To understand the backlash, it’s important to trace the roots of France’s presence in West Africa. During the 19th and 20th centuries, France established a vast colonial empire across the region, extracting raw materials, imposing French education and legal systems, and violently suppressing dissent. When independence movements swept across Africa in the 1950s and 1960s, many nations—while formally free—remained tied to France through a complex web of military agreements, financial arrangements, and political patronage. This post-independence relationship became known as “Françafrique,” a term used to describe the informal yet powerful influence France exerted over its former colonies.

Through Françafrique, France maintained military bases, intervened in domestic politics, and secured preferential access to African markets and resources. In return, African leaders often received French political and financial backing—provided they remained loyal to Paris. Critics have long argued that this neocolonial setup preserved inequality and stifled local autonomy.

In the past five years, a wave of military coups has shaken this decades-old structure. In Mali, coups in 2020, 2021, and 2022 deposed successive governments. Burkina Faso followed in 2022, and Niger in 2023. These military takeovers were, in part, fueled by widespread frustration with governments seen as ineffective and overly reliant on French military support. France’s counterterrorism operation in the Sahel, Operation Barkhane, once seen as a stabilizing force, has increasingly been viewed as an unwelcome foreign presence.

By 2023, French troops had been expelled from Mali and Burkina Faso. In Niger, following the coup in July 2023, the military government demanded the withdrawal of French forces and severed security ties with Paris. Crowds in Niamey cheered as French flags were torn down and Russian flags raised—a stark symbol of shifting allegiances and rising youth disillusionment. One protester told Al Jazeera, “France has done nothing for us but take. We want real independence.”

This generational shift is not isolated. On TikTok, Twitter (now X), and local news networks, West African youth increasingly express frustration with what they see as France’s paternalistic posture. In viral videos, young activists have denounced the CFA franc and called for national currencies. Others have mocked Macron’s remarks as colonial nostalgia, out of touch with contemporary African aspirations.

Economic sovereignty is central to these critiques. The CFA franc, established in 1945, is used by 14 countries in West and Central Africa. Although nominally African, the currency is backed by the French treasury and managed through institutions with French oversight. Critics say this system restricts monetary independence, funnels reserves to France, and imposes austerity on developing economies.

In 2010, then-Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade said, “after 50 years of independence… if we get our power back, we will manage better.” More recently, Togolese economist Kako Nubukpo, a vocal critic of the CFA system says, “while it is important to continue putting pressure on the CFA franc, it is also essential to propose the possible outlines of the transition to the replacement currency.”

Other prominent voices have echoed these sentiments. Sanou Mbaye, a former official at the African Development Bank, described the CFA zone as a colonial relic: “It’s a tool that maintains dependency and suppresses our ability to choose our own path.” Carlos Lopes, a former head of the UN Economic Commission for Africa, has argued that the arrangement undermines investment and local industrialization. “It really should be an issue to the French speaking African countries. No country in the world can have a currency that hasn’t been revised for over 30 years. This only exists in French speaking countries in Africa. Therefore something needs to be done,” said the diplomat. 

Beyond critiques, the consequences are tangible. Countries in the CFA zone must deposit 50% of their foreign reserves in the French Treasury. Monetary policy is aligned with French economic interests, not local development needs. Governments face limits on borrowing, curbing their ability to fund healthcare, education, or infrastructure. Decisions about interest rates and inflation targets are made with limited African input.

As younger generations mobilize on the streets, online, and in political discourse, the call is no longer just to expel foreign troops but to overhaul the legacy of economic dependence. Macron’s remarks struck a nerve not because of their tone alone, but because they laid bare a broader truth: the post-colonial relationship remains fundamentally unequal.

In a region rethinking its future, France may no longer be welcome not only on the battlefield, but in the nation’s central banks, and currency as well.  As new powers such as China, Russia, and Turkey offer partnerships framed around mutual benefit, the question is no longer whether West Africa will break from France, but how, when and what will be next

Featured/Headline Image Caption and Citation: French Colonial Troops, Image source from World History Encyclopedia | CC License, no changes made

Reform UK was founded as the Brexit Party in 2019 by Nigel Farage. The party’s primary focus was advocating for a hard Brexit, the UK’s complete exit from the European Union. After Brexit was achieved, the party rebranded as Reform UK in 2020, shifting its focus to broader political reforms. In July 2024, Nigel Farage took the reins as leader of Reform UK and led the party to a powerful finish in that year’s parliamentary elections. Reform earned 14.6% of the popular vote, finishing third just behind Labor and the Conservatives. But despite its third-place finish in the popular vote, Reform only won five of the 650 parliamentary seats due to Britain’s first-past-the-post electoral system. 

Although Reform UK currently holds only five parliamentary seats, its rise poses a serious threat to the Conservatives. In the 2024 elections, the Tories suffered their lowest seat share ever, securing just 121 seats. This decline can largely be attributed to Reform UK winning over right-wing voters who had traditionally backed the Conservatives. While Reform UK didn’t capture enough votes to win most right-leaning districts, its growing popularity allowed it to siphon crucial support from the Tories, contributing to a resounding Labour victory. Recent polls show Reform UK ahead of the Conservatives and neck-and-neck with Labour. If Reform UK continues to draw right-wing support away from the Tories while Labour maintains its hold on the left, the Conservatives could find themselves increasingly squeezed from both sides, facing the very real prospect of political irrelevance.

While current polling suggests that Reform UK is in a strong position to gain seats in the next election, it is widely believed that if they want to transition from a fringe party to a mainstay in British politics, they must do two things: continue offering a right-wing alternative to the Conservatives and avoid partisan infighting. Reform has done a tremendous job of acting as an alternative to the Tories, but a public rift between Nigel Farage and Reform MP Rupert Lowe is threatening Reform Party unity.

The tensions between Farage and Lowe began in January 2025, when Elon Musk and Farage publicly fell out. On January 5, Musk posted on X that, “The Reform Party needs a new leader. Farage doesn’t have what it takes.” Musk then endorsed Lowe as a potential replacement. Lowe responded by thanking Musk but made it clear that Farage would remain the leader of Reform UK, praising Farage’s accomplishments. Nevertheless, Musk’s comments seemed to spur Lowe to cultivate a more prominent public profile, marked by a shift towards more right-wing stances, positioning himself as distinct from Farage.

The most notable example of Lowe breaking from Farage happened with regards to Tommy Robinson, a far-right extremist who was jailed for contempt of court in October 2024. Farage publicly stated that Robinson has no place in Reform UK. Lowe demonstrated more sympathy for Robinson, saying that while he wasn’t right for Reform, Robinson should be credited for his contributions to British politics. Additionally, Lowe has moved to the right of Farage on immigration. Farage has been reluctant to commit to the mass deportation of illegal immigrants, calling it politically impossible, whereas Lowe has continually voiced his support for mass deportation.

The tension between Lowe and Farage escalated three weeks ago when Lowe told the Daily Mail that he is not confident Farage has what it takes to deliver on his promises. On March 7, 2025, the day after Lowe’s statement, Reform Chairman Zia Yusuf and Chief Whip Lee Anderson issued a joint statement claiming they had received two harassment complaints from female employees against Lowe. The statement went on to say that an independent King’s Counsel had been appointed to investigate the claims and that Lowe had been uncooperative.

Since the release of this statement, two narratives have emerged—one from Lowe and one from Farage. Lowe claims the timeline of the investigation is evidence that he is the victim of a political assassination attempt. On X, Lowe wrote, “I will not have my name dragged through the mud as part of a political assassination because I dared to question Nigel Farage.” Lowe continued, asserting that there is no credible evidence against him. For his part, Farage has defended his actions as the leader of Reform UK, stating, “As a responsible political party, Reform UK has a duty to care for every member of its staff.” The accusations against Lowe have not yet been substantiated, but regardless of their validity, they present a problem for Reform UK. If the claims are valid, the party will have to expel one of its core members. If the claims are false, two party leaders publicly denigrated a third.  

The way Reform UK navigates this crisis will not only determine the party’s immediate future but could also reshape the political landscape in Britain, challenging the dominance of the traditional parties in ways that could echo far beyond the next election. The party’s ability to reconcile its ideological differences and handle its internal conflicts will be key to its survival. If Reform UK can manage to unite its fractured base and expand its appeal beyond the hard-right, it may become a permanent fixture in British politics. However, if it remains divided and embroiled in scandal, its rise could prove to be short-lived, with its legacy defined by missed opportunities rather than political success.

Featured/Headline Image Caption and Citation: “Reform won five seats in the 650-seat UK parliament in July” | Image sourced from EPA Images | CC License, no changes made

Written by: Adoma Addo, Berkeley College ’23

Accra is a city of contradiction, from the kente-patterned skyscrapers in Airport City to the aging colonial-style compounds in Jamestown. While anyone who claims to know the city can tell you where to find the best food in town with the bat of an eye, people are considerably less likely to know about Agbogbloshie (æg-bog-blO-shee), a major hub for e-waste dumping on the outskirts of central Accra.^[1] Often considered one of the world’s largest digital scrap yards, Agbogbloshie is depicted as an urban wasteland. The Austrian documentary “Welcome to Sodom”^[2] portrays the landfill with images of thick black smoke pierced by flame over miles of dilapidated desktops. Bare wires and broken glass leave the viewer with a sense of desperation. Scattered throughout the fields of debris, there are people in soot-stained clothes sorting through the wreckage. Among the people scavenging through the debris, there are mothers with their young children.^[3] The visuals almost seem to have been taken from a dystopian Sci-Fi blockbuster. 

Agbogbloshie lies just beyond the central city, bordered by the Old Fadama informal settlement, which is believed to be home to approximately 80,000 people.^[4] Old Fadama is a settlement of migrants; many residents migrated from the impoverished rural areas of Ghana’s northern regions in search of economic opportunity in the capital.^[5] Some residents are refugees from other West African countries such as Togo, Burkina Faso and Nigeria^[6].  Old Fadama and Agbogbloshie are frequently considered to be one large, impoverished, informal settlement, representing one of the largest in the Greater Accra region.^[7] As reported by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Old Fadama is of particular importance for several development initiatives due to the long history of forced and unlawful evictions, as well as the legacies of ethnic tensions due to ancestral land rights.^[8] According to Amnesty International, the situation is made worse by the fact that over 50% of residents living in Old Fadama work in the informal sector, with low levels of formal education and inconsistent daily incomes.^[9] Many of the people working in the urban informal sector are involved in activities such as selling goods in markets and on the street, repairing electronic equipment, as well as constructing buildings.^[10]

In the media, Agbogbloshie is often portrayed as a place of lawlessness, where developed and developing countries alike have delivered second-hand electronics for profit, totaling at around 215,000 tons of goods imported every year.^[11]While there is debate around the exact values of these numbers, experts estimate that around half of the imported electronics can be put back into the domestic market and sold as functional goods. The other half is either recycled or dumped in a landfill alongside the approximately 129,000 tons of domestically-produced e-waste.^[12]

The recycling that occurs in Agbogbloshie is primarily informal, consisting of individuals manually removing parts and burning plastics to expose profitable metals, such as copper, from wires.^[13] This method of informal recycling and metal recovery presents numerous human health and ecological concerns for the surrounding informal settlement and the Korle Lagoon. Numerous studies of the soil and water in the surrounding area indicate the presence of toxic contaminants such as arsenic, lead, and mercury. Furthermore, according to a study supported by the University of Michigan, high levels of cadmium, lead, and arsenic was found in the urine and blood of workers involved in the burning of e-waste.^[14] Residents recognize the dangers of the informal recycling at Agbogbloshie but possess few relocation options or alternate economic opportunity. The crux of the issue at Agbogbloshie is the tradeoff between economic gain and human security: how do we account for an individual’s economic needs while also ensuring ecological resilience and population health in the pursuit of sustainable development?

Many of the projects implemented at the waste site have sought to (1) invest in the formalization of recycling practices and (2) address the infrastructural incapacities of the informal metal recycling. Since 2015, the Agbogbloshie Scrap Dealer’s Cooperative has been running a recycling facility in the community under the guidance of institutions such as the Ghana Environmental Protection Agency, Ghana Health Services, United National Industrial Development Organization, and the Blacksmith Institute.^[15]

 While the project represents a good start for the transition away from unsustainable recycling practices in the scrapyard, the recycling facility does not address the actual production of e-waste both domestically and abroad and will need to increase its recycling capacity to ebb the growing quantities of e-waste produced each year. The blight of e-waste is not a problem that is unique to Ghana or other developing countries, although developing countries lacking the infrastructure necessary to regulate formal recycling continue to face the brunt of its consequences. With over 50 million tonnes of e-waste produced each year, it is high time to consider where old phones, laptops, and TVs actually end up after being donated.^[16] While the majority will not burn in an urban wasteland 8,000 km away, it is important to recognize that e-waste management is an inherently global issue and one that is not being equitably addressed.

Bibliography

^[1] Petricca, Carla. 2017. 

^[2] Weigensamer and Krönes 

^[3] See reference 3

^[4] “Reaching the Underserved: UNFPA Youth Fellows Organizes Outreach at Old Fadama” 2018

^[5] Blank, Lew

^[6] See reference 4

^[7] See reference 1

^[8] “Slum Politics in Accra : Understanding Urban Ghana.” 2016

^[9] Akoto Amoafo, Robert. 2018

^[10] Osei-Boateng, Clara, and Edward Ampratwum, Page 13-14

^[11] See reference 5.

^[12] “Projects Reports- Worst Polluted-Pure Earth/ Blacksmith Institute.” 2013

^[13] “Ghana (Agbogbloshie) – E-Waste Recycling.” 2015. 

^[14] Srigboh et al. 2016

^[15]“Project Completion Report: Making Electronic Waste Recycling in Ghana Safer Through Alternative Technology, Accra Ghana.” 2015

^[16] “UN Report: Time to Seize Opportunity, Tackle Challenge of e-Waste.” 2019

It is not surprising that the military works of the ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tzu, who famously wrote that “the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting,” have been divinely embraced by the Kremlin’s neo-imperialist ideologues centuries later. Since the ascendance of Putin, Moscow’s neo-Soviet system of governance has been exercising a form of “ambiguous warfare”, which uses both kinetic and non-kinetic tools to influence operations abroad. Kinetic operations involve the use of hard power strategy through armed and lethal force, whilst non-kinetic operations “seek to influence a target through electronic or print media, computer network operation, and electronic warfare.”^[1]

In Georgia, Russia’s control over the two breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia allows the Kremlin to pursue a policy of “creeping occupation,” leveraging geopolitical realities on the ground whilst exerting diplomatic pressure over the local authorities.^[2] Through utilizing subversive tactics, including co-optation and cyber-attacks, Moscow is able to unleash forms of psychological warfare against the Georgian populace, as well as Tbilisi’s political elites. A 2014 article by General Valery Gerasimov titled “The Value of Science is in the Foresight” generally outlined the role of a “permanently operating front throughout the entirety of the enemy state” that fosters internal opposition.^[3] In line with Russia’s reflexive control theory, which involves indoctrinating an opponent with predetermined information to sway decision-making, the Kremlin has been able to weaken the credibility of the Georgian government and its anti-Russian political factions, impede Tbilisi’s integration into the Euro-Atlantic alliance, and destabilize Georgia’s democratic development.

Like Georgia, Moldova has also been a victim of Moscow’s revisionism and self-proclaimed exceptionalism. For over two decades, Chisinau has had to compete with a pro-Russian separatist regime in the eastern region of Transnistria that has continually destabilized the country’s internal affairs. While the Kremlin continues to financially sustain this break-away region, Russian-language media outlets and outlets re-broadcasting Russian news continue to outnumber and dominate local media sources.^[4] In a similar fashion, Moscow has weaponized its energy holdings in Moldova, with the local authorities making little progress towards securing the country’s energy independence from the hands of the Russian gas giant Gazprom.

No one should doubt that the credibility of the Kremlin’s besieged fortress mentality has long but expired. The swaying forces of the Kremlin’s disinformation campaigns, militarism, and psychological warfare systematically and strategically impede Georgia’s and Moldova’s pathway to the empyrean realm of the Euro-Atlantic world. 

Bibliography

^[1] Hansen, Flemming Splidsboel. Russian Hybrid Warfare: A Study of Disinformation. DIIS Report, June 2017, http://pure.diis.dk/ws/files/950041/DIIS_RP_2017_6_web.pdf

^[2] Nilsson, Niklas. Russian Hybrid Tactics in Georgia. Central Asia- Caucasus Institute Silk Road Studies Program, Jan. 2018, https://silkroadstudies.org/resources/pdf/SilkRoadPapers/2018_01_Nilsson_Hybrid.pdf

^[3] Larsen, Joseph. “Deterring Russia’s Borderization of Georgia.” GIP Commentary, Georgian Institute of Politics, Sept. 2017, pp. 3, gip.ge/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Commentary18.pdf.

^[4] “Moldova Battles Hybrid Threat.” Institute for War and Peace Reporting, https://iwpr.net/global-voices/moldova-battles-hybrid-threat.

Written by: Jake Mezey, Timothy Dwight College ’21

Dagestan is a semi-autonomous republic in Russia’s Southern Caucuses known for its ruggedly beautiful mountainous terrain, its long history of conflict, and its wrestlers. From spartan gymnasiums filled with children as young as five to the Rio Olympics, Dagestani wrestlers are known for their skill and almost religious dedication to the sport. Wrestling has always had a special place in Dagestani culture and society, but in the last several decades it has become a way to keep young boys out of insurgent groups as well as a rare opportunity for economic mobility. 

Dagestan lies on the Caucuses isthmus with the Caspian Sea to the East, Georgia and Azerbaijan to the South, and Chechnya to the West. The Republic has few large urban centers, instead most of the population lives in small towns which cling to the area’s signature steep rocky hillsides. While Dagestan is predominantly Muslim, there is significant ethnic diversity in the region. The largest groups are Avars, Dargins, Kumyks, and Lezgins. Ethnic Russians make up about 10% of the population.

In the 18^th century, the Southern Caucuses were hotly contested between Imperial Russia and Iran. Russia consolidated its control over the region in the early 1800s; however, it faced numerous rebellions and uprisings, most famously under the legendary leader Imam Shamil in 1834. In 1999, Dagestan became embroiled in the Chechen Wars when extremist groups from Chechnya seized territory in Dagestan. Retaliation by the Russian military sparked counter-state and inter-ethnic violence which still simmers today. Furthermore, poverty and lack of effective state control in the region led many young Dagestanis to join radical groups such as ISIS or to find work in the drug trade. 

In many ways, wrestling has been Dagestan’s answer to the social stresses produced by violence, poverty, and disaffected young men. The sport is cheap, requiring only a singlet and a pair of shoes. Wrestling gyms also tend to serve as a form of day-care for the younger children, whose parents can leave them under the watchful eye of a coach while they are at work. As boys grow up in this system, their coaches take on the role of both a mentor and moral guide. Hard work, discipline, and respect are the main values that wrestling coaches emphasize, and especially in Dagestan these values are often married to traditional Islamic teachings. Training consists of hours of perfecting technique and sparring in the wrestling room, as well as running through the craggy peaks of the Dagestani countryside or the shores of the Caspian Sea. This moral and physical ethos channels the wrestlers’ energy and ambition into competition and constructive goals. 

Few other legitimate avenues exist in Dagestan for socio-economic advancement, especially for women. While men’s wrestling has been ubiquitous in Dagestan for decades, women’s wrestling is only starting to take hold. Around the world, from the United States to Japan, women’s wrestling has been growing exponentially but has often faced resistance and cultural backlash. The traditional religious and cultural values of Dagestan have also been slow to evolve, but have proven flexible enough for Dagestani Women to begin finding success at the Russian, European, and World Championships.

The ultimate goal for young Dagestani wrestlers is Olympic Gold. At the Rio Olympics in 2016, Dagestani’s won five out of eighteen available medals (three per weight class), more than a quarter of the spots on the Olympic podium. Abdulrashid Sudalaev is the current World Champion in the 97-kilogram weight class and was the Olympic Champion at 86 kilos. He is the number one ranked pound-for-pound wrestler in the world. Another prominent Dagestani is Khabib Nurmagomedov. Khabib grew up wrestling but currently fights Mixed Martial Arts in the UFC. He is undefeated at 28-0, and in his last victory over Dustin Poirer he was paid over five million dollars. Wrestlers like Sudalaev and Nurmagomedov represent the hope for Dagestanis who want to climb out of cycles of poverty. Even if they fail to achieve the highest levels of success, many wrestlers become coaches and mentor the next generation in turn. 

Works Cited

“A Path Back from the Ruins of ISIS.” The Washington Post. WP Company, April 7, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/world/wp/2019/04/07/feature/in-russias-dagestan-region-a-path-back-from-the-ruins-of-the-islamic-state/.

“Dagestan Profile.” BBC News. BBC, January 17, 2018. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20593383.

Pyles, Christian. “2019 International Rankings – Men’s Freestyle.” P4P Rankings. FloWrestling , May 29, 2019. https://www.flowrestling.org/rankings/6031553-international-rankings-mens-freestyle/32687-p4p-abdulrashid-sadulaev-rus.

Reinsmith, Trent. “Khabib Nurmagomedov Earns Reported $6 Million Payout For UFC 242 Submission Win.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, September 8, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/trentreinsmith/2019/09/07/khabib-nurmagomedov-earns-reported-6-million-payout-for-ufc-242-submission-win/#4bdea8e729b1.

The Brady-Johnson program in Grand Strategy and the Yale College Democrats invited former FBI director James Comey to speak on October 7 and October 8, respectively. Though both events were organized and moderated independently, they inevitably shared similarities among the topics discussed.

The Grand Strategy-organized event, entitled “the FBI: Past, Present, and Future,” was a conversation between James Comey and Beverly Gage – professor of History and American Studies as well as Director of Grand Strategy – and moderated by Asha Rangappa,  senior lecturer at the Jackson Institute for Global Affairs and a CNN legal and national security analyst. Rangappa loosely moderated the discussion around four central themes: the FBI’s perception and public image; its rules and accountability; its relationship with civil rights; and the independence of law enforcement. Professor Gage and Director Comey’s responses complemented one another, as Gage elucidated questions regarding the FBI’s troubled past, while Comey discussed its controversial present. 

Most surprisingly, the FBI’s dubious investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email use and the consequences of the 2016 Russian election interference were left largely unaddressed in great detail. Instead, more historical controversies – like J. Edgar Hoover’s shaping of the FBI, its harassment of Martin Luther King and other civil rights activists, and its institutionalized, homogeneous culture – were at the forefront. Additionally, discussed in great detail were Director Comey’s efforts to combat the lack of diversity within the FBI. While in office, Comey spearheaded a series of campaigns aimed at improving the racial and gender parity within the Bureau, focusing on the particularly diverse New York office for the CBS television series FBIcreated by Dick Wolf, the executive producer of Law & Order. In their closing remarks, both Gage and Comey seemed hopeful for the future of the FBI, despite America’s current political climate, and insinuated that the current administration is incapable of undermining the objectivity and independence of the Bureau and the intelligence community.

The Yale College Democrats – in conjunction with the Politic, Every Vote Counts, the Jackson Institute, and the Yale International Relations Association – hosted a “Conversation with James Comey,” moderated by Aliesa Bahri (Murray ’22). Structured differently than Grand Strategy’s event and focusing more on contemporary issues, Director Comey opened with a monologue extensively discussing Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and the breath of declassified information released by the Senate Intelligence Committee the day before. When asked about President Trump’s impending impeachment inquiry, Director Comey asserted that the best measure of accountability is voting the president out of office in 2020, not removing him through impeachment. 

Moreover, Director Comey spent considerable time explaining the previously-confidential reasoning for the FBI’s questionable handing of the investigation over Secretary Clinton’s email use, which some attribute to influencing the election in favor of now-President Trump. Director Comey insisted that the investigation was necessary, but the timeline – with the final findings released just days before the election – as unintentional. Nevertheless, he maintained that the Bureau’s actions were integral in ensuring its objectivity and political independence, as deferral of action could have been interpreted as aiding Clinton’s campaign complicity. In his final justifications, Comey stated that he believed that damage to the credibility of the FBI was inescapable, but the Bureau has an extensive experience in atoning for its actions.

On the whole, Director Comey proved optimistic for the future and integrity of America’s political system despite the deepening political polarization. He likewise was confident in the FBI’s stable and objective role as an enforcer of America’s democratic ideals and its strides in atoning and correcting itself following controversies. 

By one o’clock, a dozen students had already taken the most coveted seats in Yale Law School’s Levinson Hall. Soon to be joined by community members and faculty, the spectators engaged in quiet conversation, with some notable murmurs about coming assignments and skipped classes. Others spent the time hurriedly making up the work they were missing or getting ahead on work due later so they could spend the rest of this Wednesday afternoon carefully reflecting on the discussion they would hear.

That discussion was one of many in the new “Big Picture” series, hosted by the Brady-Johnson Program in Grand Strategy. October 2nd marked the first public talk in the series, focusing on the real-world applications of former UN Ambassador Samantha Power’s recently published memoir, The Education of an Idealist.

The memoir traces Ambassador Power’s life from her childhood in an Irish pub to her new life in Atlanta, Georgia; her athletic college days to her experience as a war-correspondent in Bosnia; and from her life as a professor and advocate for human rights to her appointment to the National Security Council by former President Barack Obama. Her role as the American Ambassador to the United Nations is expounded upon, as well as the struggles she faced in trying to protect human rights and promote freedom around the world. Ambassador Power is best known for her foreign policy regarding humanitarian crises, and the role America has to play when there is trouble abroad. One of the main questions her new memoir seeks to answer is how the United States should intervene in foreign nations when the lives or liberties of people are at stake.

Interviewing Ambassador Power about her book and her role in foreign policy were former National Security Adviser to Vice President Joe Biden and visiting lecturer, Jake Sullivan, as well as the 22nd Legal Adviser of the Department of State and Sterling Professor of International Law Harold Hongju Koh. After a brief introduction by Brady-Johnson Professor of Grand Strategy and History, Beverly Gage, Ambassador Power took up the microphone to greet the crowd of eager students and to read an excerpt from her memoir, setting the tone for the discussion. 

Throughout the panel, Power harkened back to her memoir, referencing the outbreak and persistence of certain issues like the Ukrainian Crisis and her mission to Cameroon to promote the safety of civilians living in fear of the Boko Haram. The memoir not only reflects the growth and education of an important American ambassador, but the influence she and her policies had on the world. 

With brief commentary on the current state of American foreign relations, Ambassador Power admitted that the power America once had to intervene in humanitarian crises may have been recently ignored. With the current presidency focusing on internal affairs, our former status to foreign countries— and certainly our allies— has been reduced. But, she recalls her own time at Yale, specifically in the History department, and hopes that new educational initiatives—such as the Brady-Johnson Program in Grand Strategy—are raising a new generation of humanitarians and policy makers.

You can buy Ambassador Samantha Power’s Pulitzer Prize-winning memoir The Education of an Idealistat the Campus Bookstore, Barnes and Noble online, or Amazon, as well as her well-known book on foreign policy “A Problem From Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide. For more information about Ambassador Power, or to see upcoming dates for her book tour, you can visit www.samanthapower.com.

For the next “Big Picture” event, visit the Brady-Johnson Program in grand strategy website.