She will present her photos and discuss her experience of being in Indonesia during that violent period.

Ian Buruma was born in the Netherlands, where he studied Chinese at Leyden University. From 1975 to 1978 he was a research fellow in Japanese cinema at Nihon University College of Arts. He lived in Tokyo until 1980, and worked as a translator, actor, photographer, documentary filmmaker and journalist.

From 1982 to 1986, he was cultural editor for the Far Eastern Economic Review in Hong Kong. During that time he traveled to most parts of Asia. He moved to London in 1990, where he worked for one year as foreign editor for the Spectator. In 1991, he was a fellow at the Wissenschaftskolleg in Berlin. In 1990 he spent a year in Washington, D.C. at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, and in 1991 he was the Alistair Horne Fellow at St. Anthony's College, Oxford.

Buruma is a regular contributor to The New York Review of Books, the New York Times Magazine, the New Republic, and other publications in the United States and Europe. He writes a weekly column for The Guardian in London.

Buruma's book The Wages of Guilt analyzes the collective memory of Germany and Japan in the post-war years. Delving into their emotions, thoughts and anger, Buruma tries to uncover how people in both countries dealt with, and are still dealing with, the stigma of being the war aggressors in very different ways.

Join us for a panel discussion of the issues raised in Buruma's book. The panel discussants are Professor's Daniel Okimoto, Shorenstein APARC and Political Science and James Sheehan, History. Professor Thomas Rohlen of Shorenstein APARC will be the moderator.

Dr. Chowdhury is a vascular surgeon and pioneering public health leader from Bangladesh who wrote "The Politics of Essential Drugs: The Makings of a Successful Health Strategy: Lessons from Bangladesh." In 1971, Dr. Chowdhury left England to return to what was then East Pakistan and join the war of liberation for Bangladesh. He helped establish a field hospital for freedom fighters and refugees, which lead to the development Gonoshasthaya Kendra (GK) or "The People's Health Center." GK has trained more than 7,000 barefoot doctors, and serves 1,000 villages in 14 Bangladeshi districts. A pharmaceutical factory was established by GK in 1981 which produces medicines on the World Health Organization's essential medicines list; employs 1,500 people and has an $11 million annual budget. One-half of its profits are reinvested and the other half go to GK's other projects. In 1985, Dr. Chowdhury and GK were awarded the Ramon Magsaysay Award (sometimes called the Asian Nobel Peace Prize) and in 1992, the Right Livelihood Award (also known as the alternative Nobel Prize). Dr. Chowdhury was instrumental in convincing the Bangladesh government to adopt a National Drug Policy in 1982. This controversial policy promotes essential medicines and discourages the use of drugs with little therapeutic value. GK hosted the People's Health Assembly in December 2000, which challenged global health organizations to improve public health care for the poor. Dr. Chowdhury is this year's International Honoree of the UC Berkeley School of Public Health Heroes.

Democracy in South Korea has gone through four decades of transition and is finally at a consolidation stage. Democratic constitutionalism is slowly being accepted as a new guiding principle in the public life in the country which is still a predominantly collectivity- or person-oriented society. Democracy as a political ideal and institution came from the West and, is, by virtue of its origins, individualist in that the individual conscience is the ultimate source of decision about what is right and wrong (E.H. Carr). Will constitutionalism, then, eventually replace collectivism-personalism (which puts emphasis on group and person over and against the individual) and establish an individualist democracy in South Korea? Or, since the traditional collectivist-personalist ethic survived democratic encroachment and accommodated itself to the democratic polity, will there be a new form of democracy? If so, how different it will be from Western democracy? The aim of this paper is to explore these issues.

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.