Borders
-

Joseph H. Carens is Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto (Ph.D., Yale). He is the author of Culture, Citizenship and Community: A Contextual Exploration of Justice as Evenhandedness (OUP: 2000) as well as three other books and more than 60 articles or book chapters. He is currently writing a book on the ethics of immigration, tentatively titled Who Belongs? Immigration, Democracy and Citizenship.

Abstract
In this paper (which is a chapter from a book manuscript on the ethics of immigration), I explore the principled challenges to open borders that grow out of concerns for community. I begin with the claim that our moral commitments to freedom and equality apply only within the boundaries of the state. Next I consider the relationship between sovereignty and immigration. I then turn to the threats that some say free movement would pose to national security, to democratic values, and to public order. After that, I consider the argument that opening borders fails to give the priority that is due to compatriots. Next, I ask whether preservation of a welfare state might make limits on immigration morally permissible. Then I consider whether the desire to maintain a shared culture can justify restrictions on immigration. Finally, I take up the argument that free movement is incompatible with communal self-determination and with the shared responsibility that flows from collective self-governance and sustains it.

Spoiler alert. I think that none of these objections succeeds in undermining the fundamental case for open borders.

Encina Ground Floor Conference Room

Joseph Carens Professor, Political Science Speaker University of Toronto
Workshops
-

In recent years, the United States and its European Union partners have often diverged in their policy outlooks towards the wider European periphery—the diverse region stretching from the Balkans and Turkey, to the Westernmost former-Soviet republics and Russia. Whether a temporary hiatus or a more profound strategic divergence, this state of affairs reflects a departure from the mission of extending peace, freedom and prosperity to the European continent that the two sides have pursued in the post-Cold War period.

Image
Fabrizio Tassinari, PhD, is Head of Foreign Policy and EU Studies Unit at the Danish Institute for International Studies in Copenhagen. He is also a non-resident Fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) in Brussels and at the Center for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins’ SAIS in Washington, DC. He has written extensively on European security and integration. His book, Why Europe Fears Its Neighbors, was published on September 30, 2009.

 

Event Synopsis:

Dr. Tassinari's talk draws upon his recent book, "Why Europe Fears its Neighbors" (Praeger Security International, 2009), which attempts to survey and quantify the many challenges facing Europe with respect to its borders. Tassinari describes Europe's position toward neighbor countries as being influenced by the threat of immigration. He describes a "security-integration nexus" in progress since 1945, involving a gradual economic opening of Europe's borders to promote stability. While the EU today maintains to some degree its enlargement policy toward Turkey and the Western Balkans, other border-region states are classified under a "European neighborhood policy" with no prospects for EU membership. Recent policy discourse has decoupled security concerns from integration. The neighborhood approach, undermines EU policy by keeping neighbor states at too great a distance.

Next Tassinari offers Turkey and Russia as case studies. The debate within Turkey is leaning away from EU membership as the primary path toward modernization. Recent dialogue focuses less on meeting technical standards for EU membership and more on reckoning with issues of religion, identity and history within Turkey. With regards to Russia, in the past decade the country has become more assertive abroad and moved away from cooperation with the EU, preferring not to be grouped with countries like Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia in the EU's approach to foreign policy.

In addressing the transatlantic relationship, Dr. Tassinari reflects that the US and EU have long disagreed about EU membership for Turkey, the direction of state building in the Balkans, and integration of some of Europe's neighbor states into NATO.

Finally, responding to the question of whether this divergence comes from a conflict over the "European power constellation" or rather is simply the result of issue-specific philosophical differences, Dr. Tassinari offers three arguments:

  1. Strategic: EU policy reflects multi-level integration, wherein countries can be "more than partners and less than members." Tassinari believes even countries with no prospect for membership should be integrated as much as possible. 
  2. Normative - in reality, the US and EU share goals for Europe's "neighborhood" - promoting democracy, human rights, and other values. Despite this, each side's initiatives are viewed with suspicion by the other. 
  3. Institution - US policymakers buy in to the EU enlargement policy, with its firm commitments and well-rehearsed conditionality process, and don't see alternative policies such as the "neighborhood" approach as being useful. 

A Q&A session following the talk raised such issues as: Will the EU’s problems with “deepening” its relationships with neighbors hurt its prospects for “widening” through enlargement? What are the reasons for the mixed signals to Turkey from the EU? Do arguments about the EU’s denial of Turkey’s membership being based on racism hold any merit? If the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, what cross-border policy areas will remain the prerogative of nation-states and which might fall under EU Commission jurisdiction?

 

CISAC Conference Room

Fabrizio Tassinari Head of Foreign Policy and EU Studies Unit, Danish Institute for International Studies Speaker
Seminars

Program on Global Justice
616 Serra St.
Encina Hall
Stanford, CA 94305-6055

(650) 723-0145
0
PGJ Fellow 2009-2011
P1010050.JPG

Kieran Oberman completed his PhD at Oxford University.  His thesis,  "Immigration and Freedom of Movement," argued that people have a human right to freedom of movement that entails a right to cross international borders. He thus concluded that immigration restrictions could not be justified outside of emergency situations.

In his post-doctoral workat Stanford, where he divides  his time between The Program on Global Justice and the Center for Ethics in Society, Kieran is continuing to focus on the ethical issues surrounding international migration.  While at Stanford he has completed an article, "Immigration, Global Poverty and the Right to Stay", that argues against using migration as a means to address the problem of global poverty.  The article is forthcoming in Political Studies.  He has also written an article that explores the question of whether the brain drain of skilled workers from poor states could justify the imposition of immigration restrictions.  He is currently working on a publication, based upon his dissertation, entitled "Immigration as a Human Right". 

In the spring Kieran will teach a class entitled Introduction to Global Justice. The course is designed to encourage students to think critically about some of the most important issues in international politics including global poverty, terrorism, war, development and climate change.

-

Ambassador Sheinwald discusses how he envisages international relations will form in the near and far future. He places particular emphasis on the growing importance of the US-China relationship. At the same time, Ambassador Sheinwald explores the EU as a key global power and its necessary cooperation with the US.

Synopsis

Ambassador Sheinwald clearly feels that the international stage is moving. In fact, for him, the change in the international order is accelerating due to the global financial crisis. In this sense, Ambassador Sheinwald explains that the UK has long supported expanding decision-making international institutions such as the UN Security Council. However, the UK still sees the value in intimate, power-focused bodies such as the G8. Ambassador Sheinwald discusses the fact that there is increasingly a sense that a ‘G2’ is developing between the US and China. To Ambassador Sheinwald, this model would not literally work as he argues China needs, at this stage in its development, a multilateral setting to grow into the active and cooperative power we would all like to see it become. At the same time, Ambassador Sheinwald believes that the partnership between the US and China is important in paving a solution to the current economic state and shaping the future global economy. In fact, the UK and the EU welcome this new cooperation between the two powers. Ambassador Sheinwald feels the US and the EU can harness China’s shared global interest on issues such as climate change, in which the EU has played a front role, to develop at stable global relationship. Moreover, he believes that if the US and EU can cooperate to form low carbon economies, it could incentivize China and India to act similarly. However, Ambassador Sheinwald stresses that for non-economic issues the US and China’s relationship is still important but slow moving, and he expresses the belief that it will take decades for any real ‘G2’ to emerge.

In the meantime, Ambassador Sheinwald argues that while the US looks round the world for support on key issues, it will find that the EU shares the most values and has the capacity to promote them. He cites the enormous investments between the two in comparison to the US and China to show the scale of the US and the EU’s relationship. Ambassador Sheinwald argues that financially the US and EU need regulatory cooperation, using a scientific basis, to set global standards. He stresses as well that the EU is a major global power on its own. It is increasingly seen as an honest, multilateral broker and plays a crucial in global economic recovery. Moreover, it has strong interest in fighting world terrorism. In comparison to other partners, the US can find similar values, intelligence, and capacity in the EU. In addition, the US can see more stability in Europe’s own backyard than perhaps 20 years ago. Looking to the future, Ambassador Sheinwald hopes that the Lisbon Treaty would help the EU organize itself further. Further stressing the importance of the US-EU partnership, Ambassador Sheinwald explains “nothing is more likely to be as dependable a foundation.”

In taking the time to answer questions, Ambassador Sheinwald discusses a number of issues. One partiuclar area of focus much emphasized was Europe's role in the conflict in Afghanistan. In addition, he addresses the issue of Britain and the US's relationship with China. Moreover, he also explains that he hopes that as developed countries deal with increasing security threats, their resolve in keeping their borders open will remain strong. Finally, Ambassador Sheinwald stresses the need to employ methods of sustainable, intelligent, and low carbon growth.

About the Speaker

Nigel Sheinwald joined the British Diplomatic Service in 1976 and has served in Washington (twice), Brussels (twice) and Moscow and in a wide range of policy jobs in London. 

He took up his position as British Ambassador to the United States in October 2007.  In that role he leads the Embassy in Washington and nine Consulates-General around the United States.   He had an earlier posting to Washington in 1983-87 as First Secretary (Political) in the Embassy. 

Before becoming Ambassador in Washington, Sir Nigel served as Foreign Policy and Defence Adviser to the Prime Minister from 2003-2007.

Sir Nigel was the UK Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the European Union in Brussels from 2000-2003.  Before that he was Europe Director in the FCO (1998-2000).  He had an earlier posting in the UK Representation in 1993-95 as Head of its Political and Institutional Section.  He began his career in EU work as Deputy Head of the FCO's European Union Department in 1989-92. 

Sir Nigel's first foreign posting was in Moscow in 1978-79.  He was also Head of the Foreign Office's Anglo-Soviet Section in 1981-83.

Sir Nigel has had a wide variety of other appointments in the FCO in London.  From 1995-98, he was the FCO Press Secretary and Head of News Department.  He was Deputy Head of the Foreign Office's Policy Planning Staff in 1987-1989, responsible for transatlantic relations and other issues.  He also worked in London on the Japan Desk (1976-77) and on Zimbabwe (1979-81), including the Lancaster House Conference.

Sir Nigel was born in 1953 and educated at Harrow County Grammar School and Balliol College, Oxford.  He is married with three sons.

This event is jointly sponsored by the Office for International Visitors at the Bechtel International Center, the Forum on Contemporary Europe, and the British Consulate General in San Francisco.

CISAC Conference Room

Sir Nigel Sheinwald British Ambassador to the United States Speaker
Seminars
Paragraphs

A confluence of events has presented the Russian Federation and the United States with an unusual opportunity to transform their relationship.

The unfortunate reality is that trust is at an exceedingly low level between the elites and publics of both nations. Building that trust requires a leap of faith that they can work together on the most difficult issues. The determination to drive such trust-building on a vexing issue was behind the decision of senior Americans and Russians brought together by the EastWest Institute in 2007 to explore if collaboration was possible on the issue of Iran's ballistic missile and nuclear program. Following a tough yet civil private debate in Moscow, the participants - including on the American side General (ret.) James L. Jones, Ambassador Henry Crumpton, and General (ret.) Lance Lord, and a senior Russian delegation led by Presidential Representative Ambassador Anatoly Safonov - agreed that EWI should convene leading scientists from both states to take up the Iran issue and make it the subject of the fi rst JTA - Joint Threat Assessment. It would be an attempt to see if the top scientists and experts of the two states could agree on the nature of the threat posed by Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile program. Our debate in Moscow demonstrated that there was no easy agreement on Iran's intentions. A great cloud of ‘smoke' hung over the policy communities of both nations - a mixing of emotions and unsubstantiated reports with facts and policies. There was no dialogue. Instead the issue generated independent monologues fraught with suspicion and distrust. The decision to move forward with a JTA was a risky one. There was no assurance that it could be done.

Indeed, most outside experts told us that the task was impossible. Relations between Russia and the United States had deteriorated to a nadir not seen in decades. Among the major causes for the severe decline were the rushed ballistic missile defense agreements between the United States and Poland and between the United States and the Czech Republic to deploy assets in these European countries to counter a potential Iranian nuclear and missile threat. The United States government viewed this as a defensive move. Was Iran developing a capacity to hit Europe? How long would it take? The Russian government countered that the ballistic missile defense deployment near its borders was surely directed against Russia - an offensive move. Russian leaders and experts dismissed the idea that Iran currently possessed an offensive ballistic missile program capable of striking Europe. The sixteen Americans and Russians who sat around that Track 2 table back in 2007 in Moscow could have stopped at that impasse - but they did not. They agreed that the heart of the issue did not start with either the United States or with Russia but rather with the need to decipher the threat - what were Iran's technical capabilities? Could the two sides analyze and come to an agreement on the nature of the threat through a joint threat assessment?

Russia and the United States have been in dispute over the timeframe involved for Iran to acquire nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles, on the means needed to prevent that from happening, and - in the worst case that it cannot be prevented - the military operational responses available to both sides to defend against Iran's potential use of nuclear armed missiles. It was agreed that only after capabilities are ascertained can productive political conversations about motives and policy responses follow. Therein lay the mandate for the two teams of scientists, who worked independently and in a series of joint meetings that more often than not lasted well into the night.

Though the Iranian nuclear program has been the subject of detailed forensic public analyses, much less detailed attention has been paid, in public at least, to the Iranian missile program. Claims and counterclaims abound and defy easy understanding by the non-specialist. This report aims to fi ll that gap by providing a detailed examination of Iranian nuclear and missile capabilities. When might Iran be capable of deploying nuclear warheads? Assuming that Iran can develop that capability, would the proposed missile defenses be able intercept Iranian missiles? What are the possibilities of U.S.-Russian cooperation in this area? These are the vital questions that this report examines and makes its assessments.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Working Papers
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
EastWest Institute
Authors
Siegfried S. Hecker
David Holloway
-

Three internationally recognized films will be screened at Stanford University in April and May 2009. The screenings begin at 7:00 pm in Cubberley Auditorium located at the School of Education Building. Co-sponsored by the Mediterranean Studies Forum, the Forum on Contemporary Forum and the Department of Iberian and Latin American Cultures, the screenings are free and open to the public.

The three films, Gitmek: My Marlon and Brando (2008, Turkey/Iraq/Iran), Carol's Journey (2002, Spain/US), and Inch' allah Dimanche (2001, Algeria/France), address the issues of love and friendship across national borders. Each makes use of diverse cinematographic techniques and multiple languages in providing a critical reflection on different cultures, societies and political systems located in the Mediterranean Basin.

Inch' allah Dimanche will be screened on Wednesday, May 27th 2009. The film tells the passionate story of an Algerian immigrant woman struggling against old world traditions. Zouina leaves her homeland with her three children to join her husband in France, where he has been living for the past 10 years. In a land and culture foreign to her, she struggles against her mother-in-law's tyrannical hand and her husband's distrustful bitterness. The film received awards from Marrakech, Toronto, Bordeaux, and Amiens International Film Festival.

For a printable film schedule, visit: http://www.stanford.edu/group/mediterranean/film%20series%2009.pdf

Jointly sponsored by the Forum on Contemporary Europe, Mediterranean Studies Forum, and Department of Iberian and Latin American Cultures.

Cubberley Auditorium
Stanford University

Conferences
-

Three internationally recognized films will be screened at Stanford University in April and May 2009. The screenings begin at 7:00 pm in Cubberley Auditorium located at the School of Education Building. Co-sponsored by the Mediterranean Studies Forum, the Forum on Contemporary Forum and the Department of Iberian and Latin American Cultures, the screenings are free and open to the public.

The three films, Gitmek: My Marlon and Brando (2008, Turkey/Iraq/Iran), Carol's Journey (2002, Spain/US), and Inch' allah Dimanche (2001, Algeria/France), address the issues of love and friendship across national borders. Each makes use of diverse cinematographic techniques and multiple languages in providing a critical reflection on different cultures, societies and political systems located in the Mediterranean Basin.

Carol's Journey
will be screened on May 6th 2009. The film describes the Spanish Civil War through the eyes of a 12-year-old. Uprooted from her home in New York, Carol travels to her mother's native village in Spain. Separated from her adored father, she struggles to adjust to her new life. Through her relationships with her grandfather, a teacher and a local boy, she gains a perspective on her situation in a nation divided. The film won the special mention at Berlin International Film Festival.

For a printable film schedule, visit: http://www.stanford.edu/group/mediterranean/film%20series%2009.pdf

Jointly sponsored by the Forum on Contemporary Europe, Mediterranean Studies Forum, and Department of Iberian and Latin American Cultures.


Cubberley Auditorium
Stanford University
Campus Map: http://campus-map.stanford.edu/

Conferences
-

Three internationally recognized films will be screened at Stanford University in April and May 2009. The screenings begin at 7:00 pm in Cubberley Auditorium located at the School of Education Building. Co-sponsored by the Mediterranean Studies Forum, the Forum on Contemporary Forum and the Department of Iberian and Latin American Cultures, the screenings are free and open to the public.

The three films, Gitmek: My Marlon and Brando (2008, Turkey/Iraq/Iran), Carol's Journey (2002, Spain/US), and Inch' allah Dimanche (2001, Algeria/France), address the issues of love and friendship across national borders. Each makes use of diverse cinematographic techniques and multiple languages in providing a critical reflection on different cultures, societies and political systems located in the Mediterranean Basin.

Gitmek will be screened on Wednesday, April 29th 2009. It narrates the love story between Ayca, a Turkish actress, and Hama Ali, an Iraqi Kurdish actor, at the onset of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Ayca travels from Istanbul to the Iraqi border via Iran so that she can re-unite with her beloved. The journey takes her through breathtaking landscapes, strange encounters and terrifying times. The film received recognition and awards from Tribeca, Tokyo Sarajevo, Istanbul, Kerala, Jerusalem and Yerevan International Film Festival.

For a printable film schedule, visit: http://www.stanford.edu/group/mediterranean/film%20series%2009.pdf

Jointly sponsored by the Forum on Contemporary Europe, Mediterranean Studies Forum, and Department of Iberian and Latin American Cultures.

Cubberley Auditorium
Stanford University

Conferences
Subscribe to Borders