FSI researchers strive to understand how countries relate to one another, and what policies are needed to achieve global stability and prosperity. International relations experts focus on the challenging U.S.-Russian relationship, the alliance between the U.S. and Japan and the limitations of America’s counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan.
Foreign aid is also examined by scholars trying to understand whether money earmarked for health improvements reaches those who need it most. And FSI’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center has published on the need for strong South Korean leadership in dealing with its northern neighbor.
FSI researchers also look at the citizens who drive international relations, studying the effects of migration and how borders shape people’s lives. Meanwhile FSI students are very much involved in this area, working with the United Nations in Ethiopia to rethink refugee communities.
Trade is also a key component of international relations, with FSI approaching the topic from a slew of angles and states. The economy of trade is rife for study, with an APARC event on the implications of more open trade policies in Japan, and FSI researchers making sense of who would benefit from a free trade zone between the European Union and the United States.
Russia-Ukraine: A Negotiated Settlement will be Difficult
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs
All wars come to an end. One side may be conquered, the attacker may give up and withdraw, or the warring parties can negotiate a settlement. Whether Russia’s unjustified war on Ukraine gets to a genuine negotiation depends first on whether Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin adjust their demands. Lack of success on the battlefield may give reason to do so, but the Kremlin has yet to show real readiness to engage. Even if Moscow gets serious, the negotiation will prove difficult.
A Failing Offensive?
Russian forces invaded Ukraine on February 24. To the surprise of many in Moscow, Ukrainian armed forces have waged a stubborn, determined and effective defense. Russian officials claim that military operations are proceeding according to plan, but few share that view.
Russia’s armed forces have clearly underperformed. They failed to occupy Kyiv, believed to be their top objective. Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second largest city sited just 20 miles from the Russian border, remains in Ukrainian hands. The Russians continue to struggle to gain Mariupol, which they have subjected to brutal bombardment. Moscow says it has lost 1,351 soldiers killed in action, but NATO officials estimate the true number lies between 7,000 and 15,000.
In what may be implicit acknowledgment of the difficulties the Russian military has encountered, Russian officials have said their main goal now is “the liberation” of Donbas in Ukraine’s east. The Russian ministry of defense claimed to be withdrawing some forces near Kyiv, but U.S. officials questioned whether they intended a withdrawal or planned simply to reposition forces, perhaps to take part in operations in Donbas.
Negotiating Positions on the Table
Moscow earlier in the war advanced maximalist demands: denazification, demilitarization, neutrality, recognition of Crimea as part of Russia, and recognition of the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk “people’s republics” as independent states. On March 29 in Istanbul, Ukrainian negotiators put forward Kyiv’s proposals. On March 30, Kremlin spokesperson Peskov downplayed the proposals, saying they were not “too promising.”
If—still an if question—Moscow decides to engage seriously, tough negotiations would ensue.
One Russian demand is denazification, which seems a code phrase for a change in government in Kyiv, a government headed by a Jewish president. In view of Ukraine’s performance on the battlefield, there is no reason to think President Zelensky or his government would agree.
A second Russian demand is demilitarization. By one account, the Kremlin wants Ukraine to cut its armed forces to no more than 50,000. The Ukrainian government has little incentive to reduce its military, as doing so would leave the country open to a future Russian invasion.
The third demand—neutrality for Ukraine—at first glance appears negotiable. Zelensky has said Kyiv should accept that NATO membership is not on offer. His negotiators have proposed neutral status, no hosting of foreign bases, and no pursuit of nuclear weapons, but they want security guarantees in return, including a commitment to use armed force in Ukraine’s defense.
Would Western countries with meaningful military power commit to a possible future armed conflict with Russia? And would Moscow consent to a settlement with guarantees entailing the possibility of such future intervention?
Moreover, how does the Kremlin define “neutrality?” Two weeks ago, Peskov indicated that Austria and Sweden might offer models for Ukrainian neutrality. Both are European Union members. Would Moscow agree to that possibility for Ukraine? Kyiv has made clear its continued interest in EU membership.
Moscow’s fourth demand is that Kyiv recognize Crimea as part of Russia. In 2014, Russia used military force to seize Crimea and annexed it following a sham referendum. Many Ukrainians likely understand that they lack the leverage to secure the peninsula’s return. However, formally acknowledging that could cause a domestic political backlash. Kyiv has offered to agree not to use force to secure Crimea’s return and to settle the peninsula’s status within 15 years. Russian officials say that Crimea’s status is not on the table.
The final Russian demand is that Kyiv recognize the Donetsk and Luhansk “people’s republics” as independent states. That could also be tough for Kyiv domestically, particularly as Moscow recognized the statelets’ independence in their Ukrainian oblast borders. Prior to February 24, Russian and Russian proxy forces controlled only 35 percent of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Kyiv has proposed that this question be resolved directly between Zelensky and Putin.
Leave the Decision to Kyiv
Kyiv’s proposals offer a serious bid to end the war. Zelensky clearly wants a halt to the fighting, as more Ukrainians die each day, but he is not prepared to give away the store. Any negotiation will require tough decisions on the settlement terms—decisions that should be made by Zelensky and his government, as any compromises could prove controversial in a country that has united against the Russian aggressor.
U.S. officials believe the West should not press Kyiv to accept any particular outcome but should leave those decisions to the Ukrainians. The White House made that clear on March 29. That is the correct approach for Washington and the West.
However, no real negotiation will be possible unless and until the Kremlin recognizes that it cannot achieve its objectives by force and that it will have to back off of its maximalist demands. If and when matters reach that point, the hard bargaining will begin.
* * * * *
Hero Image
Russian President Vladimir Putin (left) and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (right)
photo credit: TASS News Agency_WikiCommons and REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
All News button
1
Subtitle
All wars come to an end. One side may be conquered, the attacker may give up and withdraw, or the warring parties can negotiate a settlement.
Japan’s Foreign Policy in the Aftermath of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine
-
Image
April 18, 5:00 p.m - 6:30 p.m. PT / April 19, 9:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. JT
Russia’s invasion in Ukraine has transformed the landscape of international security in a multitude of ways and reshaped foreign policy in many countries. How did it impact Japan’s foreign policy? From nuclear sharing to the Northern Territories, it sparked new debates in Japan about how to cope with Putin’s Russia and the revised international order. With NATO reenergized and the United States having to recommit some resources in Europe, how should Japan counter an expansionist China, an emboldened North Korea, and a potentially hamstrung Russia to realize its vision of Free and Open Indo-Pacific? What might be the endgame in Ukraine and how would it impact the clash of liberal and authoritarian forces in the Indo-Pacific region? Featuring two leading experts on world politics and Japan’s foreign policy, this panel tackles these questions and charts a way forward for Japan.
Yoko Iwama is Professor of National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS). She is also the director of Security and Strategy Program and Maritime Safety and Security Program at GRIPS.
She graduated from Kyoto University in 1986 and earned her PhD in Law. Having served as Research Assistant of Kyoto University (1994–97), Special Assistant of the Japanese Embassy in Germany (1998–2000), and Associate Professor at GRIPS (2000), she was appointed Professor at GRIPS in 2009. She was a student at the Free University of Berlin between 1989-1991, where she witnessed the end the reunification of the two Germanies.
Her specialty is international security and European diplomatic history centering on NATO, Germany, and nuclear strategy.
Her publications include John Baylis and Yoko Iwama (ed.) Joining the Non-Proliferation Treaty: Deterrence, Non-Proliferation and the American Alliance, (Routledge 2018); “Unified Germany and NATO,” (in Keiichi Hirose/ Tomonori Yoshizaki (eds.) International Relation of NATO, Minerva Shobo, 2012).
Her newest book The 1968 Global Nuclear Order and West Germany appeared in August 2021 in Japanese. She is working on a co-authored book on the origins and evolution of the nuclear-sharing in NATO and a co-authored book on the Neutrals, the Non-aligned countries and the NPT.
Hiroyuki Akita is a Commentator of Nikkei. He regularly writes commentaries, columns, and analysis focusing on foreign and international security affairs. He joined Nikkei in 1987 and worked at the Political News Department from 1998 to 2002 where he covered Japanese foreign policy, security policy, and domestic politics. Akita served as Senior & Editorial Staff Writer from 2009 to 2017, and also worked at the “Leader Writing Team ” of the Financial Times in London in late 2017.
Akita graduated from Jiyu Gakuen College in 1987 and Boston University (M.A.). From 2006 to 2007, he was an associate of the US-Japan Program at Harvard University, where he conducted research on US-China-Japan relations. In March 2019, he won the Vaughn-Ueda International Journalist Award, a prize for outstanding reporting of international affairs. He is an author of two books in Japanese: “Anryu (Power Game of US-China-Japan)”(2008), and “Ranryu (Strategic Competition of US-Japan and China)”(2016).
Kiyoteru Tsutsui is the Henri H. and Tomoye Takahashi Professor, Professor of Sociology, Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, and Deputy Director of the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, where he is also Director of the Japan Program. 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, 2021).
FSI Contact
Kana Igarashi LimpanukornKiyoteru Tsutsui
Via Zoom Webinar
Yoko Iwama
Professor & Center Director
National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS)
Hiroyuki Akita
Commentator
Nikkei
The War in Ukraine and the Prospects for Peace
-
For spring quarter 2022, CISAC will be hosting hybrid events. Many events will offer limited-capacity in-person attendance for Stanford faculty, staff, fellows, visiting scholars, and students in accordance with Stanford’s health and safety guidelines, and be open to the public online via Zoom. All CISAC events are scheduled using the Pacific Time Zone.
About the event: A panel of Stanford experts presents an update on the war in Ukraine. What are the costs of war and what are the prospects for peace?
Speakers:
- Scott Sagan - Co-director of the Stanford Center for International Security and Cooperation
- Kathryn Stoner - Mosbacher Director of the Stanford Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law
- Roman Badanin - Journalist, Researcher, and Founder of Proekt
- Yuliia Bezvershenko - Visiting Scholar, Stanford Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program
Bechtel Conference Center
Encina Hall
616 Jane Stanford Way
Stanford, CA 94305
(Virtual to Public. Only those with an active Stanford ID may attend in person.)
Scott Sagan
Kathryn Stoner
Roman Badanin
Yuliia Bezvershenko
Seminars
Governance
What Facebook and Instagram Users Tell Us About Misinformation
-
Image
About The Seminar:
Social media users who report content are key allies in the management of online misinformation. However, no research has been conducted yet to understand their role and the different trends underlying their reporting activity. Hubert Etienne presents an original approach to studying misinformation by examining it from the reporting users’ perspective at the content-level and comparatively across regions and platforms. This leads Etienne to propose the first classification of reported content pieces, resulting from a review of items reported on Facebook and Instagram in France, the UK, and the US in June 2020 to observe meaningful distinctions regarding misinformation reporting between countries and platforms as it significantly varies in volume, type, topic, and manipulation technique. Etienne identifies four reporting behaviors, from which he derives four types of noise capable of explaining the majority of the inaccuracy in misinformation reporting. He finally shows that breaking down the user reporting signal into a plurality of behaviors allows us to build a simple classifier trained on a small dataset with a combination of basic users-reports capable of identifying these different types of noise.
Speakers:
Hubert Etienne is a philosopher conducting research in AI ethics and computational philosophy at École Normale Supérieure and Meta AI. His research focuses on social interactions, especially the moderation of problematic interactions in cyberspace. He is a lecturer in AI ethics à Sciences Po, in data economics at HEC Paris and in digital regulation at the National School of Administration. He is currently a visiting fellow at Harvard University.
Julie Owono is the Executive Director of the Content Policy & Society Lab (CPSL) and a fellow of the Program on Democracy and the Internet (PDI) at Stanford University. She is also the Executive Director of digital rights organization Internet Sans Frontières, one of the inaugural members of the Facebook Oversight Board, and an affiliate at the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University. She holds a Master’s degree in International Law from la Sorbonne University in Paris, and practiced as a lawyer at the Paris Bar.
Hubert Etienne
Seminars
Voices from Ukraine
-
Experts from Ukraine, all former visiting scholars at Stanford, will share their professional perspectives and personal experiences on the current war.
Image
- Sofia Dyak, Director, Center for Urban History, L’viv
- Andriy Kohut, Director, Sectoral State Archive of the Security Service of Ukraine
- Dmytro Koval, Associate Professor of Law, National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy; Program and Legal Officer, Democracy Reporting International
- Dariya Orlova, Senior Lecturer, Mohyla School of Journalism, National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy
This event is co-sponsored by the Center for Russian, East European & Eurasian Studies, The Europe Center, and the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law.
Online via Zoom
Sofia Dyak
Andriy Kohut
Dmytro Koval
Dariya Orlova
Panel Discussions
2022 CDDRL Fisher Family Honors Program Award Winner Presentations
-
CDDRL's Fisher Family Honors Program trains students from any academic department at Stanford to prepare them to write a policy-relevant research thesis with global impact on a subject touching on democracy, development, and the rule of law. For our final Spring 2022 seminar, please join us to hear our Honors Program award winners present their research.
Adrian Scheibler, Firestone Medal winner
Image
Thesis Advisor: Christophe Crombez
Thesis Title: Challenging the State: Western European Regionalism in the Era of Financial Crisis
Abstract: The Global Financial Crisis and its aftershocks have substantially altered the Western European political landscape. But while the literature has extensively focused on the impacts of the economic hardship on traditional party competition, it has often failed to consider the center-periphery dimension. My thesis addresses both the demand for and supply of regionalist ideologies during the crisis. Using an original dataset containing 8 countries, 35 regions, and 128 regionalist parties, it finds that voters did not increase their support for regionalist parties during the crisis and may have even turned their backs on these political actors. In addition, I consider the reactions of regionalist parties in three Spanish autonomous communities - Catalonia, the Basque Country, and Galicia - to the crisis. I find evidence of regionalist mobilization on the issue and even some indications of radicalization of regionalist demands. Taken together, these findings raise interesting implications for the impacts of the financial crisis and the interaction between economic indicators, party competition, and voting patterns.
Michal Skreta, CDDRL Outstanding Thesis winner
Image
Thesis Advisor: Larry Diamond
Thesis Title: Babies, Money, and Power: Estimating Causal Effects of the “Family 500+” Child Benefit Program in Poland using the Synthetic Control Method
Abstract: The ‘Family 500+” child benefit program introduced in April 2016 by the government of Poland has become the single most expensive component of Polish social policy expenditure, yet past studies have rarely estimated the effects of the program through causal methods. In a novel application within this context, I propose using the synthetic control method as a causal identification strategy to empirically estimate country-level treatment effects of the program on fertility, poverty, and inequality. Treating 500+ as a natural experiment, I compare observational data from actual Poland with a synthetic counterfactual of Poland constructed from a weighted donor pool of other European countries through a data-driven selection procedure. My findings on fertility metrics are consistent with prior studies, being ambiguous and insignificant, indicating that the main short-term objective of the program has not been achieved. Meanwhile, I find that the program causally reduced the rate of people at risk of poverty in Poland by over 16%, including by more than 23% among children. I also find that the child benefit has led to a significant reduction in income inequality, being causally responsible for a decline of 5.9% in the Gini index and of 8.0% in the income quintile share ratio. While significant, the results on poverty and inequality are weaker than initially anticipated. My results are robust under in-space treatment reassignment placebo studies. The findings contribute to a growing literature on the causal effects of child benefit policy interventions applied on an aggregate unit level.
Virtual to Public. Only those with an active Stanford ID with access to E008 in Encina Hall may attend in person.
Stephen J. Stedman
Didi Kuo
Virtual to Public. Only those with an active Stanford ID with access to E008 in Encina Hall may attend in person.
Adrian Scheibler
0
CDDRL Honors Student, 2021-22
Major: International Relations / Coterm Public Policy
Minor: Economics
Hometown: Augst, Switzerland
Thesis Advisor: Christophe Crombez
Tentative Thesis Title: Separatism in Western Europe: Ideologies and the European Union
Future aspirations post-Stanford: Continue with studies either in law or political science/economics.
A fun fact about yourself: I spent the coronavirus lockdown in Belgium.
Michal Skreta
0
CDDRL Honors Student, 2021-22
Major: Economics and Political Science
Hometown: Warsaw, Poland
Thesis Advisor: Larry Diamond
Tentative Thesis Title: Babies, Money, and Power: Estimating Causal Effects of the “Family 500+” Child Benefit Program in Poland using the Synthetic Control Method
Future aspirations post-Stanford: I hope to ultimately pursue a career at the intersection of private and public sectors with a strong international focus as well as to continue my interdisciplinary education in graduate school.
A fun fact about yourself: I once got lost on a volcano in Guatemala.
Seminars
Rethinking China’s Presence in Southeast Asia: Influences, Unintended Consequences, and Ripple Effects
-
Most studies on China’s relations with Southeast Asian states focus on China’s power and how such power has been used to achieve influence in the region. The emphasis is on intention and causation: how China willingly uses its power to coerce, coopt, or persuade others to behave in a certain way. Professor Han will acknowledge but go beyond this conventional approach to explore the unintended outcomes and ripple effects that are also associated with China’s presence in Southeast Asia. His talk will feature a typology for use in thinking about China’s regional presence and the various everyday forms that it takes. He will argue that we need to understand such nuance and complexity if we are to make sense of China’s relations with Southeast Asia and what they imply.
Image
Donald K. Emmerson
Via Zoom Webinar.
2021-2022 Lee Kong Chian NUS-Stanford Fellow on Contemporary Southeast Asia
Seminars
Myanmar’s Future: What Should Be Done?
-
Myanmar’s junta is more than a year old. The vast majority of the country’s people oppose the junta and favor democracy. But the devil is in the details. Many in the opposition want some form of multi-ethnic federal democracy. But levels of disagreement and distrust among different communities, including some of the Ethnic Armed Groups, are impeding a unified vision to push the military out of power and establish civilian rule. This webinar will examine the choices and challenges faced by the opponents of the regime as they try to unite these communities against it on behalf of a better future for Myanmar.
Image
Image
Donald K. Emmerson
Via Zoom Webinar.
Nyantha Maw Lin
Independent Analyst
Scot Marciel
1
marciel7@stanford.edu
Oksenberg-Rohlen Fellow
Scot Marciel was the Oksenberg-Rohlen Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, affiliated with the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center from 2022-2024. Previously, he was a 2020-22 Visiting Scholar and Visiting Practitioner Fellow on Southeast Asia at APARC. A retired diplomat, Mr. Marciel served as U.S. Ambassador to Myanmar from March 2016 through May 2020, leading a mission of 500 employees during the difficult Rohingya crisis and a challenging time for both Myanmar’s democratic transition and the United States-Myanmar relationship. Prior to serving in Myanmar, Ambassador Marciel served as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asia and the Pacific at the State Department, where he oversaw U.S. relations with Southeast Asia.
From 2010 to 2013, Scot Marciel served as U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia, the world’s fourth most populous country. He led a mission of some 1000 employees, expanding business ties, launching a new U.S.-Indonesia partnership, and rebuilding U.S.-Indonesian military-military relations. Prior to that, he served concurrently as the first U.S. Ambassador for ASEAN Affairs and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Southeast Asia from 2007 to 2010.
Mr. Marciel is a career diplomat with 35 years of experience in Asia and around the world. In addition to the assignments noted above, he has served at U.S. missions in Turkey, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Brazil and the Philippines. At the State Department in Washington, he served as Director of the Office of Maritime Southeast Asia, Director of the Office of Mainland Southeast Asia, and Director of the Office of Southern European Affairs. He also was Deputy Director of the Office of Monetary Affairs in the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs.
Mr. Marciel earned an MA from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, and a BA in International Relations from the University of California at Davis. He was born and raised in Fremont, California, and is married with two children.
Hide publication sections
Off
Panel Discussions
Turkey's 2023 Elections: The Main Opposition Party at the Crossroads
-
Photo by Chris McGrath/Getty Images
In February 2022, Turkey's six opposition parties signed a historic pact to restore the parliamentary system, the rule of law, and rights and freedoms if they win the 2023 elections. The main opposition Republican People's Party (RPP), was the main driver behind this achievement. This panel will discuss the changes in the RPP and the coalition's prospects. How did the RPP achieve this coalition, including Islamist and rightist parties? How does the alliance-building affect the inner dynamics and the organizational base of Turkey's oldest party? What will be the main determinants of electoral success for the party and the alliance?
ABOUT THE SPEAKERS
Image
Image
Seren Selvin Korkmaz is the co-founder and executive director of IstanPol Institute and a doctoral researcher at Stockholm University, where she also teaches Middle East politics. Her research focuses on populism, political parties, voter perception, election strategies, and the political economy of exclusion. In addition, Korkmaz is a non-resident fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington D.C. and was recently selected to be a part of the "Young Leadership Program" of Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Turkey. Through her engagements in a broad spectrum of academic and non-governmental initiatives, Korkmaz strives to bridge civil society, academia, and public policy through her research outputs and policy recommendations.
Ayça Alemdaroğlu
Aytuğ Şaşmaz
Online via Zoom
Yunus Emre
Dr.
Member of Parliament
Republican People's Party
Seren Selvin Korkmaz
Ms.
co-founder and Executive Director
Istanbul Political Research Institute (IstanPol)
Panel Discussions