FSI researchers work to understand continuity and change in societies as they confront their problems and opportunities. This includes the implications of migration and human trafficking. What happens to a society when young girls exit the sex trade? How do groups moving between locations impact societies, economies, self-identity and citizenship? What are the ethnic challenges faced by an increasingly diverse European Union? From a policy perspective, scholars also work to investigate the consequences of security-related measures for society and its values.
The Europe Center reflects much of FSI’s agenda of investigating societies, serving as a forum for experts to research the cultures, religions and people of Europe. The Center sponsors several seminars and lectures, as well as visiting scholars.
Societal research also addresses issues of demography and aging, such as the social and economic challenges of providing health care for an aging population. How do older adults make decisions, and what societal tools need to be in place to ensure the resulting decisions are well-informed? FSI regularly brings in international scholars to look at these issues. They discuss how adults care for their older parents in rural China as well as the economic aspects of aging populations in China and India.
The goal of this project is to examine the causes of racial and gender differences in the treatment of elderly patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure.
Professor Campbell will discuss Japan's new public, mandatory, long-term care insurance program: does it make sense as social policy? As economic policy? Professor Creighton has long been interested in the relationship between politics and substantive public policy, and in the way policies change upon implementation. He has pursued this interest mostly in the context of the Japanese political system, and in this talk he will apply his framework to Japan's foray into socialized care for the elderly.
Okimoto Conference Room, Third Floor, East Wing, Encina Hall
Terrorism is a good example of the new security threats that seriously challenge what is still a largely state-centered security system. Many of today's most serious threats are global in scale. The traditional military force is far from adequate to confront these new challenges. It is crucial that the military effort will be coupled with other measures, such as international police cooperation, financial investigation and cooperation and diplomacy. Therefore a crucial task for the international community is to continue improving the civilian preparedness in crisis management. Here the OSCE can plan an important role. The terror attacks of September 11 accelerated the transformation process of the European security system. It had in particular an influence on NATO's role. Even though NATO invoked its Article 5 mutual protection clause the US chose not to act militarily through the alliance.
The purpose of this workshop is to explore the new post-cold war security agenda and to examine future security challenges facing Europe and the wide international system. It will also assess the relevance and utility of different actors and instruments for tacking these new security challenges, and examine options for the future institutional development of European security.
Developments in foreign policies at both sides of the Atlantic may significantly change US-EU security relations in the years ahead. The EU and NATO face new challenges, such as the eastward enlargement of the EU and NATO, and emerging potential threats, such as regional conflicts, terrorism, internationally organized crime, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Crisis management is the paradigm that forms the cornerstone of the operational efforts of NATO and the European Union (EU) has already shifted toward this type of activity. Both members of the EU in the framework of the "Petersberg Tasks" and members of NATO or PfP participate in crisis management, peace-keeping, humanitarian action and peace-making/peace-enforcement operations. The tasks of members of NATO and the EU would be blurred in the field of crisis management.
One of the central points of controversy amongst both academics and policy-makers is the nature and significance of security in the post-cold war world. For much of the cold war period the concept of security was largely defined in militarized terms. The main focus for investigation for both academics and statesmen- and women tended to be the military capabilities required by states to deal with the threats perceived to face them. More recently, however, the idea of security has been broadened to include political, economic, societal and environmental aspects as well as military. Above all, it is necessary for the European Union to develop a broader and more comprehensive approach to security. Future security challenges will not primarily concern territorial defense. While states will continue to pay attention to their territorial defense, other security challenges are likely to demand greater attention in the future. Human rights, environmental degradation, political stability and democracy, social issues, cultural and religious identity and migration are issues which are becoming ever more important for security and conflict prevention.
Though the possibility of a regional war remains, as in the Balkans and in Afghanistan, mass invasion and total war have ceased to be a threat to East or West. Instead, most threats to national security in Europe today are not directly military. They may evolve out of economic problems, ethnic hostility, or insecure and inefficient borders, which allow illegal migration and smuggling. Or they may be related to organized crime and corruption, both of which have an international dimension and undermine the healthy development of democracy and the market economy. Moreover, the proliferation of military or dual technology, including weapons of mass destruction - chemical and biological as well as nuclear - and their means of delivery, and the revolution in information technology present special challenges.
NATO and the EU have responded to Europe's evolving post-cold war order by redefining and expanding their roles and objectives. Despite institutional differences, the activities of NATO and the EU complement each other to strengthen the economic, political, and military dimensions of regional security and stability. Founded as a defensive alliance, NATO has revised its strategic concept to respond to the broader spectrum of the new threats now facing greater Europe - those ranging from traditional cases of cross-border aggression to interethnic conflicts and acts of terrorism. Furthermore, NATO is facilitating the integration and eventual membership of Central and Eastern European nations in the transatlantic security community. The EU has likewise emphasized regional integration as being key to a safe and stable Europe, particularly through the deepening of political and economic ties among current members and through extending EU membership to CEE countries.
Daniel and Nancy Okimoto Conference Room
Reuben W. Hills Conference Room, 2nd floor, Encina Hall East
Indonesia has seen no respite from its turbulent politics, faltering economy, and simmering conflicts since mass pressure forced President Soeharto from office in 1998 after decades of authoritarian rule. The International Crisis Group (ICG) has focused its Indonesian research on separatist conflicts in Aceh and Papua, communal violence in Maluku and Kalimantan, and the ongoing economic crisis, and has recommended specific military and judicial reforms. In Burma, which has known near-constant conflict since its independence in 1948, the Group has focused on ethnic antagonisms, regime policies, and needed reforms. ICG has also assessed the efficacy of foreign sanctions and engagements as alternative ways of inducing change, and suggested how the international community might help lower the potential for violent strife in a future political transition. Gareth Evans, during his long tenure as Australia's foreign minister (1988-1996), played key roles in bringing peace to Cambodia, founding the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, and promoting forms of regionalism reflecting his country's proximity to Asia. For his Cambodian work he was awarded the ANZAC Peace Prize in 1994. Writing of Evans' record as foreign minister, ex-Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten has observed: "High intelligence and principle added to a razor-sharp wit ensured that he was a controversial figure, but one who left the world better than he found it." Foreign affairs, human rights, and legal reform are among the topics explored by Evans in his many publications. Most recently he co-chaired the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. A long-time former member of Australia's parliament (1978-1999), Evans holds degrees in law from Melbourne University and in politics, economics, and philosophy from Oxford University.
Daniel and Nancy Okimoto Conference Room
Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) Ken Robinson served in a variety of Infantry, Special Forces and Intelligence units until his retirement from the U.S. Army in 1999. He is a combat veteran of multiple contingency operations, and has conducted missions throughout the world. During his career he commanded a diverse selection of units, including a Special Forces A Team, Joint Intelligence Task Forces and Special Mission Units. In addition, he was responsible for coordination, tasking, oversight, and intelligence policy for all DoD Special Mission Units in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He is currently the President of Robinson Consulting International, a professional services company specializing in crisis and consequence management, policy planning and terrorism exercise development.
Reuben W. Hills Conference Room, 2nd floor, Encina Hall East
American news from Indonesia has been alarming. "Asian Terror: Al Qaeda Seeks Niche in Indonesia, Officials Fear," headlined the New York Times on 23 January 2002. In the same issue, in a column ambitiously subtitled "What the Muslim World Really Feels," Tom Friedman described "an iron curtain of misunderstanding separating America and the Arab-Muslim world"--a world marked, in his view, by "enormous cultural resistance to believing anything good about America."
Indonesia is mainly Malay, not Arab, but it has more Muslims than any other country. How seriously should signs of jihadism there be taken? Ostensibly Islamist or jihadist movements include Darul Islam, HAMMAS, Laskar Jihad, the Islamic Defenders Front, the Islamic Youth Movement, Jemaah Islamiah, and KISDI. In Maluku and Sulawesi, Christians have killed Muslims and vice versa. Americans and their embassy in Jakarta have been threatened. How should such groups, events, and risks be described, explained, and responded to? In what specific ways are faith, politics, and violence intersecting in Indonesia--and with what implications for Indonesians and Americans?
Analysts have long portrayed Indonesian Muslims as exemplary in their openness and tolerance toward non-Muslims and, within the Muslim community, toward religious diversity, creativity, and reform. Were these observers naive? Or have jihadism and Islamism been grossly overdrawn, and for reasons that involve politics, prejudice, and sensationalism far more than actual conditions? In this volatile context, how realistic are current reformist projects to foster a "liberal Islam," a "moderate Islam," a "feminist Islam," or a distinctively accommodative "Indonesian Islam"--as against an avowedly "militant Islam" that would impose an "Islamic state"?
Okimoto Conference Room, Encina Hall, Third Floor, East Wing
At Stanford, in addition to his work for the Southeast Asia Program and his affiliations with CDDRL and the Abbasi Program in Islamic Studies, Donald Emmerson has taught courses on Southeast Asia in East Asian Studies, International Policy Studies, and Political Science. He is active as an analyst of current policy issues involving Asia. In 2010 the National Bureau of Asian Research and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars awarded him a two-year Research Associateship given to “top scholars from across the United States” who “have successfully bridged the gap between the academy and policy.”
Emmerson’s research interests include Southeast Asia-China-US relations, the South China Sea, and the future of ASEAN. His publications, authored or edited, span more than a dozen books and monographs and some 200 articles, chapters, and shorter pieces. Recent writings include The Deer and the Dragon: Southeast Asia and China in the 21st Century (ed., 2020); “‘No Sole Control’ in the South China Sea,” in Asia Policy (2019); ASEAN @ 50, Southeast Asia @ Risk: What Should Be Done? (ed., 2018); “Singapore and Goliath?,” in Journal of Democracy (2018); “Mapping ASEAN’s Futures,” in Contemporary Southeast Asia (2017); and “ASEAN Between China and America: Is It Time to Try Horsing the Cow?,” in Trans-Regional and –National Studies of Southeast Asia (2017).
Earlier work includes “Sunnylands or Rancho Mirage? ASEAN and the South China Sea,” in YaleGlobal (2016); “The Spectrum of Comparisons: A Discussion,” in Pacific Affairs (2014); “Facts, Minds, and Formats: Scholarship and Political Change in Indonesia” in Indonesian Studies: The State of the Field (2013); “Is Indonesia Rising? It Depends” in Indonesia Rising (2012); “Southeast Asia: Minding the Gap between Democracy and Governance,” in Journal of Democracy (April 2012); “The Problem and Promise of Focality in World Affairs,” in Strategic Review (August 2011); An American Place at an Asian Table? Regionalism and Its Reasons (2011); Asian Regionalism and US Policy: The Case for Creative Adaptation (2010); “The Useful Diversity of ‘Islamism’” and “Islamism: Pros, Cons, and Contexts” in Islamism: Conflicting Perspectives on Political Islam (2009); “Crisis and Consensus: America and ASEAN in a New Global Context” in Refreshing U.S.-Thai Relations (2009); and Hard Choices: Security, Democracy, and Regionalism in Southeast Asia (edited, 2008).
Prior to moving to Stanford in 1999, Emmerson was a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he won a campus-wide teaching award. That same year he helped monitor voting in Indonesia and East Timor for the National Democratic Institute and the Carter Center. In the course of his career, he has taken part in numerous policy-related working groups focused on topics related to Southeast Asia; has testified before House and Senate committees on Asian affairs; and been a regular at gatherings such as the Asia Pacific Roundtable (Kuala Lumpur), the Bali Democracy Forum (Nusa Dua), and the Shangri-La Dialogue (Singapore). Places where he has held various visiting fellowships, including the Institute for Advanced Study and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Emmerson has a Ph.D. in political science from Yale and a BA in international affairs from Princeton. He is fluent in Indonesian, was fluent in French, and has lectured and written in both languages. He has lesser competence in Dutch, Javanese, and Russian. A former slam poet in English, he enjoys the spoken word and reads occasionally under a nom de plume with the Not Yet Dead Poets Society in Redwood City, CA. He and his wife Carolyn met in high school in Lebanon. They have two children. He was born in Tokyo, the son of U.S. Foreign Service Officer John K. Emmerson, who wrote the Japanese Thread among other books.
The main goal of this unit is to introduce students to the geographic, political, and cultural diversity of the peoples and territory of the Russian Federation. The unit highlights the main geographic regions of this vast country: the North Caucasus, Siberia, and the Far East.
This unit provides students with an introduction to human rights, minority (both ethnic and religious) rights, civil and political rights, and women's rights.