Jacinda Ardern thinks world leaders need more kindness

Jacinda Ardern at Harvard University's campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on May 31. After she resigned as prime minister of New Zealand, she got married, temporarily relocated to the United States and now has three fellowships at Harvard. PHOTO: LAUREN O'NEIL/NYTIMES
CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts – It is easy to forget that Jacinda Ardern is a former prime minister of New Zealand.
Standing in line at a cafe in Cambridge, Massachusetts, wearing a suit by New Zealand designer Juliette Hogan, with sneakers and gold hoops, she flashes a disarming smile and says to call her 'just Jacinda'.
As she orders a cappuccino, the cashier wonders why she looks so familiar. Was she, by any chance, that person on TV? 'Toni Collette?' they ask, referring to an Australian actress.
Ardern, without security detail, waves off the misidentification and does not set the record straight.
The cafe is a 10-minute walk from Harvard University, where Ardern, who resigned as prime minister in 2023, now holds three fellowships. In the aftermath of her voluntary resignation, she married her long-time partner Clarke Gayford and temporarily moved her family to Massachusetts.
The day before we met, students and faculty had gathered for their commencement and remnants of the ceremony are everywhere: tents, stacks of foldable chairs lying in yards and students milling around with cardboard boxes .
The ceremony capped a school year in which the institution has been entangled in a legal stand-off with United States President Donald Trump's administration over allegations of anti-Semitism, with federal funding and the visas of international students enrolled at the university in jeopardy.
It is in that tense environment that Ardern, who during her time in power was frequently referred to as the 'anti-Trump', is publishing her memoir, A Different Kind Of Power.
The book, which was released on June 3 , makes the case that leading with empathy and kindness might be the solution for a range of global crises – an argument that has also been the subject of one of her fellowships at Harvard Kennedy School.
Whether such a book will resonate in a highly charged moment is an open question.
Ardern said she has been relishing the relative anonymity of life in the US. A step back has allowed her to spend more time with her six-year-old daughter, who, she said, has a 'greater awareness now' of the fact that her mother was prime minister, yet 'doesn't dwell on it'.
But the book and a global tour are part of what appears to be a re-emergence into public life, which also includes a documentary about her, called Prime Minister, that will be released later in June .
In the book, Ardern, 44, gets into the granular details of what it was like to lead a country through multiple crises, including a live-streamed terrorist attack in Christchurch, a major volcanic eruption and the Covid-19 pandemic.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
We are sitting so close to Harvard, which has been at the centre of heated debates, and now you are releasing a book about kindness and empathy in leadership. How does this all fit together?
I started writing it after I left office – in early to mid-2023. Though there was a lot of difficulty in the world, now feels vastly different from then. So it's not lost on me, the environment it's going into. But I would have written the same book regardless. Because, even then, ideas of empathy, compassion and kindness in leadership were treated as if there was a naivete there, and probably even more so now, and I just push back on that.
How do you push back?
First, I think there's a disconnect. People make an assumption that because we have a particular type of leadership on display at the moment, that must be what voters are seeking. And I don't think that's true.
There are very real issues that need to be addressed that I summarise as deep financial insecurity and uncertainty in the face of a very changeable world. Politicians can come into that space either with a message of fear and blame or they can take on the very difficult issue of finding genuine solutions.
I think it would be wrong to say people don't want to see kindness and compassion in their politics, and that they don't want to see politics done differently. It's not naive.
In the book, you say you worried that your compassion could be seen as a weakness and, by extension, that weakness could be seen as female.
I decided early on that I was just only ever going to be myself. And in New Zealand, if you're not yourself, they can sniff out inauthenticity – there's so much proximity to politicians and leaders that you need to be yourself. So that was the environment.
But did it come easy? Not necessarily, because I remember moments when I thought, I cannot let my emotions be on display. And there were certain times when it just wouldn't have been appropriate because it wasn't about me; it was about the situation, the victims, the circumstance. But I decided that sometimes, you're just going to have a human response and that's okay. In fact, maybe it builds trust, because people can see then that you're human.
Do you think people now expect this style from female leaders?
I get asked a lot whether these traits are gendered. I've worked with a number of politicians, and I see empathetic leadership in men and women. In fact, I like to think of it within the frame of what we teach our kids.
If you ask a room of parents, 'What are the values that you think are really important for your kids?', you'll hear the same things. People want their kids to share, they want them to be generous, they want them to be kind and empathetic, they want them to be brave, courageous.
Those values that we teach our kids, we then see somehow as weaknesses in leaders?
I was struck by the push and pull you describe in the book between what parts of yourself to share with the public and what parts to hide away.
In hindsight, when I look back on those moments, it's very clear to me that, if you are, for instance, only the second woman in the world to give birth while in office, you feel a burden of responsibility to still demonstrate that it's possible. And so I did hold back anything that might allow someone to question that I could be both a mother and a prime minister. But the thing that conflicted with that was also my desire to make sure that it didn't look like I was doing everything on my own. You know, the Wonder Woman fram e. NYTIMES
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

CNA

an hour ago

• CNA

CNA Explains: What could Iran's next move be after US strikes on its nuclear sites?

Iran said on Monday (Jun 23) that air strikes by the United States on its nuclear sites have paved the way for a wider war in the region. It comes a day after US President Donald Trump boasted that the air strikes had 'completely and totally obliterated' Iran's main nuclear facilities in Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz. Experts warned that the conflict may be far from over, and hinges largely on Tehran's next move. Was Trump's 2-week deadline for US action a ruse? The latest conflict started when Israel on Jun 13 launched attacks on Iranian nuclear and military facilities. The two sides have been engaged in retaliatory strikes since. The White House said last Thursday that Trump would take two weeks to decide US involvement in the escalating conflict. Yet Washington's decision to strike Iran came much sooner. Saturday's top-secret mission, referred to as Operation Midnight Hammer, involved seven B-2 stealth bombers flying 18 hours from the US to Iran to drop 14 bunker-buster bombs. More than 125 aircraft participated in the mission, including refueling tankers and fighter escorts. Stephen Zunes, professor of politics at the University of San Francisco, believes the two-week deadline was a ruse, adding that 'it does appear that they were in cahoots (with Israel) from the very beginning'. The US has insisted that the strikes on Iran were intended as a one-off effort. 'Iran has repeatedly maintained their right to retaliate if attacked,' said Zunes. 'This idea that the US should just go boom, boom, boom and then have peace… seems highly unrealistic.' Can Iran afford to hold back after US strikes? Iran has since vowed retaliation. It could resort to various moves, including targeting US bases in the Middle East, hitting Israel harder, and blocking the vital Strait of Hormuz which handles about a quarter of the world's seaborne oil trade, said experts. Choosing to take military action against Tehran's enemies 'is extremely risky', stressed Amin Saikal, distinguished visiting fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies. 'It will invite massive American retaliation … President Trump has made that very clear in his speech about bombing the nuclear sites.' Iran could also downplay the damages to its nuclear sites and not directly engage the US, he told CNA's Asia Now. Saikal, who is also emeritus professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian studies at the Australia National University, said Iran could block the Strait of Hormuz as a last resort. 'Iran is capable of doing that by sinking a number of ships in the strait and that will be enough to deter many ships from going through,' he added. 'My hunch at this point is that probably they will be focusing very much on hitting Israel as hard as they can, but of course, Israel is also hitting them very hard. 'But how long this can really continue and both sides can have the necessary resources to do so, that remains to be seen.' If Tehran blocks the Strait of Hormuz or targets ships traversing the waterway, that would disrupt global supply chains and upheaval markets. Such a move could create enough political backlash to force Trump to pull the plug on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's ability to escalate the conflict, said political analyst Ali Vaez. 'Unfortunately, this is a very perilous game of chicken that could really result in a disastrous regional conflagration, which I think would not have any winners,' he added. If Iran chooses not to take any action, it 'would signal to the US that these kinds of attacks are fair game', he told CNA's Asia First. 'So the Iranians will have to impose some kind of cost on the US for its intervention, as they have retaliated in the past 10 days against Israel,' added Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, an independent conflict resolution organisation. Have the strikes crippled Iran's nuclear capabilities? The University of San Francisco's Zunes said while Iran's missile stockpile has been depleted by over a week of Israeli attacks, Iranian authorities 'would have at least enough in their arsenal to inflict some damage if they chose to do so'. 'Given what's at stake here, I really would expect that there's going to be some kind of response, and then very likely a further escalation by the US,' he told CNA's Asia First. Trump has threatened to go after more targets if Iran did not make peace quickly. Zunes said: 'There may be some calculation as to whether the principle of fighting back is worth the enormous damage that could be done to the country, (to) both its military and civilian infrastructure.' While Trump has said Saturday's air strikes had "totally obliterated" key Iranian nuclear sites, experts have cautioned that the extent of damage was still unclear. 'I do not believe that a very accurate battle damage assessment is actually possible because there are no boots on the ground,' said International Crisis Group's Vaez. 'But the Trump administration could think, especially if there is no imminent Iranian retaliation, that because it can get away with conducting these kinds of strikes, it is possible that it would do a second round or a third round,' he added. 'This is precisely the kind of mission creep that the US has experienced in that part of the world. Quite often it goes in thinking that it can conduct a clean and contained operation, but it actually turns into a long nightmare, a quagmire that is not easy to get out of.' Even if the key nuclear sites are destroyed, observers believe the strikes would only delay – not eliminate – Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon. Zunes said Iran still has the knowledge to build these facilities, adding: 'It will set them back a few years, but they could just start all over again. And indeed, they may redouble their efforts.' Analysts have said Iran would likely have secretly taken its highly enriched uranium stockpile to hidden locations before the US strikes. 'Because (United Nations) nuclear inspectors are no longer able to access these sites, which are now war zones, we are not sure where the materials and the machineries are,' said Vaez. Will Iran return to the negotiating table? The US has called for Iran to return to the negotiating table, highlighting the risk posed by Iran's nuclear programme to international security. But observers are doubtful that diplomacy can break the deadlock. 'I don't see the odds of a deal very high right now, because the Iranians have concluded that Trump is not a reliable negotiating partner,' said Vaez, adding that the US president previously withdrew from a nuclear deal that the Iranians were complying with in 2018. 'It is very hard to imagine that the Iranians would come back to the negotiating table anytime soon.' In 2015, Iran agreed to dismantle much of its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The nuclear agreement was signed between Iran and six world powers, including the US. However, Trump withdrew the US from the accord in 2018, claiming it failed to curtail Iran's missile programme. Iran stopped honoring the deal's limits a year later. Meanwhile, Iran's key global allies, Russia and China, have condemned the US military action. But observers believe they are unlikely to risk too much by being directly involved. 'I think both would be very concerned about the unilateral nature of the Israeli and US attacks, and the idea that the US can get away with this,' said Zunes. 'Since Trump did not get the approval of Congress or anything, there may be a fear that he could take this as a blank check for further unilateral military action elsewhere.' Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi is set to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday (Jun 23), when they are likely to discuss the latest developments. But Vaez believes Moscow will tread carefully and not get pulled into the conflict, adding: 'The Iranians don't really have a lot of friends or the kind of strategic allies that they can count on.'

Business Times

an hour ago

• Business Times

A war president: Ensuring that the war with Iran doesn't turn into Iraq War II

HE RAN for office bashing members of the Republican Party's neoconservative wing for drawing the US into costly military quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, and vowing not to involve America in 'endless wars' in the Middle East and elsewhere. As President Donald Trump insisted before and after taking office, his America-First foreign policy agenda would preclude embroiling the American people in military crusades aimed at 'regime change' and 'democracy promotion', and would focus instead on pursuing a prudent non-interventionist policy that reflects core US national interests. Those pledges not only helped Trump get elected, but also energised his political base and members of his Maga (Make America Great Again) movement, who were assured that under a president committed to the America-First doctrine there would not be reruns of the Iraq War. No more US military interventions that would turn into slippery slopes to quagmires and disasters whether in Ukraine or, for that matter, in Iran. It is no surprise, therefore, that Trump's attack on three of Iran's nuclear sites and bringing the US military into Israel's war with the Islamic Republic on Sunday (Jun 22) have created a sense of deja vu among the anti-interventionists on the political right as well as the political left. Call it the Iraq Syndrome. But sceptics of US military interventions recall the time in 2003, on the eve of then president George W Bush's decision to attack Iraq, when policymakers and pundits in Washington warned that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) that he could use against America and its allies. He did not have those weapons, as many of the anti-war critics had argued in 2003. Now, Trump is insisting that Iran was on its way to develop a nuclear weapon, and that America needed to prevent the Iranians from enriching uranium that would have allowed them to acquire the capability to acquire a nuclear bomb. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up But then Trump's own intelligence agencies had concluded that was not the case, as Tulsi Gabbard, US director of national intelligence, left no doubt when she testified to Congress about Iran's nuclear programme earlier this year. Iran was not building a nuclear weapon, Gabbard told lawmakers, and its supreme leader had not re-authorised the dormant programme even though it had enriched uranium to higher levels, she said. Instead, when deciding to attack Iran, Trump relied on the intelligence assessment of Israel and the conclusion drawn by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that the Islamic Republic was only a few months from acquiring nuclear capability. Did Gabbard or did Netanyahu make the right call here? Lawmakers on Capitol Hill would probably try to answer that question. The military interventionists in 2003, it should be recalled, had promised that a war against Iraq would be short and successful, and that the Iraqi people would receive the American invaders as 'liberators'. Today, there is a sense of victory. 'We have completed our very successful attacks on the three nuclear sites in Iran,' Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday. He added that a 'full payload' of bombs had been dropped on Fordo, the heavily fortified underground facility where Iran has produced near bomb-grade uranium. 'All planes are safely on their way home,' Trump wrote. Trump assumes that using air power would force Iran to capitulate and give up its nuclear strategy, and that the US would not have to deploy American troops to fight in Iran to press its government to surrender, like it did in Iraq. But air power alone rarely wins wars and if, as expected, Iran responds to the American attacks by targeting US soldiers and civilians, the Trump administration may have no choice but to raise the ante and deploy American troops against Iranian military and political centres of powers. That could mean that, like in 2003, the war in Iran could prove to be longer and costlier than Trump expects. Most opinion polls in 2003 had indicated that the public initially supported the invasion of Iraq, and Bush's declaration of 'Mission Accomplished' was received with applause around the country. But after a year or so when it was becoming clear that the war in Iraq would be long and costly, when American soldiers began to return to the US in body bags, the public support for the war fell and today, most Americans think that it was a costly strategic mistake. And like in 2003 when there was early support, it seems that the public is rallying behind Trump now. A poll by GrayHouse taken before the attack on Sunday found that 83 per cent of Trump voters support Israel's strike, and 73 per cent say that Iran cannot be trusted to honour an agreement. But the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has warned of 'irreparable damage' if the US joins the war. There are fears that Iran could turn on the Arab states that host American military bases where 40,000 US troops are stationed, and possibly even disrupt the global economy by seeking to close the crucial oil route through the Strait of Hormuz. Which raises the question: How would Trump's supporters respond if the Iranians retaliate against the American strike by attacking US military bases in the Persian Gulf and possibly killing American soldiers, demonstrating all the signs of a slippery slope towards a costlier US military intervention? How would the general American public respond as the economy stagnates, inflation raises its ugly head and petrol prices rise? Would the American people continue to support a US military intervention under these conditions? Indeed, there are some similarities between the march to war with Iraq in Washington in March 2003 and the atmosphere today when pro-war Republican lawmakers, such as Senator Lindsey Graham from South Carolina, and pundits on the Fox News channel are trying to rally the public behind the decision to join Israel in its attack against Iran. Some also predict that the Iranian people would eventually rise up against the ruling ayatollahs. But anti-interventionists or neo-isolationists like journalist Tucker Carlson and podcast host Stephen Bannon are warning that a war with Iran would have all the makings of another Iraq War. 'The first week of a war with Iran could easily kill thousands of Americans,' wrote Carlson last week. 'It could also collapse our economy', he added, as surging oil prices raise petrol prices to the stratosphere and trigger unmanageable inflation, as well as lead to a world war with China and Russia. Bannon said that US involvement in another war in the Middle East would 'tear the country apart', warning that 'we can't have another Iraq'. Similar warnings of 'endless war' are also emanating from members of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, who are exerting pressure on the party's lawmakers not to give Trump the green light to attack Iran. But there are differences between 2003 and 2025. Unlike in the Iraq War, Trump has not called for putting American troops on the ground and occupying Iran. Nor has there been any serious discussion of the US promoting a regime change in Teheran. Administration officials insist that the strike against Iran was a one-off operation and will not lead to a long-drawn war. And while it is true that Trump has pledged not to embroil the US in a war in the Middle East, he has also embraced another proposition and reiterated it again and again before and since entering office – that Iran should not be able to acquire nuclear military capability. One could indeed argue that depriving the Islamic Republic – a source of instability in the Middle East and a threat to US allies in the region, and one that is waging an endless war against the west since 1979 – from the capacity to develop a nuclear bomb is in line with core US national interests. The fact is that the Trump administration was engaged in diplomatic talks with Iranian officials, aimed at pressing Teheran to make a commitment to stop enriching uranium, which would amount to terminating its nuclear military programme. Trump could therefore contend that he had given Iran a chance for peace and Teheran rejected it. His goal now is to reach an agreement with Iran and create the conditions for peace in the Middle East. Is that a realistic proposition? Much would depend on what happens in the coming days and weeks in the Middle East. It seems that the Iranians are not ready to surrender and are likely to take military action against American targets, which could lead to US retaliation. If that happens and is followed by military escalation, Trump may discover – like Bush did in 2003 – that it is easier to get into a war than to get out of it. The president who had promised no more 'endless wars' may end up on a slippery slope being drawn into one.

Straits Times

2 hours ago

• Straits Times

Greenpeace joins protests against gala Bezos wedding in Venice

A large banner against Amazon founder Jeff Bezos lies on the ground, placed by Greenpeace Italy activists along with others in St. Mark's Square, ahead of the expected wedding of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez, in Venice, Italy, June 23, 2025. REUTERS/Yara Nardi Local police look at large banner against Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, that lies on the ground, placed by Greenpeace Italy activists along with others in St. Mark's Square, ahead of the expected wedding of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez, in Venice, Italy, June 23, 2025. REUTERS/Yara Nardi A large banner against Amazon founder Jeff Bezos lies on the ground, placed by Greenpeace Italy activists along with others in St. Mark's Square, ahead of the expected wedding of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez, in Venice, Italy, June 23, 2025. REUTERS/Yara Nardi VENICE, Italy - Global environmental lobby Greenpeace added its voice on Monday to protests against this week's celebrity wedding in Venice between American tech billionaire Jeff Bezos and journalist Laura Sanchez. The event, expected to attract some 200 guests including U.S. President Donald Trump's daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner, as well as scores of stars from film, fashion and business, has been dubbed "the wedding of the century". But some locals see the celebration as the latest sign of the brash commodification of a beautiful but fragile city that has long been overrun with tourism while steadily depopulating. Activists from Greenpeace Italy and UK group "Everyone hates Elon" (Musk) unfolded a giant banner in central St Mark's Square with a picture of Bezos laughing and a sign reading: "If you can rent Venice for your wedding you can pay more tax." Local police arrived to talk to activists and check their identification documents, before they rolled up their banner. "The problem is not the wedding, the problem is the system. We think that one big billionaire can't rent a city for his pleasure," Simona Abbate, one of the protesters, told Reuters. Mayor Luigi Brugnaro and regional governor Luca Zaia have defended the wedding, arguing that it will bring an economic windfall to local businesses, including the motor boats and gondolas that operate its myriad canals. Zaia said the celebrations were expected to cost 20-30 million euros ($23-$34 million). Bezos will also make sizable charity donations, including a million euros for Corila, an academic consortium that studies Venice's lagoon ecosystem, Italy's Corriere della Sera newspaper and the ANSA news agency reported on Sunday. Earlier this month, anti-Bezos banners were hung from St Mark's bell tower and from the famed Rialto bridge, while locals threatened peaceful blockades against the event, saying Venice needed public services and housing, not VIPs and over-tourism. The exact dates and locations of the glitzy nuptials are being kept confidential, but celebrations are expected to play out over three days, most likely around June 26-28. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.