they are seen as members of the team. This is, in large part, due to the appearance of social media on the scene but Happ impressed upon us that there needs to be more social-media type technology and app development surrounding and centered solely on humanitarian crisis and relief situations. 

Underscoring this idea was another equally simple yet striking idea; in aiding collaboration and working together to clear obstacles, the most important technological principle that we must be focused on for the future is trust. We must use our experience and technical skills to facilitate working together and developing relationships. It is fairly new and uncharted territory in many respects for the aid community, and so we must be very careful in understanding the context in moving forward.  However, like Olaffson, Happ felt that on the other side of these foreign obstacles to the aid community stands great potential for changing the way we address crisis needs for the better.

To illustrate the main obstacle or challenge Happ saw for the community, he told a rather interesting story about crossing the street in Cairo. Apparently, it is a task similar to a real-life version of a frogger game and quite terrifying. In attempting this during one visit, he had to literally rely on the guiding hand of one of the members of his organization significantly below him on the corporate hierarchy to get him across to the other side. Like Happ, the humanitarian aid community must ‘take the hand’ of those traditionally below them and trust that they are going to make it safely to the other side.

Bonus Blog #1: Crisis Informatics Speaker 1 - Gisli Olafsson

The first Crisis Informatics speaker was Gisli Olafsson, Emergency Response Director of NetHope. As he described it is an organization charged with the task of emergency efforts coordination in the midst of relief work. This allowed him ample insight into what people in the international emergency relief field are looking for in terms of new and emerging technology, which was the primary framework of his discussion with us. He structured his discourse with us by first giving some background on the status quo within this community in terms of technology, then outlining the key tenets any new technology would need, and closing with his thoughts on innovations existing in this community.  Although the discussion was primarily aimed at the crisis informatics application development course, there were still several useful lessons I gained from the event.

 In attempting to give us some context to his technology recommendations, he painted a short portrait of communication efforts in emergency situations in the past. Specifically, he spoke to the unified perspective in the post Southeast Asian Tsunami humanitarian world that change needed to be couple with the ‘new digital generation.’ As most of the old ways did not succeed in creating effective collaboration across several groups, there has been a push in these recent years to look at past failing as remedy them. Out of this effort came the current ‘cluster system’ that the humanitarian world functions on today. Although this system was significantly tested during the Haiti relief effort and performed fairly well, there is still great room for improvement. Therefore, he challenged us to create a discussion regarding what is driving the current changes and couple them with technological innovation. 

In brainstorming how best to tackle this feat, he suggested that we try to follow seven guiding principles: innovation, collaboration, openness, interdependence, integrity, self-organization, and sustainability. Although he talked quite insightfully about each of these principles, one common theme for where he saw possibilities headed was utilizing this next step forward to create a two-way dialogue. In the past a hierarchical structure has been used to disseminate tasks and information from the top down. In this new way of the digitzed citizen, Olafsson feels we can “empower affected communities themselves to work alongside aid organizations,” opening up brand new ways of addressing humanitarian crisis situations. There is the potential to collaborate on a completely different level and allow affected communities to communicate their needs and create a two-way dialogue. There have been occurrences of attempting to tap into this new wave of relief, which he touched on, but there is still a lot to be learned and much innovation to be had.

  

In closing, he attempted to outline some of the key points the application developers might find useful in their brainstorming and design. However, he also highlight what I felt was a very important point; although there may be a bright future ahead in terms of technology assisted collaboration, there are very well-established precedents and methodologies for doing this in the past so it will not be an easy road. He ended with a quote from Ghandi that I felt illustrated this very important point beautifully, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Inspired Post #8: NCDs and the Question of Dying

I'm not sure if anyone else was intrigued by Matt's question during the NCDs presentation but it certainly struck me. What do you expect people to die from? I realize it is quite a bit philosophical but still a very worthwhile thought to ponder, even in the policy context in which it was brought up. While I see the point that I would assume the question originated from, that people have to die sometime, I think it touches on an important ethical vein within policy discussions we did not really discuss this semester, the motives of U.S. Policy.

If we can make such technological strides to give us advances like the iPhone and nanotechnology, shouldn’t we also use our continued scientific progress to help our fellow human beings live fuller, healthier lives? Now, I know that question seems a bit too altruistic but studies show that the American public feels U.S. foreign policy should be focused on national as well as the global interests. So why can’t we have both? I think the NCD team brought up a good point that while on the outside combating this issue seems like we are simply trying help suffering individuals with no help to ourselves, this is not the case; from a much broader perspective, we improve our image abroad, improve the quality of life and therefore economies of other countries, and produce a healthier working base worldwide.


So perhaps in the past, it was either serving national or global interest. However, in this globalized world, it seems altruism can go hand-in-hand with serving our natural interests. While the NCD presentation was criticized for not adhering to national interests enough nor addressing a relevant enough issue, I think this is quite the opposite. If we examine the NCD case from this global, big picture perspective, I think it was the most forward-thinking of all the policy recommendations. They were looking long-term at how inciting global change in the rest of the world can actually serve and strengthen national interests back home. 

It seems this is also the mentality sweeping through the entrepreneurial scene as well with the relatively newly coined term of social entrepreneurship. One of the important aspects of this new business model is enacting social change but while still producing a profit. I think this idea should be applied to more policy changes. If we attempt to serve a global need that will ultimately benefit ourselves, perhaps we would have a better image and impression abroad.

Inspired Post #7: Ohhhh Social Media, How I Do Not Love Thee

I realize no twenty-something student today should ever say this but I’m going to so hold onto your britches: I do not like social media. Although I realize it can be used for great purposes at times, the primary use of it appears to me to have negative effects on users that so often go unnoticed. Through degrading our personal relationships, affecting our interaction with the physical world, and significantly draining our time in some cases,  social media seems to be hurting more than it is helping.

I realize the advantage that staying in contact with friends far away has, but I just wonder if the quality of interactions on social media sites upholds this advantage. If I can keep in contact with friends from NY over Facebook or Twitter, am I less likely to make a roadtrip up to see them or get coffee when we are back in our hometown for the holidays? Perhaps it is because I am a bit old-fashioned but I am inclined to say yes. The beauty of communication and connection is also the downfall in my opinion; we feel connected enough that we lose sight of the value in disconnect.

Additionally, with the multitude of other issues going on in our world and events or activities that can be done with real people and in the real world, I am baffled by the amount of hours my friends spend on Facebook. With technology and the globalized world already disconnecting us from traditional outdoor pursuits like camping, cooking, and reading, it seems social media is just the next drain on our time. Personally, I wish we would see more efforts to combat the black hole of technology and get out into the world more.


The real case that social media worries me, is with teens and young adults. Having a younger sister, I feel the effects of technology on the age groups below us a bit too acutely. A recent article in ScienceNews states that although there are benefits to these sights, in teenagers the also make kids more “more prone to anxiety, depression, and other psychological disorders, as well as by making them more susceptible to future health problems.” The study does also list such benefits as creating a greater deal of empathy with their friends and helping introverted kids become more socialized, but can’t all this be done in conventional activities such as girl scouts, swim teams, and playing in the neighborhood?

Perhaps this is just the next change that our technical society is undergoing and we should focus on the benefits and advantageous uses of social media. However, I cannot help but miss the days when the way to keep in touch with friends was calling them up and grabbing a cup of coffee face-to-face.

Inspired Post #6: Combating the Cartels - Not Legalization, Just Decriminalization

During the question and answer section of the Mexican drug cartels presentation, the issue was brought up about the possibility of legalizing drugs in the U.S. as a way to address the cause of the drug cartel problem. While I thought the policy recommendations of the presentation seemed very sound in attempting to address the effects of the U.S. and world drug problem, I thought this was a very interesting argument. As a result I did a bit more researching on the topic and found this very intriguing recording of a debate at Brown University last month regarding this very policy topic. Although it is a bit long, this first 25 min are a position statement from Glenn Greenwald, former Drug Czar to the Bush Administration, and are well worth the extra time.

Janus Forum - Should the US Legalize Drugs? from Brown University on Vimeo.

While I feel that Greenwald makes a very strong argument here, there were two aspects of his statement that really struck me. The first being his point regarding the inherent racism in the war on drugs and the second the conclusions he drew from the example of Portugal. Although I think we all have some idea regarding the extent of racism in the system, hearing the facts outlined as he did were extremely striking. I think this injustice alone is one reason why we should attempt to address the cause here at home before running abroad to fight the effects.

The distinction he makes between legalization and decriminalization with respect to Portugal rung very true with me. The idea of taking the billions of dollars a year we spend on fighting drug trade and instead turning it towards helping those individuals with addictions seems much more effective. From personal experience of dating a police office, I know that there is a significant wall between the public and law enforcement/government. Additionally, many of the police officers I know would much rather be pursuing cases regarding murder, rape, abuse, etc. in their communities than chasing around kids and criminals dealing and buying narcotics because they see a greater element of protecting their communities in the former. 

Although my knowledge in this area of policy is limited, the empirical evidence presented with the Portugal case, the inherent flaws in our existing system, and the enormous inefficiencies outlined by the Cartel team’s presentation regarding financial inefficiencies of our past efforts all lead me to feel that this is a worthwhile policy option to pursue. Simply from a point of solidarity with regard to fellow citizens, the argument of using our government funds to get them help rather than incarcerate them seems at least worth evaluating the debate. Is it just the power of lobbyist groups here in the U.S. that keep policy makers from having this discussion? Or perhaps they have had this debate already, in which case, what has kept it from acquiring footing on Capitol Hill?

Inspired Post #5: China - Aggressive Action not Technology Transfer

When the Technology transfer with China team was presenting, a single question kept coming to mind: what would motivate China to share with us when they can just have hackers steal it? While at CSIS, this point was made particularly strongly by Jim Lewis when emphasizing the dire threat that intellectual property theft by the Chinese poses today. In doing some more thinking and researching about this, I think this could actually be a significant downfall for China in the long-term but must be addressed more aggressively on a short-term basis.

One interesting article I found while doing some searching noted the ‘obsession’ currently occurring in China over winning a Nobel Prize in the sciences. I think that if you couple this with their thieving cyber attacks, it reveals that China is focused on the wrong goal. Instead of fostering innovation and creativity, they rely on stealing the U.S. and other country’s novel ideas and technologies. The article also makes an interesting point that if China is so secure in its path to reclaiming their role as world superpower, why do they need an award to show this? Personally, I think they are completely right. China seems all too narrowly focused on proving they have regained their position as a superpower rather than ensuring that they actually are one.

In my opinion, this reveals a significant blemish on China’s path of regaining the top spot at the podium. They without a doubt have the economic might to support their spot as the alpha dog among world leaders, sitting on billions of dollars of trade surplus. However, I think this is only half the battle. The hackings and Nobel obsession reveal their weakness in that they lack the ingenuity and innovation necessary to protect and maintain this top spot. This is why I don’t think a technology transfer policy would be particularly successful.

To me, China seems simply too voracious in its pursuit of power on the international scene for the transfer program to function on a basis of equality. If we were to enact such a policy, present events and tendencies reveal that it would most likely be supplemented with illegal and undermining activities. As a result of China’s past actions in addressing this void in scientific innovation, I think our policy approach should be one of aggression not solidarity. But even before we can begin to entertain a technology transfer relationship with them, the issue of intellectual property theft must be addressed.

To illustrate this point, I have a fairly short personal story. At a past internship, the company I worked for had three main research facilities: one in the U.S., where I interned, one in France, and one in China. We had a fairly sophisticated and very expensive piece of testing equipment that was integral to the majority of the research our labs conducted. The summer before I interned, the Chinese lab took this particular piece of equipment apart until it was separated into each individual component. As I heard from one employee, no one really knew what they were doing but let it go on and eventually the equipment company was brought in to put the device back together. The summer I worked there, one task I was charged with was comparing data from our original piece of equipment to a brand new device created in the Chinese lab which performed the very same task and looked almost identical. No one in the office thought this was a coincidence. The issue of intellectual property theft seems to be too severe of an issue to settle with amiable collaboration. They are stealing our ideas and we must take more aggressive action.