-

Image
from-mandate-to-blueprint-graphic_web.jpg
REGISTER HERE

All new appointees to the federal government begin their assignments with enthusiasm and a mandate to achieve both ambitious and specific objectives but quickly discover the challenges of doing so.  As the first deputy director of national intelligence for analysis, Tom Fingar had a mandate to implement legislation intended to integrate and improve the performance of 16 intelligence agencies.  This talk will use examples from his experience translating that mandate into concrete plans and policies to illustrate the challenges facing officials across the U.S. government who must rebuild after President Trump.

Thomas Fingar is a Shorenstein APARC Fellow in the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. He was the inaugural Oksenberg-Rohlen Distinguished Fellow from 2010 through 2015 and the Payne Distinguished Lecturer at Stanford in 2009.

From 2005 through 2008, he served as the first deputy director of national intelligence for analysis and, concurrently, as chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Fingar served previously as assistant secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (2000-01 and 2004-05), principal deputy assistant secretary (2001-03), deputy assistant secretary for analysis (1994-2000), director of the Office of Analysis for East Asia and the Pacific (1989-94), and chief of the China Division (1986-89). Between 1975 and 1986 he held a number of positions at Stanford University, including senior research associate in the Center for International Security and Arms Control.

Fingar is a graduate of Cornell University (A.B. in Government and History, 1968), and Stanford University (M.A., 1969 and Ph.D., 1977 both in political science). His most recent books are "Reducing Uncertainty:  Intelligence Analysis and National Security" (Stanford University Press, 2011), "The New Great Game: China and South and Central Asia in the Era of Reform," editor (Stanford, 2016), "Uneasy Partnerships: China and Japan, the Koreas, and Russia in the Era of Reform" (Stanford, 2017), and "Fateful Decisions: Choices that will Shape China’s Future," co-edited with Jean Oi (Stanford, 2020). 

Zoom

Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Stanford University
Encina Hall, C-327
Stanford, CA 94305-6055

(650) 723-9149 (650) 723-6530
0
Shorenstein APARC Fellow
Affiliated Scholar at the Stanford Center on China's Economy and Institutions
tom_fingar_vert.jpg PhD

Thomas Fingar is a Shorenstein APARC Fellow in the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. He was the inaugural Oksenberg-Rohlen Distinguished Fellow from 2010 through 2015 and the Payne Distinguished Lecturer at Stanford in 2009.

From 2005 through 2008, he served as the first deputy director of national intelligence for analysis and, concurrently, as chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Fingar served previously as assistant secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (2000-01 and 2004-05), principal deputy assistant secretary (2001-03), deputy assistant secretary for analysis (1994-2000), director of the Office of Analysis for East Asia and the Pacific (1989-94), and chief of the China Division (1986-89). Between 1975 and 1986 he held a number of positions at Stanford University, including senior research associate in the Center for International Security and Arms Control.

Fingar is a graduate of Cornell University (A.B. in Government and History, 1968), and Stanford University (M.A., 1969 and Ph.D., 1977 both in political science). His most recent books are From Mandate to Blueprint: Lessons from Intelligence Reform (Stanford University Press, 2021), Reducing Uncertainty: Intelligence Analysis and National Security (Stanford University Press, 2011), The New Great Game: China and South and Central Asia in the Era of Reform, editor (Stanford University Press, 2016), Uneasy Partnerships: China and Japan, the Koreas, and Russia in the Era of Reform (Stanford, 2017), and Fateful Decisions: Choices that will Shape China’s Future, co-edited with Jean Oi (Stanford, 2020). His most recent article is, "The Role of Intelligence in Countering Illicit Nuclear-Related Procurement,” in Matthew Bunn, Martin B. Malin, William C. Potter, and Leonard S Spector, eds., Preventing Black Market Trade in Nuclear Technology (Cambridge, 2018)."

Selected Multimedia

CV
Date Label
<i>Shorenstein APARC Fellow, Asia-Pacific Research Center, Stanford Univerity</i>

Encina Hall
616 Jane Stanford Way
Stanford, CA 94305-6055

0
Senior Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Ken Olivier and Angela Nomellini Professor of International Studies, Department of Political Science
Peter and Helen Bing Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
mcfaul_headshot_2025.jpg PhD

Michael McFaul is the Ken Olivier and Angela Nomellini Professor of International Studies in Political Science, Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, and the Peter and Helen Bing Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, all at Stanford University. He joined the Stanford faculty in 1995 and served as FSI Director from 2015 to 2025. He is also an international affairs analyst for MSNOW.

McFaul served for five years in the Obama administration, first as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council at the White House (2009-2012), and then as U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation (2012-2014).

McFaul has authored ten books and edited several others, including, most recently, Autocrats vs. Democrats: China, Russia, America, and the New Global Disorder, as well as From Cold War to Hot Peace: An American Ambassador in Putin’s Russia, (a New York Times bestseller) Advancing Democracy Abroad: Why We Should, How We Can; and Russia’s Unfinished Revolution: Political Change from Gorbachev to Putin.

He is a recipient of numerous awards, including an honorary PhD from Montana State University; the Order for Merits to Lithuania from President Gitanas Nausea of Lithuania; Order of Merit of Third Degree from President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and the Dean’s Award for Distinguished Teaching at Stanford University. In 2015, he was the Distinguished Mingde Faculty Fellow at the Stanford Center at Peking University.

McFaul was born and raised in Montana. He received his B.A. in International Relations and Slavic Languages and his M.A. in Soviet and East European Studies from Stanford University in 1986. As a Rhodes Scholar, he completed his D. Phil. in International Relations at Oxford University in 1991. 

CV
Date Label
Moderator <i>Director, FSI and Professor, Political Science, Stanford University</i>
Seminars
Authors
Callista Wells
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

On February 10, 2021, the China Program at Shorenstein APARC hosted Professor Oriana Skylar Mastro, Center Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies​ for the virtual program "Military Competition with China: Harder to Win Than During the Cold War?" Professor Jean Oi, William Haas Professor of Chinese Politics and director of the APARC China Program, moderated the event.

As US-China competition intensifies, experts debate the degree to which the current strategic environment resembles that of the Cold War. Those that argue against the analogy often highlight how China is deeply integrated into the US-led world order. They also point out that, while tense, US-China relations have not turned overtly adversarial. But there is another, less optimistic reason the comparison is unhelpful: deterring and defeating Chinese aggression is harder now than it was against the Soviet Union. In her talk, Dr. Mastro analyzed how technology, geography, relative resources and the alliance system complicate U.S. efforts to enhance the credibility of its deterrence posture and, in a crisis, form any sort of coalition. Mastro and Oi's thought-provoking discussion ranged from the topic of why even US allies are hesitant to take a strong stance against China to whether or not Taiwan could be a catalyst for military conflict. Watch now: 

Read More

Min Ye speaking
News

Domestic or International? The Belt and Road Initiative Is More Internally Focused Than We Think, Says Expert Min Ye

Domestic or International? The Belt and Road Initiative Is More Internally Focused Than We Think, Says Expert Min Ye
Banner of Hau L. Lee
News

The Pandemic, U.S.-China Tensions and Redesigning the Global Supply Chain

The Pandemic, U.S.-China Tensions and Redesigning the Global Supply Chain
Hero Image
Photograph of Xi Jinping and Vladmir Putin walking in front of two lines of armed Chinese soldiers Getty Images
All News button
1
Subtitle

On February 10th, the APARC China Program hosted Professor Oriana Mastro to discuss military relations between the US and China, and why deterrence might be even more difficult than during the Cold War.

Paragraphs
Cover of book "The Dragon, the Eagle, and the Private Sector" with an image of a red dragon and a blue eagle.

The governments of China and the United States -- despite profound differences in history, culture, economic structure, and political ideology -- both engage the private sector in the pursuit of public value. This book employs the term collaborative governance to describe relationships where neither the public nor private party is fully in control, arguing that such shared discretion is needed to deliver value to citizens. This concept is exemplified across a wide range of policy arenas, such as constructing high speed rail, hosting the Olympics, building human capital, and managing the healthcare system. This book will help decision-makers apply the principles of collaborative governance to effectively serve the public, and will enable China and the United States to learn from each other's experiences. It will empower public decision-makers to more wisely engage the private sector. The book's overarching conclusion is that transparency is the key to the legitimate growth of collaborative governance.

This book provides a key to understanding how to achieve . . . quality public-private collaboration, done right. Delving deep into two very different societies. . . the authors provide lessons that illuminate and should inform scholars and policymakers alike.
Fareed Zakaria
Journalist and author
This is the rare book that is both analytic and a pleasure to read. It makes a lasting impression. It deserves a very wide readership among all those concerned about the future of the global economy.
Lawrence H. Summers
President Emeritus, Harvard University
Eggleston, Donahue, and Zeckhauser offer an authoritative and intriguing account of why and how collaborative governance. . . has been widely and deeply practiced in two vastly different countries, China and the US.
Yijia Jing
Fudan University
All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Books
Publication Date
Subtitle
Public-Private Collaboration in China and the United States
Authors
Karen Eggleston
Book Publisher
Cambridge University Press
-

* Please note all CISAC events are scheduled using the Pacific Time Zone.

 

Seminar Recording: https://youtu.be/aK8_FjQtlKc

 

About the Event: The US administration has pivoted 180°. So, what does that mean for Europe?

The last four years have shaped the way European media relate to world powers, security and Europe’s increasing push for sovereignty and strategic autonomy. We will discuss European and national media in Europe, as well as how media differ in Western and Eastern Europe. We will also look at how the narrative will change now that the US is once again striving for global leadership and transatlantic cooperation.

A key issue is how US-based media coverage is influencing the narrative. Increasing media output from Washington about the rest of the world is also shaping the narrative. Big Tech and digital media investments are pushing into national markets and will shape the way that news is made and consumed. Finally, we will dive into the role that media will play in rebalancing the power players in international security, and most importantly, fostering cooperation.

 

About the Speaker: Shéhérazade Semsar-de Boisséson is CEO of POLITICO in Europe, a joint venture between POLITICO and Axel Springer.

Shéhérazade was previously owner and publisher of European Voice, the leading media in Brussels covering EU policy, which she acquired from the Economist Group in 2013. In December 2014, POLITICO and Axel Springer jointly acquired European Voice and Paris-based Development Institute International (Dii), France’s leading event promoter in the public affairs space, a business Shéhérazade co-founded in 1993.

A native of Tehran, Iran and a French national, Shéhérazade graduated from the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University in 1990 with a B.A. and a M.S. in International Finance.

Shéhérazade served as a member of the Board of Directors of Georgetown University, Washington D.C. from 2013 to 2019. She is currently serving on the Advisory Board of Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service and on the Board of Directors of the French-American Foundation.

From 2008 to 2010, Shéhérazade served on the Board of Directors of Femmes Forums, a leading women’s club in Paris, France. She represents DII at the French think tank: Institut Montaigne.

Shéhérazade lives in Brussels with her husband Laurent de Boisséson and their three children: Inès, Louise and Cyrus.

Virtual Seminar

Sheherazade Semsar-de Boisséson CEO POLITICO Europe
Seminars
-

* Please note all CISAC events are scheduled using the Pacific Time Zone.

 

Attend Webinar: https://stanford.zoom.us/j/93236889762?pwd=eVFtbVJDME95MU9wNU1scFNWTDUxdz09

 

About the Event: Synthetic Biology (SB) is one of the most promising fields of research for the 21st century. SB offers powerful new ways to improve human health, build the global economy, manufacture sustainable materials, and address climate change. However, current access to SBenabled breakthroughs is unequal, largely due to bottlenecks in infrastructure and education. Here, I describe our efforts to re-think the way we engineer biology using cell-free systems to address these bottlenecks. We show how the ability to readily store, distribute, and activate low-cost, freeze-dried cell-free systems by simply adding water has opened new opportunities for on-demand biomanufacturing of vaccines for global health, point-of-care diagnostics for environmental safety, and education for SB literacy and citizenship. By integrating cell-free systems with AI, we also show the ability to accelerate the production of carbon-negative platform chemicals. Looking forward, advances in engineering tools and new knowledge underpinning the fundamental science of living matter will ensure that SB helps solve humanity’s most pressing challenges.

 

About the Speaker: Michael Jewett is the Charles Deering McCormick Professor of Teaching Excellence, the Walter P. Murphy Professor of Chemical and Biological Engineering, and Director of the Center for Synthetic Biology at Northwestern University. Dr. Jewett received his PhD in 2005 at Stanford University, completed postdoctoral studies at the Center for Microbial Biotechnology in Denmark and the Harvard Medical School, and was a guest professor at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich). He is the recipient of the NIH Pathway to Independence Award, David and Lucile Packard Fellowship in Science and Engineering, Camille-Dreyfus Teacher-Scholar Award, and a Finalist for the Blavatnik National Awards for Young Scientists, among others. He is the co-founder of SwiftScale Biologics, Stemloop, Inc., Pearl Bio, Induro Therapeutics, and Design Pharmaceuticals. Jewett is a Fellow of AIMBE, AAAS, and NAI.

 

For more information please contact Drew Endy (endy@stanford.edu) or Paul McIntyre (pcm1@slac.stanford.edu).

Virtual Seminar

Michael Jewett Professor Northwestern University
Seminars
Authors
Callista Wells
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

On January 27, 2021, the China Program at Shorenstein APARC hosted Professor Hau L. Lee, The Thoma Professor of Operations, Information & Technology at the Stanford Graduate School of Business for the virtual program “The Pandemic, U.S-China Tensions and Redesigning the Global Supply Chain.” Professor Jean Oi, William Haas Professor of Chinese Politics and director of the APARC China Program, moderated the event.

Professor Lee focused on an important question that has only become more pressing due to the COVID-19 pandemic: How, if at all, should businesses redesign their supply chains? Since the beginning of the pandemic, explains Lee, there has been an increase in calls for “redundancy” in supply chains in order to protect them from the problems they faced early in the pandemic, when China was first hit by shut downs and slowed productivity. Advice has been varied, ranging from the “China Plus One” strategy in which businesses simply add a secondary production location, to completely domesticating supply chains.

Lee warns, however, of the perils of overreaction. There are numerous risks that come along with a fully domestic supply chain, not least the danger of “having all of your eggs in one basket.” Instead, says Lee, businesses should move cautiously and, instead of fully divesting from China, should use the country intelligently. 

Professor Lee’s “In and Out Design” encourages businesses to work from the inside out, securing and strengthening their supply chains by starting at home. Companies must first build “internal supply chain excellence,” after which they can move on to making sure their strategic partners are equally strong and can work to their advantage. Eventually, companies can move on to strengthening the extended value chain and, ultimately, their entire ecosystem. Using strategies like dual response, leveraging “lubricants,” and bolstering capacity-building capabilities, businesses can create a more stable future. 

The session concluded with a fruitful Q&A between Professor Lee and the audience, moderated by Professor Oi.

A video recording of this program is available upon request. Please contact Callista Wells, China Program Coordinator at cvwells@stanford.edu with any inquiries.

Read More

Min Ye speaking
News

Domestic or International? The Belt and Road Initiative Is More Internally Focused Than We Think, Says Expert Min Ye

Domestic or International? The Belt and Road Initiative Is More Internally Focused Than We Think, Says Expert Min Ye
Photograph of the UN building in Geneva, Switzerland
News

Rebuilding International Institutions Will be Tough but Necessary, Say Stanford Experts Thomas Fingar and Stephen Stedman

Fingar and Stedman spoke as part of the APARC program “Rebuilding International Institutions,” which examined the future of international institutions such as the United Nations (UN), World Trade Organization (WTO), and World Health Organization (WHO) in our evolving global political landscape.
Rebuilding International Institutions Will be Tough but Necessary, Say Stanford Experts Thomas Fingar and Stephen Stedman
Hero Image
Banner of Hau L. Lee
All News button
1
-

 

4:00-5:00pm California, 18-February 2021
7:00-8:00pm Washington DC, 18-February 2021
3:00-4:00am  Kenya, 19-February 2021
11:00am-12:00pm Sydney, Australia 19-February 2021

 

The Bay of Bengal, while split by national boundaries and even our concepts of distinct South and Southeast Asian regions, is re-emerging as a connected geographic and demographic space. Some of Asia’s most consequential transnational policy challenges will be most starkly presented here, across the borders of India, Bangladesh, and Burma – and traditional policy-making structures are already struggling to cope with environmental disasters, the mass movement of people, and the yawning need for economic connectivity. This webinar will examine these policy challenges, from the fragility of the Sundarbans ecosystem to the transnational implications of the Burma coup, and whether existing state and multilateral institutions are capable of addressing them.

SPEAKERS:

Image
Kelley Eckels Currie
Kelley Eckels Currie served as U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues and the U.S. Representative at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.  Prior to her appointment, she led the Department of State’s Office of Global Criminal Justice (2019) and served under Ambassador Nikki Haley as the United States’ Representative to the UN Economic and Social Council and Alternative Representative to the UN General Assembly (2017-2018).  Throughout her career, Ambassador Currie has specialized in human rights, political reform, development and humanitarian issues, with a focus on the Asia-Pacific region. She has held senior policy positions with the Department of State, the U.S. Congress, the Project 2049 Institute, and several international and non-governmental human rights and humanitarian organizations.  Ambassador Currie holds a Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center.

Image
Tanaya D Gupta
Tanaya Dutta Gupta is a PhD Candidate in Sociology at the University of California, Davis. Tanaya’s dissertation research focuses on climate change, (im)mobilities and borders in the Bengal delta region of Bangladesh and India. Her educational background includes MA in Sociology and Geography. As visiting researcher with the International Centre for Climate Change and Development and collaborator with the Observer Research Foundation, Tanaya participates in policy conversations through her research. Her research has been funded by the National Geographic Society and UC Davis Graduate Program Fellowships. 

Image
Constantin Xavier
Constantino Xavier is a Fellow in Foreign Policy and Security Studies at the Centre for Social and Economic Progress, in New Delhi, where he leads the Sambandh Initiative on regional connectivity. He is also a non-resident fellow in the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution. His research and publications focus on India’s changing role as a regional power, and the challenges of security, connectivity and democracy across South Asia and the Indian Ocean. Dr. Xavier regularly lectures at various Indian, European and American universities, as well as at civilian and military training institutions in India. He holds a Ph.D. in South Asian studies from the Johns Hopkins University, School of Advanced International Studies, and an M.A. and M.Phil. from Jawaharlal Nehru University.  

MODERATOR:

Image
Arzan Tarapore
Arzan Tarapore is the South Asia research scholar at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford University, where he leads the newly-restarted South Asia research initiative. He is also a senior nonresident fellow at the National Bureau of Asian Research. His research focuses on Indian military strategy and contemporary Indo-Pacific security issues. He previously held research positions at the RAND Corporation, the Observer Research Foundation, and the East-West Center in Washington. Prior to his scholarly career, he served as an analyst in the Australian Defence Department, which included operational deployments as well as a diplomatic posting to Washington, DC. Arzan holds a PhD in war studies from King’s College London.

 

This event is co-sponsored by: Center for South Asia 
 

 

 

 

This is a virtual event via Zoom.  Please  Register at: https://bit.ly/3txBBVq
Kelley Eckels Currie former Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues
Tanaya Dutta Gupta University of California, Davis
Constantino Xavier Centre for Social and Economic Progress- New Delhi
Seminars
Authors
Rose Gottemoeller
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

Extending the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New START, with Russia was one of President Biden’s first foreign policy acts after he took the oath of office on Jan. 20. The treaty would have otherwise ended on Feb. 5, leaving the U.S. and Russia without any agreed upon limits on their strategic nuclear forces for the first time since 1972. When relations are as bad as they are now between Moscow and Washington, U.S. national security would suffer from severe uncertainty over an unconstrained Russian nuclear arsenal.

Read the rest at The Hill

Hero Image
Image of Joe Biden and Putin Getty Images
All News button
1
Subtitle

Extending the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New START, with Russia was one of President Biden’s first foreign policy acts after he took the oath of office on Jan. 20. The treaty would have otherwise ended on Feb. 5, leaving the U.S. and Russia without any agreed upon limits on their strategic nuclear forces for the first time since 1972.

-

This event is being held virtually via Zoom. Please register for the webinar via the following link: https://bit.ly/3t6AfRu

This event is part of Shorenstein APARC's winter webinar series "Asian Politics and Policy in a Time of Uncertainty."

The government of Abe Shinzo, which ruled Japan from 2012 to 2020, represents an important turning point in Japanese politics and political economy. Abe became the longest-serving prime minister in Japanese history, reversing a trend of short-lived leaders. His government not only stands out for its longevity, but also for its policies: Abe implemented a variety of significant changes, among the most important being a series of economic reforms to reinvigorate Japan’s economy under the banner of “Abenomics.” Drawing on a recently published book co-edited by Takeo Hoshi and Phillip Lipscy, The Political Economy of the Abe Government and Abenomics Reforms and featuring the authors of the relevant chapters, this panel will examine three areas of structural reform that were prioritized under Abenomics: innovation, agriculture, and energy. Moderated by Kiyoteru Tsutsui, the Director of the Japan Program, the panel will also consider the implications of these reforms for the post-Abe era that began with the Suga government in September 2020. 

SPEAKERS

Takeo HoshiTakeo Hoshi (University of Tokyo), is Professor of Economics at the University of Tokyo. His research area includes corporate finance, banking, monetary policy and the Japanese economy. Hoshi is also Co-Chairman of the Academic Board of the Center for Industrial Development and Environmental Governance (Tsinghua University). His past positions include Henri and Tomoye Takahashi Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University and Pacific Economic Cooperation Professor in International Economic Relations at University of California, San Diego. He received the 2015 Japanese Bankers Academic Research Promotion Foundation Award, the 2011 Reischauer International Education Award of Japan Society of San Diego and Tijuana, the 2006 Enjoji Jiro Memorial Prize of Nihon Keizai Shimbun, and the 2005 Japan Economic Association-Nakahara Prize. His book Corporate Financing and Governance in Japan: The Road to the Future (MIT Press, 2001) co-authored with Anil Kashyap received the Nikkei Award for the Best Economics Books. He co-authored The Japanese Economy (MIT Press, 2020) with Takatoshi Ito. His book on the political economy of the Abe administration co-edited with Phillip Lipscy is published from Cambridge University Press in 2021. Other publications include “Will the U.S. and Europe Avoid a Lost Decade? Lessons from Japan’s Post Crisis Experience” (Joint with Anil K Kashyap), IMF Economic Review, 2015; and “Zombie Lending and Depressed Restructuring in Japan” (Joint with Ricardo Caballero and Anil Kashyap), American Economic Review, December 2008. Hoshi received his B.A. from the University of Tokyo in 1983, and a Ph.D. in Economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1988. 

Image
Phillip Lipscy
Phillip Lipscy (University of Toronto), is associate professor of political science at the University of Toronto. He is also Chair in Japanese Politics and Global Affairs and the Director of the Centre for the Study of Global Japan at the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy. His research addresses substantive topics such as international cooperation, international organizations, the politics of energy and climate change, international relations of East Asia, and the politics of financial crises. He has also published extensively on Japanese politics and foreign policy. Lipscy’s book from Cambridge University Press, Renegotiating the World Order: Institutional Change in International Relations, examines how countries seek greater international influence by reforming or creating international organizations. Before arriving to the University of Toronto, Lipscy was assistant professor of political science and Thomas Rohlen Center Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute at Stanford University. Lipscy obtained his Ph.D. in political science at Harvard University and received his M.A. in international policy studies and B.A. in economics and political science at Stanford University.

Image
Kenji Kushida
Kenji Kushida (Stanford University), is a research scholar with the Japan Program at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center. Kushida’s research and projects are focused on the following streams : 1) how politics and regulations shape the development and diffusion of Information Technology such as AI; 2) institutional underpinnings of the Silicon Valley ecosystem, 2) Japan's transforming political economy, 3) Japan's startup ecosystem, 4) the role of foreign multinational firms in Japan, 4) Japan's Fukushima nuclear disaster. He spearheaded the Silicon Valley - New Japan project that brought together large Japanese firms and the Silicon Valley ecosystem. He has published several books and numerous articles in each of these streams, including “The Politics of Commoditization in Global ICT Industries,” “Japan’s Startup Ecosystem,” "How Politics and Market Dynamics Trapped Innovations in Japan’s Domestic 'Galapagos' Telecommunications Sector," “Cloud Computing: From Scarcity to Abundance,” and others. His latest business book in Japanese is “The Algorithmic Revolution’s Disruption: a Silicon Valley Vantage on IoT, Fintech, Cloud, and AI” (Asahi Shimbun Shuppan 2016). Kushida has appeared in media including The New York Times, Washington Post, Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Nikkei Business, Diamond Harvard Business Review, NHK, PBS NewsHour, and NPR. He is also a trustee of the Japan ICU Foundation, alumni of the Trilateral Commission David Rockefeller Fellows, and a member of the Mansfield Foundation Network for the Future. Kushida has written two general audience books in Japanese, entitled Biculturalism and the Japanese: Beyond English Linguistic Capabilities (Chuko Shinsho, 2006) and International Schools, an Introduction (Fusosha, 2008). Kushida holds a PhD in political science from the University of California, Berkeley. His received his MA in East Asian Studies and BAs in economics and East Asian Studies with Honors, all from Stanford University.

Image
Patricia Maclachlan

Patricia L. Maclachlan (University of Texas), received her PhD in comparative politics from Columbia University in 1996 and is now Professor of Government and the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Professor of Japanese Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. Her publications include Consumer Politics in Postwar Japan: The Institutional Boundaries of Citizen Activism (Columbia University Press, 2002), The Ambivalent Consumer: Questioning Consumption in East Asia and the West (Cornell University Press, 2006), which she co-edited with Sheldon Garon, and The People’s Post Office: The History and Politics of the Japanese Postal System, 1871-2010 (Harvard University East Asia Center, 2011). Her current research focuses on the political economy of Japanese agriculture and the reform of the agricultural cooperative system; her book on the topic, co-authored with Kay Shimizu, is forthcoming from Cornell University Press. Maclachlan currently serves on the Japan-U.S. Friendship Commission and the United States-Japan Conference on Cultural and Educational Interchange (CULCON), the American Advisory Committee of the Japan Foundation, and the editorial board and board of trustees of the Journal of Japanese Studies.

Image
Kay Shimizu

Kay Shimizu (University of Pittsburgh). Shimizu's research addresses institutional design and their effects on economic governance with a special interest in central local relations, property rights, and the digital transformation.  Her publications include Political Change in Japan: Electoral Behavior, Party Realignment, and the Koizumi Reforms (coedited with Steven R. Reed and Kenneth McElwain) as well as articles in Socio-Economic ReviewJournal of East Asian StudiesCurrent History, and Social Science Japan Journal.  She is the author, with Patricia L. Maclachlan, of a forthcoming book on agricultural cooperative reform from Cornell University Press. Shimizu received her Ph.D. in political science from Stanford University.  She contributes regularly to the public discourse on international relations and the political economy of Asia and has been a fellow at the Mike and Maureen Mansfield Foundation, the National Committee on U.S. China Relations, and the U.S.-Japan Foundation.

Image
Trevor Incerti
Trevor Incerti (Yale University), is a PhD Candidate in Political Economy.  His research focuses on the ways individuals, businesses, and interest groups use politics for private gain. His work has been published in the American Political Science Review and British Journal of Political Science, among other outlets. Prior to Yale, he has worked as a Data Scientist for TrueCar, Inc., as an economic consultant at Compass Lexecon, and as a researcher at Stanford University. Incerti holds B.A. degrees in Political Economy and Asian Studies (Japan) from UC Berkeley. 

MODERATORS 

Image
Kiyoteru Tsutsui

Kiyoteru Tsutsui (Stanford University), is Henri H. and Tomoye Takahashi Professor and Senior Fellow in Japanese Studies at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford University, where he is also Director of the Japan Program, a Senior Fellow of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, and a Professor of Sociology. He is the author of Rights Make Might: Global Human Rights and Minority Social Movements in Japan (Oxford University Press, 2018), co-editor of Corporate Responsibility in a Globalizing World (Oxford University Press, 2016) and co-editor of The Courteous Power: Japan and Southeast Asia in the Indo-Pacific Era (University of Michigan Press, forthcoming 2021). 

 

 

 

 

 

Via Zoom Webinar.

Register at: https://bit.ly/3t6AfRu

Takeo Hoshi <br><i>Professor of Economics at the University of Tokyo</i><br><br>
Phillip Lipscy <br><i>Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto</i><br><br>
Kay Shimizu <br><i>Research Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Pittsburgh and a Visiting Scholar at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Japan</i><br><br>
Patricia Maclachlan <br><i>Professor of Japanese Studies at the University of Texas at Austin</i><br><br>
Kenji Kushida <br><i>Research Scholar with the Japan Program at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, Stanford University</i><br><br>
Trevor Incerti <br><i>Yale University, PhD Candidate in Political Economy</i><br><br>
Kiyoteru Tsutsui <br><i>Stanford University, Director of APARC Japan Program</i><br><br>
Panel Discussions
Authors
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

In a December 2020 New York Times interview, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky welcomed Joe Biden’s election as U.S. president. Zelensky observed that Biden “knows Ukraine better than the previous president” and “will really help strengthen relations, help settle the war in Donbas, and end the occupation of our territory.”[1]

While Zelensky’s comments may prove overly optimistic, there is little reason to doubt that the Biden presidency will be good for Ukraine. The incoming president knows the country, and he understands both the value of a stable and successful Ukraine for U.S. interests in Europe and the challenges posed to Ukraine and the West by Russia. That might—might, not will, but might—help break the logjam on the stalemated Donbas conflict, which Zelensky of course would welcome. Perhaps less welcome to the Ukrainian president may be Biden’s readiness to play hardball to press Kyiv to take needed but politically difficult reform and anti-corruption steps. Ukraine’s success as a liberal democracy depends not just on ending its conflict with Russia but also on combating corruption and advancing still necessary economic reforms.

U.S.-Ukraine Relations under Trump

In one sense, U.S. policy toward Ukraine during the Trump administration had its strengths. It continued political and military support for Kyiv, including the provision of lethal military assistance that the Obama administration had been unwilling to provide. It maintained and strengthened Ukraine-related sanctions on Russia. And it took further steps to bolster the U.S. and NATO military presence in central European states on Ukraine’s western border.

However, Donald Trump never seemed committed to his administration’s policy. His primary engagement on Ukraine was his bid to extort Kyiv into manufacturing derogatory information on his Democratic opponent, a bid that led to his impeachment.[2] Beyond that, Trump showed no interest in the country and consistently refused to criticize Vladimir Putin, who has inflicted more than six years of low-intensity war on Ukraine.

The Biden presidency will end this dichotomy in Washington’s approach to Kyiv. The president and his administration will align on policy. That new predictability will mean that Ukrainian officials no longer have to worry about late night presidential tweets or the subjugation of U.S. policy interests to the president’s personal political vendettas.

Two Challenges Confronting Ukraine

As Biden takes office, two principal challenges confront Ukraine. The conflict with Russia poses the first.[3] In March 2014, in the aftermath of the Maidan Revolution, Russian military forces seized Crimea. Weeks later, Russian security forces instigated a conflict in Donbas, masked poorly as a “separatist” uprising. The Kremlin provided leadership, funding, heavy weapons, ammunition, other supplies and, when necessary, regular units of the Russian army. Now in its seventh year, that conflict has claimed the lives of some 13,000 people.

While Moscow illegally annexed Crimea, it has not moved to annex Donbas. It appears instead to want to use a simmering conflict in that eastern Ukrainian region as a means to put pressure on, destabilize and disorient the government in Kyiv, with the goal of making it harder for the government to build a successful Ukrainian state and draw closer to Europe. (Moscow has interfered elsewhere in the post-Soviet space to try to maintain a Russian sphere of influence.)

Without the Kremlin’s cooperation, Kyiv on its own cannot resolve the conflict in Donbas, and Crimea poses an even harder question. However, meeting the second of the challenges facing Ukraine—implementation of reforms and anti-corruption measures needed to build a fair, robust and growing economy—lies largely within Kyiv’s purview. Unfortunately, after a good start by Zelensky and his first government, reforms have stagnated, oligarchs retain undue political and economic influence (including within Zelensky’s Servant of the People party), and the judicial branch remains wholly unreconstructed.[4] Among other things, this depresses much-needed investment in the country.

Progress Toward a Resolution in Donbas?

The Biden presidency might well play a more active role in the moribund negotiating process regarding Donbas. As co-chairs of the “Normandy process,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron have had little success of late in implementation of the 2015 Minsk agreement, which laid out a path to a settlement and restoration of full Ukrainian sovereignty over Donbas.[5] Unfortunately, it appears that the Kremlin calculates that the benefits of keeping Kyiv distracted currently outweigh the costs, including of Western sanctions.

Zelensky believes that a more active U.S. role could change that calculation and inject momentum into the process. At a minimum, the Biden presidency should appoint a special envoy to coordinate with the Germans and French, and, more broadly, with the European Union, Britain, Canada and others on Western support for Ukraine and sanctions against Russia. That position has gone unfilled since September 2019.

Whether Biden, who will face many demands on his time, will choose to engage personally is a different question. He knows Ukraine, having traveled there six times when he served as vice president. And, unlike Trump, who sought quick victories, Biden understands that solving a question like Donbas would require an investment of his time over a sustained period. It would make sense if it became clear that his engagement would shake up things in a way that would increase the prospects of a settlement and return of Donbas to Ukrainian sovereignty.

At first glance, the Kremlin might not welcome that kind of U.S. involvement, but there are good arguments for it. First of all, the United States is Ukraine’s strongest Western supporter, and Washington’s voice carries considerable weight in Kyiv. Second, Russia’s current conflict against Ukraine is not just about Donbas; it is also about Ukraine’s place in Europe, that is, where the country fits between Russia and institutions such as the European Union and NATO.[6] Addressing that question will require diplomatic finesse. Given the trans-Atlantic relationship, which will be revived under Biden, it is difficult to see such a geopolitical discussion taking place without American participation.

As for Crimea, Ukraine cannot at present muster the political, diplomatic, economic and military leverage to effect the peninsula’s return. Still, the U.S. government knows how to do non-recognition policy.[7] It did so for five decades with regard to the Baltic states’ incorporation into the Soviet Union. The Biden presidency will remain supportive of Kyiv’s claim to Crimea and not recognize its annexation by Russia—and the White House will express this view.

Domestic Reform

After an encouraging start on reform, Zelensky wavered in 2020. He has to do more, and Biden can be helpful, though in a manner the Ukrainian president may not appreciate. A big part of the problem is that Zelensky himself seems to have lost his way. Ruslan Ryaboshapka, his reformist first prosecutor general, observed that “Instead of fighting oligarchs, [Zelensky] chose to peacefully coexist with them.”[8] Biden could well prove the kind of friend that Ukraine needs now: supportive but direct with Zelensky on what must be done, and ready to push him to take politically hard measures that he might prefer to avoid.

Biden has already shown that he can do this. As vice president in the Obama administration, he had the lead on U.S. engagement with Ukraine. When necessary, he applied “tough love,” famously withholding a one-billion-dollar loan guarantee until then-President Petro Poroshenko fired a prosecutor general who was viewed widely, inside and outside of Ukraine, as corrupt.[9]

A dose of such tough love now seems necessary with Kyiv. One question concerns access to low interest credits under Ukraine’s stand-by agreement with the International Monetary Fund.[10] The IMF conditions disbursements of those credits on how Ukraine implements reform commitments that it made to secure the agreement. The Biden administration should, and almost certainly will, back the IMF in insisting that Ukraine needs to deliver on its commitments in order to secure additional disbursements.

Likewise, the Biden administration should make more bilateral U.S. assistance conditional on Ukraine tackling particular reforms. In doing so, it should consult and coordinate closely with the European Union, which has greater assistance resources available. Introducing a higher degree of conditionality to Western assistance programs could usefully ratchet up the pressure on the leadership in Kyiv to take reform steps that are in the country’s broader interest but opposed by key oligarchs or political groups who stand to lose from such reforms.

Priority should go to encouraging reform of the judicial branch, including the Constitutional Court, which has a core of judges who appear beholden to special interests. The high court reversed earlier laws requiring members of parliament and government officials to disclose their assets and could threaten other reforms.[11]

At home, the Biden administration can assist Ukraine by implementing a ban on anonymous shell companies by requiring disclosure of who actually forms companies in the United States as contained in the Corporate Transparency Act, part of the National Defense Authorization Act.[12] This will make it more difficult for corrupt Ukrainians to shelter ill-gotten gains in U.S. assets.

The Biden presidency is good news for Ukraine and those who wish to see it develop into a modern European state. It will mean more high-level but hard-nosed U.S. support. That could lead to greater progress on reform within the country. And, with some imaginative diplomacy and luck, it might even help break the logjam with Russia over resolving the fate of Donbas.

 


[1] Kramer, Andrew E. “With Trump Fading, Ukraine's President Looks to a Reset With the U.S.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, December 19, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/19/world/europe/trump-zelensky-biden-ukr....

[2] Nichols, Tom. “Trump Is Being Impeached over an Extortion Scheme, Not a 'Policy Dispute'.” USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, January 30, 2020. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/01/30/trump-impeachment-blac....

[3] Masters, Jonathan. “Ukraine: Conflict at the Crossroads of Europe and Russia.” Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations, February 5, 2020. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-crossroads-europe-and-....

[4] Iliyas, Boktakoz. “Anti-Corruption Backtracking in Ukraine – Has Ze Reform Moment Passed?” Control Risks. Control Risks Group Holdings Ltd., December 17, 2020. https://www.controlrisks.com/our-thinking/insights/anti-corruption-backt....

[5] “Ukraine Walks a Tightrope to Peace in the East.” International Crisis Group, January 29, 2020. https://www.crisisgroup.org/europe-central-asia/eastern-europe/ukraine/ukraine-walks-tightrope-peace-east.; “Ukraine Ceasefire: New Minsk Agreement Key Points.” BBC News. BBC, February 12, 2015. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31436513.

[6] Tefft, John F. “ Reflections on Russia, Ukraine and the U.S. in the Post-Soviet World.” American Foreign Service Association, n.d. https://www.afsa.org/reflections-russia-ukraine-and-us-post-soviet-world.

[7] Pompeo, Michael R. “Crimea Is Ukraine.” U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State, February 26, 2020. https://www.state.gov/crimea-is-ukraine-3/.

[8] Kranolutska, Daryna, and Volodymyr Verbyany. “Ukraine's Leader Is Being Broken by the System He Vowed to Crush.” Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, December 16, 2020. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-17/ukraine-s-leader-is-b....

[9] Subramanian, Courtney. “Explainer: Biden, Allies Pushed out Ukrainian Prosecutor Because He Didn't Pursue Corruption Cases.” USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, October 3, 2019. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-really-happ....

[10] “IMF Executive Board Approves 18-Month US$5 Billion Stand-By Arrangement for Ukraine.” International Monetary Fund. International Monetary Fund Communications Department, June 9, 2020. https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2020/06/09/pr20239-ukraine-imf-exec....

[11] “Ukraine's Constitutional Court Attacks Anti-Corruption Laws.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, November 14, 2020. https://www.economist.com/europe/2020/11/14/ukraines-constitutional-cour....

[12] Pearl, Morris. “Commentary: Congress Just Passed the Most Important Anti-Corruption Reform in Decades, but Hardly Anyone Knows about It.” Fortune. Fortune Media IP, December 26, 2020. https://fortune.com/2020/12/26/ndaa-2021-shell-companies-corporate-trans....

 

Originally for Stanford International Policy Review

Hero Image
President Joseph Biden Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
All News button
1
Subtitle

In a December 2020 New York Times interview, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky welcomed Joe Biden’s election as U.S. president. Zelensky observed that Biden “knows Ukraine better than the previous president” and “will really help strengthen relations, help settle the war in Donbas, and end the occupation of our territory.”

Subscribe to The Americas