“Teaching doesn’t stop after class—it shapes and develops into many different avenues.”

Perhaps this is a guiding belief behind Gi-Wook Shin, director of the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia Pacific Research Center (Shorenstein APARC) at Stanford.

Known for his directorship at Shorenstein APARC, Shin is also recognized as a professor of sociology and in the leading role of the Korea Program that he founded more than a decade ago. In this inaugural Faculty Spotlight Q&A, Shin talks courses, research and administration—and perhaps most poignantly—about the ongoing collaboration with students far beyond their time at Stanford.

What are you looking forward to with the Center in year 2014?

As you may know, Shorenstein APARC is entering its thirty-first year and we have much to be pleased with. Our six well-established programs are strong in their approach to interdisciplinary research and policy-oriented outcomes. As director, my goal is to support the success of these programs in broaching questions and guiding purposeful interaction between the United States and Asia.

Political transition, demographic change, and economic development are being seen at varying levels across Asia. At the same time, regional tensions continue to rise and shifting internal dynamics signal unrest. The need for dialogue and new perspectives is essential. We must ask the question: how can we constructively engage?

In February, for example, the Koret Conference will examine opportunities for the outside world to engage with North Korea. Given the current security situation, this dialogue is not incredibly easy, but it is essential. This conference will bring experts to Stanford’s campus who will create a strong policy report and offer insight into the foreign policy debate. The year ahead at Shorenstein APARC presents many opportunities for students, affiliates, and the surrounding community to become involved.

This quarter, you are teaching the course “Nations & Nationalism” and often teach a variety of comparative courses on politics and sociology – what do you find most challenging about teaching?

Shin: For me, a challenging aspect of teaching is finding a balance between teaching theory and equipping students with the tools to approach real-world problems. I do not wish for students to leave with purely theoretical and scholarly arguments; my aim is to give students the means to ask questions and prepare them to sort out today’s complex challenges.

Nationalism remains an important challenge. As we can see in Northeast Asia today, the tension among China, Japan and the Koreas speaks to the interdisciplinary relationship between nation and society—political ramifications caused in part by long-standing historical narratives. In my course, students survey major works and consider a wide range of regional and domestic factors that contribute to political identity. 

Having been at Stanford since 2001 as a senior fellow at FSI and a professor of sociology, what do you most enjoy about working here?

Shin: Stanford provides constant opportunities to learn and engage with new people. Fellows and corporate affiliates join us at Shorenstein APARC each year. It is a pleasure to meet, work and engage in conversation with such a wide variety of scholars and professionals. This is what I have enjoyed most about the Stanford community—meeting very good people in my 13 years here.

It’s especially rewarding to see my students succeed after their time at Stanford. Even after leaving campus, many of my former students continue to work in collaboration with me. For instance, I worked with Paul Chang, an assistant professor of sociology at Harvard University, on a research project on social movements in Korea, which produced articles and a book. Currently, I am working on two collaborative projects with doctorate students I previously taught—one on global talent in Korea and the other on cultural diversity in Asian higher education and corporations.

Can you tell us about your research collaboration and upcoming work?

At present, I am working on three major research projects. My first project is a collaborative one with my former student, Joon Nak Choi, who is now an assistant professor at the Hong Kong University of Science & Technology. Our book, which is currently under review by a major academic press, examines the spread of global talent from the viewpoint of social capital instead of human capital. While the “brain drain” perspective permeates most literature on global talent recruitment, we claim that the spread of global talent generates social capital, creates transnational bridges, and transfers positive returns back to the home country. As a Korean who has lived and worked in the United States for more than 30 years, this inquiry is especially salient to me.

A second project with another former student, Rennie Moon, an assistant professor at Yonsei University in Seoul, examines cultural diversity issues and challenges in Korea and Asia. We review current programs and policies in universities and corporations and investigate how promoting diversity in ethnically homogenous societies like Korea and Japan can contribute to innovation and creativity. Through this project, we seek to stimulate a much-needed conversation about the value of diversity in Korea and across Asia and what embracing diversity can mean and do for these societies. 

Similarly, I have been working on the final installment of the Divided Memories and Reconciliation project with Daniel C. Sneider, associate director for research at Shorenstein APARC. Through in-depth interviews with over 50 opinion leaders in Japan, Korea, South Korea and the United States, we have gathered and analyzed opinions on memories of the Pacific wars, which have become even more relevant as they manifest in current geopolitics. We are currently writing a book based on the interviews and this will conclude a multi-year research project on the Divided Memories that will have produced four books when this gets published.

All of these projects are based on rigorous academic research but also seek to draw policy implications and suggestions to solve real world issues and problems.

The Faculty Spotlight Q&A series highlights a different faculty member at Shorenstein APARC each month giving a personal look at his or her teaching approaches and outlook on related topics and upcoming activities.

Stanford-Sasakawa Peace Foundation New Channels Dialogue 2014

Energy Challenge and Opportunities for the United States and Japan

February 13, 2014

Bechtel Conference Center, Encina Hall, Stanford University

Sponsored and Organized by Sasakawa Peace Foundation (SPF) and Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (S-APARC) in Association with U.S.-Japan Council

Japan Studies Program at Shorenstein APARC, Stanford University has launched a three-year project from 2013 to create new channels of dialogue between experts and leaders of younger generations from the United States, mostly from the West Coast, and Japan under a name of "New Channels: Reinvigorating U.S.-Japan Relations," with the goal of reinvigorating the bilateral relationship through the dialogue on 21st century challenges faced by both nations, with a grant received from the Sasakawa Peace Foundation.

Iran should move beyond its "false nationalism" and embrace the significant benefits of a peaceful nuclear approach, Stanford scholars say.

In return, professors Siegfried Hecker and Abbas Milani wrote Jan. 21 in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the West should neither isolate nor attack Iran  – those approaches would not necessarily stop Iran from weaponizing its nuclear program if it chose to do so.

Interestingly, the Iranian government republished the Hecker-Milani article in Farsi on at least one official website. That could reflect, the scholars say, a "genuine internal debate" in Iran regarding its nuclear future directions.

Hecker is a professor in the Department of Management Science and Engineering, a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, and the institute's Center for International Security and Cooperation. He is also a former director of Los Alamos National Laboratory. Milani is the director of Iranian Studies at Stanford University and co-director of the Iran Democracy Project at the Hoover Institution. He is also an affiliated faculty member of FSI's Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law.

In an interview, Milani expressed cautious optimism. "Clearly, this is an important fact that they allowed this article to be posted on an official website. They are rethinking their nuclear program. But there are many others who will oppose it as well."

He added that Iranian reformers – who won the last presidential election – understand that the confrontational approach of Iran's hard-liners was not working. Many people are hurting due to the economic sanctions: inflation is at least 35 percent by official measures and may actually be twice that, Milani said.

South Korean model

As Hecker and Milani wrote in the article, South Korea in the last few decades has become one of the world's preeminent peaceful nuclear energy countries by focusing on the profitable parts of the middle nuclear fuel cycle — reactor component fabrication, fuel fabrication and reactor construction.

However, Hecker acknowledged, there has been talk that South Korea may be seeking consent from Washington for enrichment and reprocessing options beyond peaceful uses. He pointed out, however, that South Korea has had a peaceful nuclear program for four decades.

The problem with a weaponized approach is that it steals away the resources and expertise needed for a civilian-minded energy program, the authors stated.

"For Iran, the lesson of the South Korean experience is clear: Tehran should decide to abandon its enrichment efforts because the costs – technological, economic and political – are not worth the price of keeping the nuclear weapon option open," Hecker and Milani wrote.

When Iran's covert nuclear program was discovered in the early 2000s, the West enacted crippling economic sanctions against the country. Despite oil revenue windfalls, Iran has an economy riled by inflation and on the verge of collapse. 

There is hope. An interim nuclear agreement between Iran and the United Nations Security Council plus Germany that went into effect Jan. 20 consists of a short-term freeze of portions of Iran's nuclear program in exchange for limited sanctions relief for Iran. The idea is to give the countries time to work toward a long-term agreement.

Milani said that after the short-term agreement was reached, Iran's inflation rate began to moderate and its currency rate began to stabilize. That small bit of economic relief may bolster the reformers' argument in favor of a civilian nuclear policy.

"There are many people in Iran who want to see this issue resolved peacefully," said Milani, explaining that the hard-liners are associated with the clergy and Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

How close is Iran to a bomb?

Hecker and Milani warned of a "breakout scenario" in which Iran's centrifuge program could make enough highly enriched uranium (90 percent uranium 235) for a nuclear bomb "in a matter of months or even weeks."  The Iranian scientists would still need to craft a bomb and develop the means to deliver a nuclear weapon, which requires a high level of miniaturization.

"Iran would need a number of years of research, development and testing before it could have a reliable, missile-deliverable nuclear warhead," they wrote, noting the periodic missile threats made by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard against the United States and Israel.

In an interview, Hecker said the primary challenge now is no longer how to keep Iran from the capability, but rather "how to convince Iran it is not in its interest to build the bomb."

He noted that Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Mohammad Zarif told him that it was not in Iran's security interest to build the bomb. "In fact, he added, even the appearance of pursuing the bomb was bad for Iran's security."

As Hecker explained, completely getting rid of the Iranian bomb option is not possible through military action or sanctions with political pressure. "The only chance is through diplomatic means. We need to make it clear to the Iranian regime that they are better off without pursuing the bomb."

For now, Hecker and Milani wrote in their article, the interim agreement will temporarily prevent Iran from reaching a breakout scenario. While a delay is good, more must be done to actually stop the Iranians from militarizing their nuclear program. After all, external pressure did not stop Israel, Pakistan, India, South Africa or North Korea from building nukes.

"Such a decision, we believe, must be made internally, not externally driven," the two Stanford experts wrote.

The Iranian elite should take note of the scant returns of the country's nuclear efforts to date. "After 50 years, Iran has very little to show for its nuclear pursuit," they said.

Iran has one commercial reactor, built by the Russians and only partially ready for electricity production. Another reactor, used primarily for medical isotope production, is on its last legs. The new Iranian reactor planned for Arak is not of modern design nor suited for medical production, and presents serious proliferation concerns because it will produce plutonium suitable for bombs.

"Iran's pride and joy, the uranium centrifuge program, can enrich in one year only as much uranium as the European consortium Urenco can produce in about five hours," wrote Hecker and Milani.

Change in government

The timing may be right for a new nuclear approach, Hecker and Milani wrote. In his September 2013 speech at the United Nations, Iran's new president, Hassan Rouhani, acknowledged that other nations could have "legitimate concerns" about Iran's nuclear program.

"That admission opens up the possibility for objective debate within Iran on the economic and technical costs of its current nuclear trajectory," wrote the Stanford professors. Such a debate would include business leaders, intellectuals and a broad spectrum of civic groups advocating on behalf of the "enormous benefits" of a safe, peaceful nuclear program.

"For this to happen, the international community must of course provide reliable access to uranium and enrichment services," they wrote.

Hecker added that Washington must demonstrate that it is prepared to cooperate with Tehran on a "peaceful nuclear pursuit, and not continue to isolate it."

As for Iran, it would need to operate transparently and implement specific protocols to assure the international community that it would not return to the nuclear weapons option. Both the West and Iran need to save face on such a deal, Milani said.

He noted, "The Iranians need to make a deal that has some real concessions, but they need to sell it at home as a victory."

As Hecker put it, if the Iranians want nuclear energy and relations with the West, they need "nuclear integration, not isolation."

Clifton B. Parker is a writer for the Stanford News Service.

By Terry Nagel, Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment

Stephen W. Bosworth, a former diplomat and expert on Korea, will spend the winter quarter at Stanford as a visiting lecturer.

Bosworth was a United States ambassador to three countries: South Korea (from 1997 to 2001); the Philippines (from 1984 to 1987); and Tunisia (from 1979 to 1981).

He was the President Barack Obama’s Special Representative for North Korea Policy between 2009 and 2011 and held several other senior positions at the State Department. He was a dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and is currently a senior fellow at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

At Stanford, he will be a Payne Distinguished Lecturer at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, in residence at FSI’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center.

Prior to his arrival at Stanford University, Bosworth also served as the Director of Policy Planning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Affairs, among other senior level positions at the State Department. Bosworth co-authored Chasing the Sun, Rethinking East Asian Policy in 2006, and focuses on U.S.-Asia foreign policy, energy security and inter-governmental relations.

The Payne lectureship, named after Frank and Arthur Payne, presents prominent speakers chosen for their international reputation as leaders who emphasize visionary thinking, a broad grasp of a given field, and the capacity to engage the larger community in important issues. Former FBI Director Robert Mueller is also spending this academic year as a Payne lecturer.

Bosworth will deliver three public lectures at Stanford. His first talk will focus on his extensive experience in the diplomatic service. The public lecture and reception will take place in the Bechtel Conference Center in Encina Hall on Feb. 3. The two other lectures will address negotiations and relations between North Korea and the U.S. management of its alliance with Japan and South Korea.