STANFORD, Calif., February 14, 2008—Stanford Law School today announced that O’Melveny & Myers law firm and a number of its current and retired partners have committed $1.5 million over five years to permanently endow the Warren Christopher Professorship of the Practice of International Law and Diplomacy. The gift is one of the largest from a law firm to fund a faculty position at the law school.

The joint appointment between Stanford Law School and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) was first established as a visiting position in fall 2003 to pay tribute to Warren Christopher, a former Secretary of State of the United States and an alumnus of Stanford Law School. Christopher is considered by many to be the consummate lawyer-statesman—multifaceted and unsurpassed in his ability to bridge the gap between national interests and global affairs, and public service and private enterprise. Among his many accomplishments, his negotiations played a key role in the release of American hostages in Iran; he chaired the commission that investigated the Rodney King assault and subsequent riots in Los Angeles; and he served on the California Hate Crimes Task Force. Today he continues as a senior partner at O’Melveny & Myers, and is co-chair—along with former Secretary James A. Baker III—of the National War Powers Commission.

“This gift, in honor of one of the nation’s greatest statesmen, provides a lasting endowment to support the study and teaching of international issues that impact the world and its future,” said Stanford Law School Dean Larry Kramer. “What we teach our students about practicing law in a global context—whether it’s about easing relationships between governments, or conducting cross-border transactional work for private parties—has been profoundly shaped by all that Warren Christopher has accomplished over his lifetime.”

Because most lawyers have a multinational dimension to their practice today, the law school is expanding its international law program and shaping its entire curriculum to better prepare its graduates to practice across national borders. The Warren Christopher chair is a key part of that transformation.

“We are delighted to support the Christopher chair and thereby to recognize Warren Christopher’s many accomplishments, and his continuing example and service,” said A.B. Culvahouse, chairman of O’Melveny & Myers. “The values that Chris represents are those of our firm, and we are pleased that the Christopher chair will continue to honor Warren Christopher’s excellence, leadership and citizenship.”

Stanford Law School’s innovative curriculum immerses students in the theory and practice of international law through combined legal, business organization, and policy studies. The faculty approaches international law not just as a subject for academic inquiry but also as a force for change in the world. They fundamentally understand how law operates in relation to governments, international organizations, and the global economy because they have practiced international law in these contexts. For example, faculty who teach public international law and international human rights have served as lawyers in the U.S. Department of State and litigated terrorism cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. Faculty who teach international deal making and arbitration have completed complex international transactions and litigated disputes over international agreements. Along with teaching international human rights law, international criminal law, and international administrative law, the law school also teaches international trade, international business, comparative law, international tax, international administrative law—and the interplay between public and private law in the global arena.

The idea for the Christopher chair was driven by Stanford Law School alumnus Richard L. Morningstar, former U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, and his wife Faith Morningstar. Many other supporters joined the Morningstars in initially underwriting the professorship, including Edison International and the Carnegie Corporation of New York, of which Christopher is a former chairman. O’Melveny & Myers partner Steve Warren spearheaded the firm’s gift effort.

"We are so pleased that O’Melveny & Myers has chosen to give this magnificent gift in honor of one of the most inspirational statesmen of the 20th century," said Coit D. Blacker, director of FSI. "This gift will ensure that Warren Christopher's legacy, his commitment to public policy, and his exemplary service to our nation will live on for generations of Stanford students."

In 2003, Allen S. Weiner was appointed as the inaugural Warren Christopher Professor of the Practice of International Law and Diplomacy as a visiting chair, both to Stanford Law School and the Stanford Institute for International Studies (the precursor to FSI). Weiner is a former State Department attaché and legal counselor for the U.S. Embassy in The Hague, and is involved in the effort to stop global proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. During his tenure as Warren Christopher Professor of the Practice of International Law and Diplomacy, Weiner taught and conducted research in the fields of public international law and foreign relations law of the United States. Weiner remains at Stanford Law School as a senior lecturer in international law, co-director of the Stanford Program in International Law, and co-director of the Stanford Center on International Conflict and Negotiation (SCICN).

Following Allen Weiner, William H. Taft IV was appointed to the Warren Christopher Professorship of the Practice of International Law and Diplomacy through the 2007-2008 school year, teaching Contemporary Issues in International Law and Diplomacy and Foreign Relations Law. Like Weiner, he also joined FSI at Stanford as a visiting scholar. Taft is a former Deputy Secretary of Defense and U.S. Ambassador to NATO. He served at the Federal Trade Commission, in the Office of Management and Budget, was general counsel at the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and was the U.S. Department of State's Legal Advisor, the highest legal position in the department. Taft also worked for several years in private practice, and is currently of counsel in the Washington D.C. office of Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson.

About Stanford Law School

Stanford Law School is one of the nation’s leading institutions for legal scholarship and education. Its alumni are among the most influential decision makers in law, politics, business, and high technology. Faculty members argue before the Supreme Court, testify before Congress, and write books and articles for academic audiences, as well as the popular press. Along with offering traditional law school classes, the school has embraced new subjects and new ways of teaching.

About the Freeman Spogli Institute

The Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) is Stanford University's primary center for rigorous and innovative research on the major international issues and challenges of our time. FSI builds on Stanford's impressive intellectual strengths and exacting academic standards through interdisciplinary research conducted by its university-wide faculty, researchers, and visiting scholars.

Reprinted with permission from Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company and The Washington Post

As the year draws to a close, it's important to note that the U.S. debate on Iran is stalled, trapped between "regime changers" vs. "arms controllers," "hawks" vs. "doves," and "idealists" vs. "realists." The National Intelligence Estimate released this month offers an opportunity to escape this straitjacketed debate by embracing a new strategy that would pursue both the short-term goal of arms control and the long-term goal of democracy in Iran.

The NIE's "key judgment" that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program has thrust the arms controllers onto center stage. Because the nuclear threat is no longer immediate, the arms controllers insist that the time is ripe for the United States to engage in direct diplomacy with Tehran as a way to change the regime's behavior, but not the regime itself -- specifically, to persuade the mullahs to suspend their nuclear enrichment program.

Those who profess to back regime change claim that the NIE changes nothing and that the United States should continue to use coercive power, potentially including military strikes, to counter Tehran.

Both sides have part of the strategy right, but on its own neither offers a long-term vision for dealing with Iran.

It is folly to assume that advocates of military strikes are in the same camp as those who advocate regime change. There is no better way to prolong the life of the autocratic regime in Tehran, to strengthen increasingly weakened radicals such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, than bombing Iran. Thankfully, the NIE has made military strikes less likely.

But the estimate provides no evidence to suggest that Iran's regime has changed its ways to be more compatible with American national interests or the interests of the Iranian people. The regime continues to repress its own people; supports terrorist organizations that threaten Israel and destabilize the governments in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories; and still has not suspended its enrichment program, the key aspect of developing a nuclear weapon. Iran's suspension of its military nuclear program in 2003 was a tactical response to revelations about the clandestine operation, not a fundamental shift in strategic thinking.

To presume, therefore, that the NIE gives the United States license to bargain with Iran over its enrichment program and forgo any pressure on the regime is also folly. Focusing solely on enrichment would play into the hands of the mullahs, who see how the NIE has weakened the coalition in support of serious sanctions. They have every incentive to stretch out any negotiations -- while continuing to develop their enrichment program. Days after the NIE was made public, Ahmadinejad announced that Iran plans to have a cascade of 50,000 centrifuges, surely enough to make highly enriched uranium. American diplomatic tools to alter this behavior are extremely weak. Moreover, this strategy gives Iran a free pass on its support for terrorism and human rights abuses.

The United States and its allies must develop an Iran strategy that establishes both short- and long-term goals. Specifically, the United States must recommit to a policy of encouraging democratization inside Iran, because only a democratic regime will stop supporting terrorist groups abroad and repression at home. A democratic Iran is also less likely to restart a nuclear weapons program, especially if the United States and a new Iranian regime establish close military ties, a likely outcome.

Although counterintuitive to some, diplomatic engagement is required to pursue the long-term goal of democratization and, in parallel, the short-term goal of arms control. The first American offer of direct talks should include everything: the prospect of formal diplomatic relations and the lifting of sanctions; the potential supply and disposal of nuclear fuel (from a third-party organization or state); suspension of nuclear enrichment; an end to aid to Hezbollah and Hamas; and a serious discussion about stopping the arrests of students and human rights advocates and the persecution of union leaders and religious minorities. Discussion of new security institutions in the region should also be on the table. America's experience dealing with the Soviet Union during the Cold War demonstrates that we can engage a despotic regime without compromising our commitment to democracy and human rights.

Greater contact between Iranian and American societies will further undermine the regime's legitimacy, strengthen the independence of Iranian economic and political groups, and perhaps even compel some regime leaders to cash out and exchange their diminishing political power for enduring property rights. Over the past four decades, autocratic regimes have rarely crumbled as a result of isolation but more often have collapsed when seeking to engage with the West. Even the collapse of the Soviet Union occurred not when tensions between Moscow and Washington were high but during a period of engagement.

Will Iran follow a similar path? We will never know if we do not try. Of course, the mullahs might reject our overtures, but their refusal would embolden the opposition inside Iran. And a serious attempt to engage the Islamic republic now would strengthen the American case for more coercive diplomatic and economic pressure, should they be necessary in the future.

Copyright Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive and The Washington Post. All rights Reserved.

For most of the postwar period, Japan has been a paragon of political stability among industrial democracies. Since the formation of the conservative Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in 1955, Japan has enjoyed remarkable political continuity. With the exception of less than a year of opposition government in the early 1990s, the LDP has ruled Japan for more than half a century.

This past summer, following the July elections for the Upper House of Japan's parliament (the Diet), Japan entered a new era of political uncertainty. The opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) won control of the Upper House in a stunning defeat for the LDP. For the first time, control of the Diet is split--the ruling coalition of the LDP and the Komeito Party still control the lower house that determines the formation of the government. Passage of basic legislation now gives rise to intense political battles. There is widespread anticipation that the LDP will be forced to carry out early elections for the lower house next spring, opening the door to the possibility that the opposition could come to power in Japan.

The election results surprised many observers, who were blinded by the LDP's massive victory in the 2005 lower house elections, under the leadership of then-Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. Koizumi had called a snap election around the issue of reforming the postal savings system, but that success was an aberration from a long-term trend of declining support for the LDP that grew during the 1990s. Increasingly, Japanese saw the party as a hostage to special interests and their allies in the bureaucracy who have used the budget to fund wasteful pork barrel projects--Japan's own "bridges to nowhere"--particularly in rural areas. Younger urban and suburban voters who favor deregulation and reform had come to see the LDP as an obstacle to needed change.

Koizumi, who came to power as prime minister in 2001, single-handedly reversed this downward trend of support. He developed a strong personal following, an appeal that came in large part from positioning himself as a maverick reformer who ran against his own party and against the opposition in equal measure. His five years in office were a testament to his charisma and ability to rise above the system that brought him to power.

Unfortunately for the LDP, this appeal does not seem to extend beyond Koizumi. After leaving office in 2006, he was replaced by Shinzo Abe, an LDP conservative who typified the party's long history of rule, in that he is the grandson of a former prime minister and the son of a former cabinet minister. Abe's policy agenda largely ignored the concerns of Japanese voters about the failing social welfare system and the impact of global competition, and instead favored conservative themes such as "patriotic" education and the revision of the postwar American-imposed constitution.

Voters decisively repudiated Abe, his agenda, and his party in the Upper House vote. The opposition DPJ, led by the wily former LDP leader Ichiro Ozawa, emphasized economic reform, as well as relief for those in rural and urban Japan who are falling behind. The DPJ's election manifesto focused on pension reforms--bolstered by a scandal of tens of millions of lost pension records--price supports for farmers, subsidies for families with children, and a crackdown on wasteful government spending.

The election result triggered Abe's resignation and in September 2007, he was replaced by his LDP rival Yasuo Fukuda. The new premier has managed, temporarily, to halt the massive slide in the government's support. Ozawa's mistakes have helped in this task. The DPJ, mainly for reasons of the legislative calendar, chose a foreign and security policy issue--the reauthorization of Japan's naval mission in the Indian Ocean in support of the U.S.-led "war on terrorism"--as the first test of strength. The DPJ has opposed this mission, arguing that Japan should not deploy forces overseas except in support of United Nations authorized operations.

This water was further muddied when Ozawa emerged from a series of meetings with Fukuda to announce his support for a deal on the maritime mission, tied to the formation of a "grand coalition" to govern Japan. The coalition proposal was reportedly offered by Fukuda and seemed to acknowledge the LDP's weakness. Ozawa's willingness to embrace this deal puzzled most observers and his own party repudiated him. Over the span of a few days, Ozawa resigned his party leadership and then agreed to come back to the post after issuing a public apology for his actions. Polls show that Ozawa suffered a significant loss of support from a public that is increasingly eager for change. But Fukuda is also very vulnerable. Among other things, the LDP is now stung with a growing scandal over questionable deals with defense contractors.

The Japanese Diet and political scene are now poised for months of battles over a range of policy issues, most of them related to domestic policy and the budget, rather than foreign policy. The DPJ, with a chastened Ozawa back at the helm, is apparently ready to use its control of the Upper House to challenge the ruling party coalition. Political uncertainty is now likely to be a dominant feature of Japanese life for months, if not years, to come.

"This conference can teach us what there is to do," former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry told faculty, students, and visiting colleagues and friends at FSI's third annual international conference on Nov. 15. "What is needed is the political will to do it."

About 350 people attended this year's conference, "Power and Prosperity: New Dynamics, New Dilemmas," which featured addresses, debates, and discussions on changing patterns of power and prosperity in the international system. Two of Stanford's most distinguished statesmen, former Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Perry, made opening remarks following an introduction by FSI acting director Michael A. McFaul. Providing context for the day's discussion, Christopher discussed issues related to war powers and congressional versus presidential approval for acts of war. (He is currently serving with former Secretary of State James Baker as co-chair of the National War Powers Commission.) Perry outlined what he sees as the two major challenges to international security--nuclear terrorism and climate change--and the fundamental conflict between them.

Two plenary panels and a number of breakout sessions provided the structure for analysis and discussion, and were led by FSI scholars and guests. Shorenstein APARC Director Gi-Wook Shin moderated the morning plenary session, with former ambassadors J. Stapleton Roy, Robert Blackwill, and Michael H. Armacost (a Shorenstein Distinguished Fellow) discussing the rise of China, India, and Japan and how these three countries will shape the international landscape in the future. In the afternoon, CISAC associate director for research Lynn Eden moderated a cross-disciplinary panel on "Critical Connections: Faces of Security in the 21st Century," with Larry Diamond, Hoover senior fellow and CDDRL democracy program coordinator; CISAC Director Scott D. Sagan; and Rosamond L. Naylor, Julie Wrigley Senior Fellow and FSE director, discussing linkages between the Iraq war, nuclear risks, and food security and the environment.

Lunch and dinner addresses were given by Shashi Tharoor, former under-secretary general of the United Nations, and Gilles Kepel, professor of political science and chair of the Middle East and Mediterranean Studies program at Sciences Po. Tharoor, who is also a historian and novelist, spoke about India's soft power--its pluralism, liberal democracy, and globally popular culture--and how this, rather than India's economic potential, may well be the country's greatest asset. Kepel, widely regarded as one of the world's experts on Islamic extremism, talked about what he sees as a decline in fundamentalist Islam. With Iran and Shia Islamists claiming to be the spokespersons for Muslims worldwide, Kepel argued, there is evidence of a division among fundamentalists and a corresponding decline in their actual power.