Sana Sugita is a master’s student in East Asian studies. Her research interests include democracy and freedom, nationalism, identity, and the social impact of algorithms and AI.

Yifei Cheng, ’26, is excited every week to learn about unorthodox and relatively lesser-known historical figures who played a major part in Japanese history. For instance, Onodera Makoto, a Japanese military attaché, allegedly sent a telegram to the Japanese General Staff shortly after the Yalta Conference in February 1945, warning that Stalin had promised during the conference that the USSR would attack Japan three months after the German surrender. Or Kiyosawa Kiyoshi, who criticized the Manchurian Incident, Shanghai Incident, and the Sino-Japanese War, and later turned to writing diplomatic history, keeping a detailed diary during the Pacific War.

These are some of the stories Dr. Shinichi Kitaoka, a visiting scholar at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC) and Japan Program fellow, weaves into his spring quarter seminar series, Reexaminations of Major Issues in Modern Japanese Politics and Diplomacy. “It has been wonderful to hear how Dr. Kitaoka introduces us to Japanese diplomacy,” says Cheng. “With his experience as the former president of the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), he connects these facts and compares them to real occurrences in the 120 countries he has visited around the world.”

During the seminar series, students and the APARC community explored, through a fresh lens, new interpretations of major issues in Japanese politics and diplomacy from the Yedo period in the 17th century to the present day.

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our scholars' updates >

Cheng, a history major, was drawn to the seminar’s foreign policy perspective. “It helped me to see how domestic policies and foreign policy interact. I feel that often, they are treated separately. But, this has been a nice way to understand how they connect and see how internal dynamics and external pressures shape policy decisions on both fronts.”

The seminar was developed during Dr. Kitaoka’s quarter-long visiting fellowship at APARC. Kitaoka serves as special advisor to the president (and former president) of JICA, as well as emeritus professor at the University of Tokyo and ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary, deputy permanent representative of Japan to the United Nations (2004–2006).

This class originated in response to a request by Kiyoteru Tsutsui, the director of the Japan Program, due, in part, to his concern about the decline in high-quality research on Japanese politics. Kitaoka notes that current interest in Japan tends to focus on culture more than on politics and diplomacy. “I considered offering a course on Japan’s road to war, a topic I have written about in my book, From Party Politics to Militarism in Japan, 1924–1941," he says. "Instead, I decided to focus on six key topics: the Meiji restoration, Taisho democracy, surrender and occupation, the Regime of 1955, the recent development of Japan’s security policy, and Japan’s official development assistance (ODA).”

“When discussing Japanese diplomacy and history, terms such as 'fragile' and 'failed' are often used. Today, we are seeing how unstable and precarious democracy and diplomacy can be around the world. That is why I believe there are important lessons to be learned from reexamining modern Japan. This is what led me to create a class on the subject. From my experience at JICA and the United Nations, I also know how challenging democratization can be in developing countries. Studying Japan, a formerly developing country that has successfully developed, can be helpful. In particular, Japan’s unique approach to ODA offers useful insights as we think about the future.”

Each session included a 90-minute lecture followed by a Q&A, and those who wanted to stay afterward had dinner together. These more casual discussions offered a space to continue engaging with class materials and explore more questions or related topics. Kitaoka noted that he was impressed by how the students and audience responded in class. Even when the class touched on sensitive topics, like the atomic bomb and World War II, he felt they received it calmly and thoughtfully.

“There are students taking the seminar for credit, APARC members, faculty, and community members coming to listen,” Kitaoka says. “Everyone’s research interests are different, but they all ask a variety of questions based on what they know – that is something I have enjoyed at Stanford. In Japan, when there are experts or faculty members attending, students or people with less experience do not ask questions. At Stanford, everyone, no matter their background or level of expertise, asks. I really like that.”

“Staying at Stanford has been wonderful, just as I expected,” Kitaoka adds “The number of opportunities available for each student is incredible. Each person can try various things – from research and teaching assistant opportunities to club activities to startups – and the fact that the school encourages that is just great. In Japan, schools create more of an environment to just focus on one thing rather than trying a variety of activities.”. Interacting with faculty at APARC and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and reexamining his own scholarly work from a comparative perspective has been an engaging experience, Kitaoka notes. He believes that American political theory tends to be inward-focused and emphasizes the importance of comparative studies, especially given Asia’s rising global presence – making APARC’s work particularly important.

“Politics and diplomacy are important because their misunderstanding can lead to war. I am sad that they are a rather neglected,” Kitaoka said.

“Experience other civilizations while you are young – non-Western civilizations, like in Asia or Africa,” he advises young scholars aspiring to a future in political science. “It really broadens your world.”

After returning to Japan, he hopes to further contribute to international cooperation, which he believes is now in crisis. “More cooperation, the restoration of international cooperation, is needed – especially in the Western Pacific: Japan, South Korea, Southeast Asian countries, and Australia. Like the EU, I am envisioning a Western Pacific Union. I hope to do something in that direction to realize that,” he said.

Steven Han is a foreign area officer in the U.S. Army and a first-year master’s student in East Asian studies. “I took this class because I have a limited background in Japan, but with my job, there is a possibility I will work in or with Japan. I like how Kitaoka touches on all students’ comments from the response papers, and I get his own personal feedback every week.”

“Everything is new to me,” Han added. “It was just very different, and I am learning so much in every class.”

The following is a guest article written by Joan Benedict, a student from Indonesia studying at the School of International Liberal Studies at Waseda University in Japan. Joan enrolled in the 2025 SPICE/Stanford–Waseda Intensive Course: Exploring Peace in East Asia and Beyond Through the Lenses of Cultural Understanding, Education, and International Relations, which was organized by SPICE and Waseda’s Faculty of Social Sciences and taught by Meiko Kotani. The course brought together students from the Graduate School of Social Sciences, the School of Social Sciences, the Graduate School of Asia-Pacific Studies, the School of International Liberal Studies, and the School of Political Science and Economics. With participants from Japan and international students representing 10 different countries, the course created a truly dynamic and diverse learning environment.

During this year’s spring break, I had the opportunity to attend the SPICE–Waseda Intensive Course, held under the theme “Exploring Peace in East Asia and Beyond Through the Lenses of Cultural Understanding, Education, and International Relations.” The course brought together passionate students from diverse countries and backgrounds, all united by shared international experiences and a curiosity for understanding our world beyond borders. Over five days, I had eye-opening discussions with lecturers and peers that reshaped how I view peace, history, and empathy.

On the first day, Dr. Gary Mukai opened the course with a compelling session on cultural understanding through the history of Japanese American incarceration. He shared the experiences of his parents growing up as Nisei, or second-generation Japanese American, and the painful stories of families separated by national loyalty during World War II. Years later, he attempted to reconnect with his relatives in Japan, uncovering stories long buried in silence. What struck me most was how genuine and human these stories were. I realized that history is so much more complex and emotional than what formal education often conveys. Understanding the emotional weight of historical events helped me move beyond just considering what happened and how it affected my nation, and instead reflect on what it meant for the families and people who lived through it.

This theme was continued on Day 2 in Mr. Rylan Sekiguchi’s lecture. His lecture helped me understand how historical bias is often not born out of malice but from the gaps in what we’re taught. In a workshop, we read descriptions of the same historical event from four different countries. The differences in tone, word choice, and framing made me question the reliability of the “truth” I thought I knew. What moved me even more was the conversation that followed. Beyond national resentment, the participating students became genuinely curious about how others saw the same events. It made me realize that history is not just a list of facts but a collection of narratives shaped by perspective. That insight alone changed how I now view historical events and interpret news.

On Day 3, we shifted from the past to modern history and present realities with Dr. Shuoyang Meng’s lecture on transnational academic mobility. He explained how academic migration has long been a catalyst for change and intellectual development across borders. After discussing the benefits of student mobility, he also touched on the struggles international students face today, particularly around career trajectories under current policies. His lecture resonated deeply with me as an international student. It pushed me to think more critically about today’s education systems, review how international interactions unfold in the job market, and recognize the importance of cultural understanding beyond just historical context.

On Day 4, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry delivered an insightful and impactful lecture on the U.S.–China security landscape. What left the deepest impression on me was his diplomatic presence—the way he communicated complex and sensitive issues with calm, clarity, and respect. He spoke about the value of strategic empathy: the ability to understand another country’s fears, intentions, and internal logic. It made me reflect on how peace is not only shaped by policy, but also by the tone and manner in which we engage with others. His sincerity and warmth were unmistakable, grounded in decades of experience across different regions and roles. Meeting someone who doesn’t just talk about peace, but truly lives it, was a rare and inspiring experience. Wrapping up the lecture, he left with a piece of advice to step outside our comfort zones, to take risks, and to explore broadly while we are still students.

Image

Building on everything we learned throughout the week, we ended the course by presenting our peace projects. The outcomes were as diverse as our experiences, including an international charity initiative, a healthier approach to social media, and a platform for objective media coverage. Each project represented both personal reflection and a collective commitment to reimagining peace on our own terms.

By the end of this intensive course, I was able to gain new insights and challenge my assumptions about peace: that peace is not simply the absence of conflict but the presence of empathy, trust, and genuine understanding. It is built over time through conversation, learning, and meaningful connection. What I appreciated most was how every session invited me to reflect not just on global issues but also on my own position within them—how my perspective was constructed, how my history informs my interactions, and how I can choose to respond with more care and openness.

I entered this course expecting to study diplomacy and international relations. I left with something more enduring: a community of admirable students from diverse backgrounds and experiences and the realization that peace begins with how we choose to engage—with our words, our listening, our questions, and our actions. More than an academic experience, it was a personal journey toward becoming a more thoughtful and responsible global citizen.

To stay informed of SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

The following is a guest article written by Ryoya Shinozaki, who traveled to the San Francisco Bay Area with other graduate students from the University of Tokyo—under the leadership of Professor Hideto Fukudome—in January 2025. SPICE/Stanford collaborates closely with the Graduate School of Education at the University of Tokyo and met with the students during their visit to the Bay Area.

Mariko Yang-Yoshihara’s lecture on STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics) education encouraged me to think about the relationship between language and interdisciplinary learning in a new way. Instead of asking how STEAM can support English education, I began to ask whether language education—particularly through CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning)—could offer something valuable to STEAM education itself, highlighting the need to integrate a human-centered perspective into the traditional STEM framework.

Image

CLIL and STEAM differ in their main objectives. CLIL focuses on learning both content and language simultaneously, often grounded in language acquisition theories such as Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory. STEAM, in contrast, emphasizes creative and integrated thinking across science, technology, engineering, the arts, and mathematics. Yang-Yoshihara’s lecture emphasized that the “A” in STEAM more precisely represents a human-centered perspective rooted in a liberal arts education. Language is typically seen as a communication tool, not a learning target. However, the two approaches share several features, including real-world relevance, student-centered learning, and compatibility with project-based formats.

If integrated carefully, a CLIL-STEAM model could support a wide range of learners. Students preparing for global careers could benefit from learning technical content in English. STEM-strong but English-challenged students might gain confidence through contextual language use. Vocational students could develop workplace-relevant communication skills by engaging in collaborative STEAM tasks. CLIL also offers techniques that could enhance students’ experiences in STEAM-focused learning. One is scaffolding, which helps learners express complex ideas through sentence frames, model texts, and structured support. Another is the practice of dual objectives, where teachers set both content and language goals. Finally, dual-focused assessment allows instructors to evaluate both what students know and how effectively they communicate it.

Image

These strategies could help make English-medium STEAM learning more accessible and effective. During our conversation, Yang-Yoshihara reflected on the STEAM-focused educational interventions used at SKY Labo, a non-profit initiative she co-founded. In SKY Labo’s bilingual design thinking workshops targeting middle and high school-aged students in Japan, responses have been mixed—some appreciated the immersive English environment and signed up for the program for that reason, while others felt that the complex topics required deeper understanding through their own native language. This tension highlights the importance of flexible program design that balances linguistic immersion with accessibility, based on students’ experiences in STEAM-focused learning.

To stay informed of SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

The following is a guest article written by Yuri Tsutsumi, who traveled to the San Francisco Bay Area with other graduate students from the University of Tokyo—under the leadership of Professor Hideto Fukudome—in January 2025. SPICE/Stanford collaborates closely with the Graduate School of Education at the University of Tokyo and met with the students during their visit to the Bay Area.

Arriving at Jtown Pizza Co. on North 6th Street, our meeting place for the Japantown study tour in Downtown San Jose led by Dr. Gary Mukai, I noticed a striking contrast between the scenery to the east and west sides of the street. On the east side stood brand-new, reinforced-concrete construction apartment buildings, while on the west side was an ivory-colored, two-story wooden building with an archaic balcony. Right beside it, I spotted a restaurant sign reading “Minato,” a familiar Japanese proper name. As I walked out onto Jackson Street, I saw more signboards of stores and restaurants related to Japan and Hawaii. In the United States, it’s probably not unusual for the atmosphere of a neighborhood to noticeably change just bygoing straight down a street, but here it felt especially distinctive. Photo of Jtown Pizza Co. (below) courtesy the Graduate School of Education at the University of Tokyo. 

Image

The few-block area known as “Nihonmachi”—Japantown in Downtown San Jose—has retained much of its original appearance to this day. Local Japanese American organizations—as well as non-Japanese Americans, including Chinese Americans—have made great efforts to preserve and revitalize Japantown, including its once neighboring Heinlenville, a former site of a Chinatown in San Jose. Jtown Pizza Co. now occupies what was once a Chinese restaurant called Ken Ying Low. In addition to preserving Japantown as a historic area, the Japanese American Museum of San Jose was established in 1987. The museum showcases Japanese American life from the earliest generation of immigrants to the postwar period. Artifacts like soy sauce barrels and numerous farming tools offered me a glimpse into the lives of 19th-century Japanese American farmers. A wide range of historical archives on wartime internment, along with a recreated barracks room interior and exterior from one of the camps that gave off a dusty smell, allowed me to imagine the harsh conditions endured by internees. Through this study tour, I came to realize that, although many years have passed and the environment surrounding Japanese Americans has drastically changed, the everyday lives of 19th-century Japanese American farmers and those interned during the war shared much in common with our lives in Japan today—e.g., keeping a soy sauce barrel for planting, playing baseball and sumo with close friends and neighbors on weekends, going to a local bathhouse, and so on. Thanks to the people dedicated to preserving Japantown’s heritage and passing it down to future generations, I was able to catch a glimpse of what everyday life was like back then.

In graduate school, I came to appreciate once again how much I can learn from academic books and papers digitally archived in the university library. Those learnings were, of course, invaluable—yet at the same time, this study tour made me realize how much more I could learn by engaging all five senses. During the tour, there were the firsthand stories of Japanese Americans, the scent of dust in the reconstructed camp room at the museum, the umami-rich taste of loco moco gravy at the Hawaiian restaurant Hukilau where we had lunch during the tour, the strong California sunlight breaking through the clouds, and the texture of the wooden buildings. Although there are many ways and tools to learn, stepping beyond the university library to immerse myself in other people’s lives holds deeply important meaning. What makes this kind of learning possible are the people who continue to play a crucial role in maintaining the vitality of Japantown, the museum that collects, preserves and shares Japanese American history, and the generous financial support that sustain these efforts. I am truly grateful for this opportunity and hope that these learning experiences, which gave me insight into past generations of Japanese Americans, will continue to be offered to future generations.

To stay informed of SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

Jessie Kong: Every year, SJEC puts on a week-long, entirely student-run, exchange program for 20-25 visiting Japanese students from Keio, Doshisha, and Kyoto Universities. Through this programming, we strive to provide authentic insights into Stanford academics, extracurriculars, and lifestyle by having the Japanese students join our lives and develop bonding experiences. 

As one of the co-presidents of SJEC this year, my work has centered around coordinating the entire team of Stanford officers, delegating tasks between teams, communicating with and preparing the Japanese students, and facilitating activities during the conference.

Through leading SJEC this year, I have realized the importance of dedication and commitment when planning these activities. My previous years in SJEC leading the social team has also shown me how to plan events from start to finish in an efficient way that leverages the capabilities of everyone on the team while focusing on the experience for the Japanese students. I think being able to put the group's interest above my own was also a good skill I learned while in the co-president position.

Socially, I have been able to build connections both for myself and other Stanford students with the Japanese student community. Starting with SJEC, I was able to meet and take care of visiting Japanese students at Stanford, and this effort was reciprocated when I went to study abroad through the BOSP Kyoto program. Being able to feel the reciprocity of my efforts in SJEC only makes me more motivated to continue working in SJEC to create a good experience for more Japanese students who visit in the future.
 

Yifei Cheng: The main event from our organization this year is the FACES annual summit that took place in January 2025. We invited 40 college students from Chinese and American universities to engage in dialogue about US-China relations on Stanford campus. As the president of FACES, I was involved in candidate selection and planning the summit schedule. I also took the initiative to organize the summit field trip at the Angel Island Immigration Facility. 

Through the lecture of Professor Gordon H. Chang on the persecution of Chinese scientists during the McCarthy Era, I learned about the repeated interlocks between politics and academia in the US, which has significant contemporary repercussions with the current administration's restrictions of student visas and immigration process. 

The FACES summit also enhanced my understanding of diplomacy on a personal level. This experience taught me that cultural exchange isn’t about reaching agreement—it’s about creating a shared space where different truths can coexist. I learned to listen across differences, become comfortable with discomfort, and see the value in ambiguity. These lessons have reshaped how I engage in conversations not only about geopolitics, but also about identity, equity, and belonging more broadly.

I gained concrete organizational skills with managing timelines, delegating tasks, and staying calm when things went wrong—like when the hotel rooming list gets wrong and messy. I also learned that leadership is less about control and more about creating the conditions for others to grow. I facilitated the daily reflection session during the summit. As the discussion facilitator, I found it rewarding to moderate discussions where sometimes disagreements arise. I think this is a valuable skill for my academic and professional development. 
 

Aimen Ejaz and Luv Jawahrani: This year, in its inaugural term, the Stanford Indo-Pak Dosti Forum (SIPDF)achieved what many said was impossible: bringing together Indians and Pakistanis in the same room – voluntarily – twice a week.

In the fall, we launched INTNL REL 47SI: Bridging the Divide, a student-initiated course focused on the political and economic dimensions of India-Pakistan relations. The class brought together prominent individuals concerned about peace-building, ranging from former Indian and Pakistani ambassadors who’d been involved in negotiating peace to professors from the Stanford Graduate School of Business (GSB), to research fellows at the Hoover Institute and the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), and veteran journalists who have covered the subcontinent for decades.

In spring, we co-taught GLOBAL 47SI: Building Bridges—a course that spotlights cross-border entrepreneurship as a tool for soft diplomacy. We invited legendary South Asian entrepreneurs and venture capitalists from both sides of the border: Mamoon Hamid (Managing Director at Kleiner Perkins), Samir Kaul (Managing Director at Khosla Ventures), Amit Patel (Managing Director at Owl Ventures), Bilal Zuberi (Partner at Lux Capital), and Anand Swaminathan (Senior Partner at McKinsey), among others. The goal? To explore how venture-building, innovation, and chai-fueled resilience can outpace political gridlock.

Academically, co-leading our student-led initiative taught us more than any textbook ever could, mostly because we had to build the syllabus ourselves. And we didn’t just co-lead — we co-dreamed and co-hustled, getting the syllabi approved by multiple departments and cold-emailing, even chasing down, speakers from across the U.S.

In designing INTNL REL 47SI: Bridging the Divide, we dove headfirst into the complexities of India-Pakistan political and economic relations. But we didn’t stop at reading IR theory. We debated it with the very diplomats and policymakers who once shaped those theories in real time. Every week became a crash course in postcolonial statecraft, regional security, and the surprisingly human side of high diplomacy.

Then came GLOBAL 47SI: Building Bridges, where we shifted from conflict to collaboration, exploring how entrepreneurship can serve as a tool of soft power. Through case studies, guest lectures, and our own classroom debates, we began asking whether a startup pitch can accomplish  what politicians can't. What happens when innovation moves faster than diplomacy? And what does it mean when the biggest South Asian venture capitalist in the world funds a startup founded by someone from the "other" side?

More than anything, we learned how to turn theory into action. Whether it was teaching concepts like diaspora diplomacy or moderating discussions between venture capitalists and undergrads, we were constantly translating complex ideas into real-world conversations. We didn’t just learn. We taught, we built, and we questioned everything along the way.

Culturally and socially, our student-led initiative felt less like organizing a class and more like hosting weekly peace talks, with chai and biryani. We came in thinking we were building a curriculum; we ended up navigating generations of silence, suspicion, and identity.

We learned that Partition isn’t just a historical event–it’s a living memory passed down through stories and subconscious hesitation. It’s in the way some students avoid eye contact when the topic turns political, or how others lower their voices when mentioning where their family is really from. But we also learned that these barriers can soften when people feel safe enough to speak, and laugh, together.

We watched students from India and Pakistan, often meeting for the first time, begin to open up. Conversations that started stiffly turned into long debates, jokes, shared Desi Spotify playlists, and sometimes even plans to visit each other’s cities, if our countries ever allow it. We learned that vulnerability—especially in a region taught to fear it—is a radical act. And that our generation is more ready than we think to rewrite the script we inherited.

There were moments when we questioned whether this initiative was worth it. When we received backlash online for platforming certain voices. When a class discussion got tense and uncomfortable. When friends warned us that this was “too political,” “too idealistic,” “too risky.” And we didn’t always have the perfect response.

But leadership, we realized, isn’t about always being right. It’s about being rooted in a vision that peace isn’t naïve — it’s necessary. That bridging divides isn’t weakness—it’s the only strength that can outlast hate. And when things fell apart — when a high-profile speaker pulled out at the last minute, or a student pushed back hard in class — we didn’t pivot away from our mission. We dug deeper. We turned cancellations into teachable moments. We turned criticism into conversation. Most importantly, we learned to trust ourselves and to trust that our generation doesn’t have to inherit the silence, the suspicion, and the separation.

The following is a guest article written by Wenxin Fu, a student from China studying at the Graduate School of Asia Pacific Studies at Waseda University in Japan. Wenxin enrolled in the 2025 SPICE/Stanford–Waseda Intensive Course: Exploring Peace in East Asia and Beyond Through the Lenses of Cultural Understanding, Education, and International Relations, which was organized by SPICE and Waseda’s Faculty of Social Sciences and taught by Meiko Kotani. The course brought together students from the Graduate School of Social Sciences, the School of Social Sciences, the Graduate School of Asia-Pacific Studies, the School of International Liberal Studies, and the School of Political Science and Economics. With participants from Japan and international students representing 10 different countries, the course created a truly dynamic and diverse learning environment.

If I had to pick out a few moments that reshaped how I see things, two come to mind. The first was in what seemed like an ordinary seminar classroom in the UK where I experienced, not exactly a cultural shock, but a striking contrast between the student-led discussions there and the education system I grew up with in mainland China. The second is this time, through the 2025 SPICE–Waseda program, where I encountered not just diversity, but a sense of collaborative equality, where difference didn’t translate into distance or hierarchy.

In both instances, I was far from my home country—surrounded by faces of different colors, speaking my second language, and engaging in conversations that ranged from broad theoretical questions to concrete, real-world issues. But the experiences felt very different. Back then, I was trying hard to blend in, to insert myself into a conversation shaped by others. I wanted a seat at the table, not just physically present, but to be part of the actual dialogue. This time, however, diversity felt less sharp, less hierarchical. Skin color didn’t map onto power relationships, and the usual lines between who’s “in” and who’s “out” felt blurred. I felt more comfortable speaking up, and more importantly, I felt genuinely heard.

I think this contrast also speaks to a commonly criticized tendency in international relations theory to center the dominant voices of the world’s most powerful countries. There’s now a growing emphasis on the globally relevant, rather than the globally dominant. That’s why this program’s focus on East Asia resonated so deeply with me, not only because I’m from the region, but because I’m eager to engage with perspectives and lived experiences that reflect the richness and complexity of the region. These are stories often told less loudly, but no less powerfully. This aligns with what we were often encouraged to do throughout the course: to anchor our reflections in personal experience.

And it’s also why I want this reflection to stay personal.

To be honest, even after a full semester as an international relations major, I still struggle to articulate anything truly meaningful about shifting global dynamics, geopolitical tensions, or the strategic calculus of major powers. Coming from a media studies background, I often feel I lack the kind of structural, macro-level thinking that international relations seem to require, and I’m rarely confident in how I speak about it. But still, one thing is clear to me: we don’t need to be experts to understand how important peace is. It’s not just a theory, it shapes our everyday lives and connects all of us through our shared hopes and fears. While international relations theories often emerge in response to crisis, it’s peace that fills most of our time on this planet. And peace isn’t just the pause between wars. It’s something that takes effort, patience, and long-term commitment. That’s what we should really be focusing on.

Image

When we ask ourselves how to contribute to something as vast as peace, I found this course offered both clarity and encouragement. It didn’t stick only to traditional international relations theories themselves, but brought in topics like cultural understanding, education, migration and mobility, and identity. Each day added a new layer, helping me connect big ideas to real-life issues. Looking back at the course title, I noticed the word “intensive.” I was mentally prepared for five days packed with lectures, seminars, group work, and a final project under pressure. But what I encountered was something else entirely. There wasn’t pressure to impress—just space to think and share. The assigned readings were meaningful but not overwhelming, and the discussions felt open and welcoming. I showed up, I listened, I reflected, I exchanged. I was inspired, not in bursts, but in a steady, unfolding way. Ideas moved, and so did I. That was the most rewarding kind of intensity for me.

I’m grateful for the way this program was designed, for the freedom to move at our own pace, and to learn in a space that felt both focused and generous. Thanks not only to my teammates, but also to the organizers who made this possible. Our group included undergraduates, master’s, and PhD students. I had concerns at first that our different nationalities, academic backgrounds, and levels of experience might lead to friction. But as we worked together on the contemporary challenges related to peace-building, I saw something quietly powerful: a shared spirit of curiosity, openness, and care. What moved between us was real peace and love, flowing quietly in the smallest units, from one person to another, and beyond.

To stay informed of SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

As the global geopolitical landscape shifts and the United States redefines its role on the world stage, Japan, its closest ally in the Asia-Pacific, faces mounting expectations and emerging opportunities. In recognition of this critical juncture, APARC’s Japan Program and the United States-Japan Foundation convened a timely symposium at Stanford University, Recalibrating U.S.-Japan Collaboration in a Time of Tumult. The event brought together scholars, policymakers, and practitioners to explore how U.S.-Japan relations are adapting to new global realities. Over the course of five thematic sessions, participants engaged in a dialogue that spanned foreign policy, international trade, social governance, civil society, and even the cultural diplomacy of baseball.

📄  Get the event highlights below

📹  Watch the symposium sessions on our YouTube channel >

🔗  Read Nikkei coverage of the event >

📧  Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our event invitations and guest speaker insights >

The opening session, “Global Democracy, Foreign Aid, and Regional Security: As the U.S. Pulls Back, Will Tokyo Step Up?,” featured Larry Diamond, Mosbacher Senior Fellow of Global Democracy at Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute, Shinichi Kitaoka, former Japanese ambassador to the United Nations and past president of the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), along with APARC Japan Program Director Kiyoteru Tsutsui. Together, they examined Japan’s potential to assume a greater leadership role in defending democratic norms and providing regional public goods in an era of American retrenchment. The discussion underscored both Japan’s growing capacity and its constitutional and cultural constraints.

In the second session, “How Tariffs and Trade Wars are Reshaping the Indo-Pacific,” Wendy Cutler of the Asia Society Policy Institute and Peter Wonacott of the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability reflected on the disruptions facing global trade. Drawing on their experience in economic policy and journalism, respectively, they traced how protectionist policies and decoupling strategies are altering regional supply chains. Their analysis emphasized the importance of maintaining open trade flows while also reinforcing economic resilience across the Indo-Pacific.

The third session, “The Future of DEI, ESG, SDGs: Will Japan Follow the U.S. or Stay the Course?,” focused on evolving norms around corporate and social governance. Keiko Tashiro, deputy president at Daiwa Securities Group, joined Gayle Peterson of Oxford’s Saïd Business School and Stanford sociologist Patricia Bromley to evaluate whether Japan’s institutions will align with American trends or continue along a distinct trajectory. Panelists discussed Japan’s historically unique approach to equity and sustainability, noting the domestic implementation of global frameworks such as the UN-sanctioned Sustainable Development Goals.

The fourth session, “Redefining the Relationship Through Civil Society: Burden Sharing, Knowledge Sharing, Picking up the Slack,” included remarks from Mike Berkowitz of the Democracy Funders Network, Laura Deal Lacey of the Milken Institute, and Jacob M. Schlesinger, president and CEO of the United States-Japan Foundation, who explored how non-state actors are increasingly stepping in to fill voids left by governments. The conversation highlighted the growing role of philanthropic networks and think tanks in shaping bilateral cooperation, particularly in areas such as disaster response, democratic resilience, and public diplomacy.

Capping the day’s proceedings was the session titled “Diamond Diplomacy Redux: Baseball as a Bilateral Bridge.” Featuring Stan Kasten, president and CEO of the Los Angeles Dodgers, and Yuriko Gamo Romer, director of the documentary “Diamond Diplomacy,” the discussion viewed U.S.-Japan relations from a cultural diplomacy perspective. The two reflected on the enduring symbolism of baseball in forging people-to-people ties, illustrating how shared pastimes can foster mutual understanding even amid geopolitical uncertainty.

The symposium served as a vital platform for reassessing the U.S.-Japan alliance in a period marked by shifting global norms. As the international system undergoes profound change, the panelists indicated that the robust partnerships must evolve not only through diplomacy and defense but also across the realms of trade, governance, civil society, and cultural exchange.

The following is a guest article written by Lindsay Baltzell, a student from the United States studying at the School of International Liberal Studies at Waseda University in Japan. Lindsay enrolled in the 2025 SPICE/Stanford–Waseda Intensive Course: Exploring Peace in East Asia and Beyond Through the Lenses of Cultural Understanding, Education, and International Relations, which was organized by SPICE and Waseda’s Faculty of Social Sciences and taught by Meiko Kotani. The course brought together students from the Graduate School of Social Sciences, the School of Social Sciences, the Graduate School of Asia-Pacific Studies, the School of International Liberal Studies, and the School of Political Science and Economics. With participants from Japan and international students representing 10 different countries, the course created a truly dynamic and diverse learning environment.

Stanford’s SPICE course conducted at Waseda University was a perfect opportunity to engage with the subjects I’m interested in among like-minded individuals and under the instruction of teachers with diverse yet equally valuable experiences. I was incredibly impressed with what the course was able to achieve over the course of just five days, and I left feeling more informed and inspired than when I came in.

Each lecture was engaging and concise and allowed participants to ask questions and share ideas as valued voices in the discussions. Each lecturer was receptive and responsive to what participants shared, and the topics covered were different, but related, which helped me build connections between ideas. I felt like an equal among people of diverse backgrounds and educational levels, and I believe my contributions were honored and respected. This type of atmosphere was achievable because of the care put into the course’s coordination, from the staff’s openness and willingness to communicate to the time allocated for questions and discussion.

Students were able to draw upon the lecture content to support their own presentations on the last day of the course. Initially, I was intimidated by the idea of preparing a presentation within just a few days, but everyone came together to produce thoughtful, well-informed, and unique presentations. I learned just as much from my peers’ interests and perspectives during this process as I did from the scheduled lectures. Of course, I believe this was partly due to the students themselves, but such a motivated, engaged, and intelligent group was drawn in by the course’s design (i.e., the topic of the course, being scheduled over our spring break/voluntary, being open to several departments). It was a pleasure to be able to spend time learning with these people, and we have continued to keep in touch since the course ended.

Image

A few memorable moments come to mind: 1) Dr. Mukai’s presentation, which I found extremely touching. His and the other presentations provided a good balance between teaching practical lessons and using pathos to bring empathy into the complex topics that were covered. What I loved about Dr. Mukai’s presentation in particular was the positive notes strung throughout that left me feeling motivated to do good work rather than discouraged by our history or the state of the world. This attitude was emblematic of the entire course. 2) The conversations with my peers, which spanned more areas of interest, expertise, and experience than I could have ever anticipated. I have been in environments like that before where there is an undeniable sense of comradery and outspokenness that everyone can appreciate—but I still believe this group was exceptional. This course was as much about being a member of a team and a dynamic ‘community’ as it was about meeting and learning from professionals in relevant fields of research.

I think this course exceeded in encouraging participation by allowing students from different faculties and education levels to participate, and by inviting guest lecturers who were excited to share their wisdom and research with us. I commend the coordinators for their obvious passion for this project and their respectful and sincere approach to speaking with the students. There was also ample time built into the course schedule for us to work on our group presentations, which helped eliminate my initial fear of a strenuous workload. Overall, I left the course with a better sense of the various topics that could fall under the title “Exploring Peace in East Asia and Beyond Through the Lenses of Cultural Understanding, Education, and International Relations.” It is a course I will be recommending to my friends and classmates.

To stay informed of SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

The following is a guest article written by Makoto Nagasawa, who traveled to the San Francisco Bay Area with other graduate students from the University of Tokyo—under the leadership of Professor Hideto Fukudome—in January 2025. Makoto is also an Associate Professor at Saitama University. SPICE/Stanford collaborates closely with the Graduate School of Education at the University of Tokyo and met with the students during their visit to the Bay Area.

In a contemporary world where knowledge is instantly accessible and the digitalization of education is accelerating, the value of gathering in physical spaces and learning together is being re-evaluated. The intensive seminar on international and cross-cultural education held in the San Francisco Bay Area in late January 2025 vividly demonstrated the unique appeal of in-person global education and the potential for learning that digital platforms alone cannot replicate.

This seminar—a collaboration between the Center for Advanced School Education and Evidence-Based Research (CASEER) at the University of Tokyo and SPICE at Stanford University—was not merely a venue for acquiring knowledge but a precious opportunity for participants to encounter the world through direct exposure and gain new perspectives through interaction with others. The firsthand experience of the current state of elite higher education institutions in the Bay Area, a bastion of liberalism, was an invaluable lesson in understanding live social dynamics.

On the first day at Stanford University, SPICE experts shared a wide range of insights on international and cross-cultural education. Among these, Mariko Yang-Yoshihara’s lecture, which utilized Stanford Professor Ge Wang’s video, provided participants with a stimulating experience to deeply consider the “creation of learning” from non-traditional approaches that transcend existing frameworks. Furthermore, the in-person workshops based on digitally pre-assigned tasks served as an interactive learning environment where first-time participants could share their knowledge and experiences and deepen discussions, fostering a sense of solidarity that is difficult to achieve online. The direct dialogue with Gary Mukai and other SPICE members proved to be of great significance in infusing academic knowledge with real-world context and building human connections. During the sessions at Stanford (photo below courtesy Makoto Nagasawa) students’ laptops were open, and their minds even more so as learning came alive at Stanford with SPICE experts at the table.

Image

Moreover, visits to cultural areas such as San Francisco’s Chinatown, San Jose’s Japan town and the Japanese American Museum, and the Angel Island Immigration Station were indispensable experiences for connecting knowledge learned in the classroom with the realities of society. In particular, encountering the history of Japanese Americans and the hardships faced by immigrants provided an opportunity to deeply understand the historical experiences of different communities and the complex paths through which present-day society has been shaped. During Gary’s tour of San Jose’s Japan town, he helped to bring the history of Japan town to life by asking the students to compare old photos—page by page—from the early 20th century to the present-day buildings and surroundings; photo below courtesy Makoto Nagasawa.

Image

“The only source of knowledge is experience,” as Einstein said, a quote mentioned during Professor Stephen Murphy-Shigematsu’s lecture at Stanford. This highlights that experience gained by being present in a place and engaging all five senses remains crucial in grasping the essence of learning, even in today’s increasingly digital world. The sense of presence and enthusiasm gained through co-learning in classrooms, direct dialogue with faculty and fellow participants, and fieldwork are the unique appeals of in-person education that cannot be fully experienced through online-only education.

Through this overseas intensive seminar, participants reaffirmed the significance of the physical presence of universities, the importance of learning together in person, and the value of walking the world with their own feet and experiencing it directly. Even as digital tools evolve, the deep learning and acquisition of diverse perspectives that arise from human interaction are the wellspring of wisdom and power to navigate the complexities of modern society. 

To stay informed of SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.