Democracy matters. NATO also matters to many free peoples — to Americans as much as to anyone . The individual freedom to speak, worship, and avoid unjust persecution matters. Confronting those who would attack these values matters.
It’s worth asking, then, why Harvard University keeps honoring leaders who are unwilling to defend these values. Harvard, after all, is commonly regarded as one of the world’s very finest universities, a place supposedly dedicated to the advancement of humanity’s better future. Unfortunately, Harvard’s recent record of commencement speakers does not indicate its seriousness about promoting true leadership.
In 2019, it was former German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s turn at the Harvard podium . Merkel’s relentless appeasement of Russia helped enable President Vladimir Putin’s aggression in Europe. Merkel forced Ukraine into a fatally flawed peace accord , which Russia then violated with impunity. She refused to bolster Ukraine’s defense or live up to Germany’s commitments to NATO. She refused to break Berlin’s addiction to Russian energy, playing right into Putin’s strategy of blackmail. Harvard’s celebration of Merkel was utterly delusional at the time; in hindsight, it was a humiliating moment for the university’s administration.
Last week, Harvard had New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on campus Thursday to deliver this year’s commencement address and receive an honorary doctorate. Inexplicably celebrated by many in the liberal intelligentsia as some kind of messiah for modern democratic leadership, it wasn’t surprising that Ardern received standing ovations. And yet, measured against the most critical threats to democracy at this moment (Chinese and Russian coercion to degrade and, in China’s case, replace the democratic international order), Ardern was as silent in her speech as she has been useless in her governance.
The prime minister’s speech contained not one reference to China, Russia, or Ukraine. Instead, she presented the greatest threat to the future of our democracies as … social media. Apparently not an Elon Musk aficionado, Ardern called for vaguely defined government engagement with social media companies to develop what she called “responsible algorithms.” Who will ultimately define and enforce these algorithms was left unsaid.
But Ardern’s complaints about disinformation and her laments over the challenge to traditional media posed by new media outlets should alarm everyone. Ardern’s impulse to impose a narrow establishment orthodoxy was most obvious when she lamented how COVID-19 had led to “exposing mistrust of experts.” I would argue, in contrast, that a flourishing democracy requires a skeptical popular response to unelected officials who demand significant and enduring restrictions on individual freedom. Yes, take the vaccines (at least the American-developed ones). But don’t seek to censor or silence those with doubts. And don’t doubt what Ardern’s “responsible algorithms” might entail.
Meanwhile, Ardern’s silence on China was deafening. Facing communist China’s effort to trammel the democratic will of the Indo-Pacific, eliminate Taiwanese democracy, and replace the global democratic order with a Beijing-led autocratic feudal-mercantile order, Ardern’s government has endorsed an overt policy of appeasement toward China. The Uyghur genocide, China’s imperialism in the South China Sea, its evisceration of Hong Kong’s democracy, its arrogant militarism — all of these concerns meet Ardern’s calculated indifference. On the rare occasion when Ardern says something mildly critical of China, it is dripping with equivocation.
So significant is China’s influence over Ardern’s New Zealand that some in the U.S. national security community now question whether the country should remain a member of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance (of which it is a member alongside the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia). Ardern’s government doesn’t seem to understand why its allies are so concerned. Ardern’s foreign minister, for example, offers such an absurd defense of New Zealand’s appeasement of China as to render herself an inadvertent comedian. New Zealand’s absence from the Quad partnership (the U.S., Australia, Japan, and India) is also striking.
It is true that New Zealand has provided some military support to Ukraine, including assistance with training on the use of artillery systems. Yet, even considering New Zealand’s distance from the war and its relatively small economy, this support has not been what one would expect from a leader of democratic values.
Communist Chinese imperialism is not, however, something that Harvard is terribly bothered about. The facts prove as much.
In 2019, Harvard president Larry Bacow traveled to Beijing to salute its Peking University as a place where students are encouraged to “listen and speak.” He wasn’t making a satirical joke . Bacow surely knew that under Chinese leader Xi Jinping, Peking University’s relative academic freedom had given way to training a new generation of Communist Party elites. Peking University is not a safe space for free speech. Evincing as much, since 2018, a top post at Peking University has been held by a senior official from China’s preeminent civilian intelligence service, the Ministry of State Security.
The question must be asked, then: Why is Harvard so determined to grant its most prestigious honors to leaders who do the least to sustain the democratic order? Yes, celebrating female leaders is important. But there are far more courageous female leaders than these two mediocrities.
Take Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, who has stood stalwart as her Russia-bordering nation faces unrelenting intimidation from Putin’s regime. Or why didn’t Harvard invite German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, who has long called for a more forceful defense of democracy and human rights? Or how about Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin, just 36 years old, who has responded to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by moving to join NATO (even as Russia threatens nuclear responses in retaliation)? How about Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan, who is mobilizing her small island democracy to resist an increasingly likely Chinese invasion? Why not three-star Army Lt. Gen. Donna Martin, a highly respected military leader and role model for young black Americans? Many more examples could be offered.
This is a time of great consequence for the future of freedom and international security. Harvard has shown it is utterly unserious about meeting the moment.
