In the Spotlight

Home page

A U.S. president has never unilaterally disclosed ultra-secret intelligence to a hostile power—until now.
Egypt and Libya could represent tipping points for the Islamic State’s global presence.
Conservatives are appealing to lower and working class Iranians’ economic grievances and acute sense of neglect.
Diplomacy

Diplomacy ResearchRSS

Ban Ki-Moon

Benn Craig/Belfer Center

In a conversation with Professor Nicholas Burns, Ban Ki-Moon, who served as UN Secretary-General from 2007 to December 2016, touches upon his transition from the diplomatic to the academic world, UN efforts to confront climate change under his leadership, and reconciling political realities with the achievement of long-term, global aims.

Diplomacy Experts

Samantha Power

Samantha Power

Anna Lindh Professor for the Practice of Global Leadership and Public Policy; Director, International Peace and Security Project; Former United States Ambassador to the United Nations

Graham Allison

Graham Allison

Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School; Member of the Board

Nicholas Burns

Nicholas Burns

Roy and Barbara Goodman Family Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Relations, Harvard Kennedy School; Member of the Board, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Faculty Director, Future of Diplomacy Project; Faculty Chair, Middle East Initiative; Faculty Chair, India & South Asia Program

Energy & Environment

Energy & Environment ResearchRSS

Marines stand near an artillery piece that links to solar panels during an exhibition of green energy technology in Twentynine Palms, Calif.

AP

It was reported that today there would be a meeting in the White House where the President's key advisers will discuss whether the United States should remain a party to the Paris climate agreement. With this in mind, the authors reflect in this essay on the history of international climate negotiations, observe why this is a pivotal moment, and explain why they think that the United States should remain in the Paris agreement.

Energy & Environment Experts

Kelly Sims Gallagher

Kelly Sims Gallagher

Member of the Board, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

Calestous Juma

Calestous Juma

Professor of the Practice of International Development; Director, Science, Technology, and Globalization Project; Principal Investigator, Agricultural Innovation in Africa; Member of the Board, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

Laura Diaz Anadon

Laura Diaz Anadon

Associate, Environment and Natural Resources Program

Science & Technology

Science & Technology ResearchRSS

U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz and Head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization Ali Akbar Salehi, left, meet at an hotel in Vienna, July 9, 2015

AP

"The partial budget blueprint released by the White House recently will put U.S. leadership in science and technology at serious risk if Congress goes along. In addition to the obvious damage that would result from the proposed $5.8 billion cut at NIH, the $2 billion cut in applied energy R&D, the $900 million cut in DOE’s Office of Science, the abolition of ARPA-E, and the research cuts at NOAA and EPA, a less immediately obvious potential casualty would be U.S. scientific cooperation with a wide variety of other countries on a wide variety of topics."

Science & Technology Experts

John P. Holdren

John P. Holdren

Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy; Co-Director, Science, Technology and Public Policy Program; Member of the Board, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Former Senior Advisor to President Barack Obama on Science and Technology

Matthew Bunn

Matthew Bunn

Professor of Practice; Co-Principal Investigator, Project on Managing the Atom; Member of the Board, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

David Keith

David Keith

Professor of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School

Security

Security ResearchRSS

The New Era of Counterforce: Technological Change and the Future of Nuclear Deterrence

AP/Wong Maye-E

For decades, nuclear deterrence has depended on the impossibility of a first strike destroying a country’s nuclear arsenal. Technological advances, however, are undermining states’ abilities to hide and protect their nuclear arsenals. These developments help explain why nuclear-armed states have continued to engage in security competition: nuclear deterrence is neither automatic nor permanent. Thus, the United States should enhance its counterforce capabilities and avoid reducing its nuclear arsenal.

Security Experts

Ash Carter

Ashton B. Carter

Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School – Effective July 2017; Belfer Professor of Technology and Global Affairs - Effective July 2017; Member of the Board; Former United States Secretary of Defense (2015-2017)

Rolf Mowatt-Larssen

Rolf Mowatt-Larssen

Director, Intelligence and Defense Project; Director, Project on Saudi and Gulf Cooperation Council Security

Nawaf Obaid

Nawaf Obaid

Visiting Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs