Separatism and terrorism, demonstrations and scandals, elite conflict and economic malaise ... With so much trouble on its hands, why should the Indonesian government willingly open up the Pandora's box that is the legacy of violence from the Suharto regime, especially since many of his associates remain politically active? Or is the risk of focusing on the past worth takingÑto administer justice and foster a humane consensus strong enough to ensure that such abuses do not recur? These difficult questions cannot be answered without taking local conditions into account: the sense of uncertainty and stagnation that hangs over the reform process; the widespread perception that in mysterious and powerful ways Suharto is still controlling events; and the apparent inability of Indonesian society to transform its recent history into a set of lessons that could generate momentum toward a better future. Mary S. Zurbuchen was based until recently in Jakarta, as the Ford Foundation's chief representative for Southeast Asia (1992-96) and Indonesia (1996-2000). She is the academic coordinator of the Center for Southeast Asian Studies at UCLA, where she is teaching a course on Indonesia while continuing her research on the intersection of history and memory in that country. Her many publications on cultural and social change in Indonesia include The Language of Balinese Shadow Theater (1987).

Lieutenant General Paul J. Kern is the senior military adviser to the Army Acquisition Executive and the Army Chief of Starr on all research, development and acquisition programs and related issues. He supervises the Program Executive Officer system, and serves as the Director, Army Acquistion Corps.

Approximately 13 speakers will be presenting throughout the day. For a detailed schedule please contact Robin Holbrook, 650-723-6270

The complex issues arising from child labor have been addressed in several of the most significant ways--yielding the most important lessons--in the Asia Pacific region. It is in the Asia Pacific region too, that the greatest number of child laborers live. This conference will address the complexities of child labor and review the range of key "solutions" to improve the condition of children--especially impoverished, working children--in the region. Some people claim that abusive child labor is an inevitable byproduct of agrarian and developing economies. But is this accurate? What measures will alleviate abuses and hasten the elimination of exploitation? The United States is now the largest contributor to the ILO's International Programme on the Eradication of Child Labor. At the same time, the United States and US-based business have been accused of contributing to increases in child labor, through trade practices that allegedly expand inequality, or through the strong U.S. role in promoting neo-liberal economic policies through the activities of multilateral agencies such as the World Bank and the IMF. What role can the United States play in alleviating the problem--and what role is it playing now? Are the critiques accurate? The term "child labor" conjures up images of poor young people, working in unsafe conditions, receiving inadequate wages, their health imperiled for life and their opportunity for education denied. What policies are appropriate to bring the worst practices to a swift though humane end? Much of the debate has been highly polemical, but more recently, the tone of the discussion has begun to change. It has begun to focus on the concrete measures that can be undertaken to improve the conditions under which children work, and to eliminate the abuses and exploitation to which millions of children are subjected. Participants in this roundtable will share the latest empirical findings on child labor in Asia and identify policies that are at the cutting edge in dealing with this issue.

Walter W. Powell is Professor of Education and affiliated Professor of Sociology at Stanford University. where he is Director of the Scandinavian Consortium on Organizational Research, and Co-PI, with Nathan Rosenberg, of the KNEXUS Program on the Knowledge Economy.

Professor Powell works in the areas of organization theory and economic sociology. Author of many books and articles, heis most widely known for his contributions to institutional analysis, including a forthcoming edited book, How Institutions Change.

Powell is currently engaged in research on the origins and development of the commercial field of the life sciences. With his collaborator Ken Koput, he has authored a series of papers on the evolving network structure of the biotechnology industry.This line of work continues his interests in networks as a form of governance of economic exchange, first developed in his 1990 article, "Neither Market Nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization," which won the American Sociological Association's Max Weber Prize and has been translated into German and Italian. Powell and Koput and their research collaborators have developed a longitudinal data base that tracks the development of biotechnology worldwide from the 1980s to the present. With Jason Owen-Smith, Powell is studying the role of universities in transferring basic science into commercial development by science-based companies,and the consequences for universities of their growing involvement in commercial enterprises.

Scott explores themes of state-craft, sedentarization, etc. as part of a critique of state-making and development. In particular, he analyzes the paradoxes of attempts by states to create a fiscally and administratively legible property regime and population despite the economic and ecological imperatives of physical mobility. He elaborates the Southeast Asian variant of this historical argument. One of the great cleavages permeating Southeast Asian history and politics is the tension between hill and valley peoples, between downstream and upstream in insular Southeast Asia. Roughly, this corresponds to the social division between comparatively dense populations in valleys and 'downstream' who are often organized hierarchically into states, on the one hand, and more peripheral, dispersed, and mobile peoples who live in more egalitarian settings, on the other. These divisions are not merely of historical interest; they animate a good deal of the intra-state tension in contemporary Southeast Asia which has been understood in ethnic or religious terms.