While Asia and Europe's bilateral links with the United States are deep, ties between Europe and Asia need to be strengthened. In the aftermath of the Asian economic crisis and Europe's focus on issues closer to home (European single currency and the enlargement process), is the building of a new Asia-Europe partnership a priority for the European Union? Can the Asian economic crisis serve as a window of opportunity for closer and lasting economic cooperation between Asia and Europe? How can Europe assist in the implementation of economic reform programs and the process of market liberalization? What is the future of enhanced EU-Asia political cooperation in the areas of the environment, crime and drugs, terrorism, and human rights? How can Europe and Asia best pursue their common interests in arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation? Professor Rinsche has had a distinguished career in German and European politics spanning more than three decades: as a member of the German Parliament (1965-1972) and a member of the European Parliament for twenty years (1979-1999). He was president of the EP-Delegation for ASEAN, South-East Asia, and South Korea (1979-1999), and chairman of the CDU/CSU-Group from 1989-1999. He is currently president of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, a German political foundation promoting civic education in Germany and democracy and development abroad. Professor Rinsche will have just returned from an extended trip to South-East Asia and China and will share his recent insights in the current situation in that region.

Bennett Freeman served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor under the Clinton Presidency. He has been involved in many official diplomatic dialogues and negotiations around the world, including settlements on Holocaust reparations, and recently, the U.S.-British initiative on the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, which aim to ensure that company security arrangements in the extractive sectors are consistent with international human rights standards. The Voluntary Principles were developed through a year-long dialogue and were welcomed by major American and British oil and mining companies as well as NGOs.

For more than twenty years, labor-intensive industrialization in developing countries has generated controversy about "sweatshop" conditions in the factories of multinational companies and their regional subcontractors. In recent years, U.S. university students have vigorously opposed such factories as sites of abuse and exploitation. Others reply that such places offer their mainly young and female workers much-needed income and independence. Much of this controversy has focused on Southeast Asia as a prime location of facilities for the manufacturing of apparel, footwear, toys, and other labor-intensive exports. Why do sweatshops exist in these countries? Why are they tolerated? Why are they assailed? Are the objections justified? What should be done? University of Michigan-Ann Arbor Business School Professor Linda Lim has helped pioneer empirical research on young women factory workers in Southeast Asia. She has published extensively on this and other labor-related subjects. She has also served as a frequent consultant to the International Labor Organization, most recently on the globalization debate. She was a member of the University of Michigan's Advisory Committee on Labor Standards and Human Rights in 1999-2000.

Additional lecture on "Limits of Contractual Reasoning" scheduled for January 15, 2001.

Additional lecture on "Democracy and Human Rights" scheduled for January 16, 2001.

Like a double-edged sword, the recent conflict in East Timor challenged Indonesia and the international community alike. For Indonesia, the crisis and its resolution offered a chance for military reform, yet threatened national unity. For international donors, the chance to defend human rights and implement self-determination carried a risk of provoking nationalist resentment against foreign intervention for democratic change.This talk will focus on the international community and its donor countries and agencies. How did they react to the conflict in East Timor? What were their strategies? How did their actions affect Indonesia -- not only its East Timor policies but also the course of its own democratic transition? Looking back on them now, do the crisis and its outcome lessons for the feasibility of foreign intervention to achieve domestic political reform? If so, what are they? If not, why not? And what do the answers to these questions imply for the democratic prospect in developing countries more generally?