International Relations

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.

Authors
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

President Joe Biden is the first president since the Cold War to begin his term not seeking closer relations with Russia; there will be no “reset.” He has indicated instead that he will push back against Russian misbehavior while seeking to cooperate where doing so advances U.S. interests. In his first 100 days Mr. Biden has sought to distinguish his policy from that of Donald Trump, who seemed incapable of criticizing Vladimir Putin or Russian transgressions.

The first full day of his administration illustrated Mr. Biden’s approach. The White House said he would extend the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) for five years, essentially accepting an offer Mr. Putin had made more than a year earlier—but something that was very much in the interest of U.S. national security. White House officials also announced that Mr. Biden had asked for assessments of Russian actions such as interference in the 2020 presidential election and the Solar Winds cyber hack, promising that the administration would “hold Russia to account for its reckless and adversarial actions.”

Mr. Biden described his policy directly to Mr. Putin in a January 26 phone call. He discussed New START and strategic stability but also raised issues of concern, including Ukraine, election interference and Kremlin-opponent Alexey Navalny’s poisoning. The White House read-out of the call (there were several important Trump-Putin calls with no read-outs) noted that the president had also said that the United States would “act firmly in defense of its national interests in response to actions by Russia” that caused harm to America or its allies.

Anticipating relations with the Kremlin that will have major adversarial elements, the Biden administration has moved to shore up the trans-Atlantic relationship and repair the damage done during his predecessor’s four years. In a February 19 virtual appearance at the Munich Security Conference, the president reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to NATO and Article 5 (an attack against one shall be considered an attack against all), stressed the importance of collective efforts to meet the “threat from Russia,” and reached out to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who often found herself the target of Mr. Trump’s ire. (The Biden administration also halted, and then reversed, Mr. Trump’s order to withdraw some 10,000 troops from Germany.)

As the intelligence community completed its assessment of election interference and other Russian actions, and with tensions rising due to the Russian military build-up around Ukraine, the Biden administration calibrated its response. It sanctioned a number of Russian entities and individuals on April 15. As a warning of what could come, the president issued an executive order authorizing sanctions for a broad range of potential Russian misdeeds, and the Treasury Department placed limits on purchasing Russian sovereign debt, though in a restrained manner that could later be ratcheted up and made considerably more painful.

The president foreshadowed the coming sanctions to Mr. Putin in an April 13 call in which he also reiterated the U.S. commitment to support Ukraine, a commitment that the administration has stressed publicly (if Mr. Putin was bothered by Mr. Biden’s “killer” comment in a mid-March press interview, he apparently said nothing during the call). In remarks to the press two days later, Mr. Biden noted that Washington could have imposed harsher penalties, but he had chosen proportionate measures. He added that he did not want an escalatory cycle with Moscow but sought “a stable, predictable relationship.”

Stable and predictable may be as good as it can get in the near term. In both of his calls with his Russian counterpart, Mr. Biden has raised areas—such as arms control and strategic stability—where U.S. and Russian interests should coincide. Secretary of State Tony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan have echoed these points. While virtually all Trump political appointees were let go when Mr. Biden took office, one notable exception was John Sullivan, the ambassador in Moscow. And the president proposed that he and Putin meet this summer.

The Biden administration believes that, even with U.S.-Russian relations at a post-Cold War nadir, the two countries can do business on certain questions where they have mutual interests. In addition to using arms control to manage their nuclear competition, the sides presumably share an interest in blunting the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea. As U.S. and NATO military forces prepare to leave Afghanistan, neither Washington nor Moscow has anything to gain from chaos or a return of the Taliban to power.

The president thus has correctly laid out the possibility of some positive engagement along with measures holding Russia to account for misbehavior. His ability to pursue both of those tracks, however, will depend in part on Kremlin actions.

Arrested immediately on his return to Moscow in January, Mr. Navalny now is in dire health in a Russian prison. His death would spark an uproar in the West. More critically, while the menacing Russian military movements around Ukraine likely aim just to unnerve Kyiv and, at the same time, test Mr. Biden’s reaction (as well as that of the West more broadly), a Russian military incursion remains a distinct possibility.

Such an attack would provoke a deep crisis in relations between the West and Russia. Washington and its European partners almost certainly would respond with new and more punishing sanctions. And should that happen, a summer summit, as well as real effort to work together on selected issues where the countries’ interests converge, could get booted a long way down the road.

Originally for Brookings

Hero Image
President Biden walking Getty Images
All News button
1
Subtitle

President Joe Biden is the first president since the Cold War to begin his term not seeking closer relations with Russia; there will be no “reset.”

-

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

 

This event is co-sponsored by the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Center for International Security and Cooperation.

 

Seminar Recording: https://youtu.be/s3MMxYH6bfU

 

About the Event: Rose Gottemoeller served as the US chief negotiator of the New START treaty. The first woman to lead a major nuclear arms negotiation, she played a critical role in creating US policy on arms control and ensuring that a deeply divided Congress came together to ratify the treaty to safeguard the future of all Americans.  

In her new book, Negotiating the New START Treaty, Gottemoeller gives an insider’s account of the negotiations between the US and Russian delegations in Geneva in 2009 and 2010.  

On May 21, at 1p Pacific, Gottemoeller will discuss her book, her years of high-level experience and her analysis of the complicated relationship between the US and Russia with Michael McFaul, director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the former US Ambassador to Russia.  

Gottemoeller and McFaul were in the trenches together during the negotiations--he in the White House, she in Geneva. In this online event, they will discuss the New START treaty and the key role it played in President Obama's nuclear policies. 

McFaul will interview Gottemoeller and moderate a Q&A with the audience. This event is co-sponsored by the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Center for International Security and Cooperation. 

 

About the Speaker: Rose Gottemoeller is the Frank E. and Arthur W. Payne Distinguished Lecturer at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and its Center for International Security and Cooperation.

Before joining Stanford Gottemoeller was the Deputy Secretary General of NATO from 2016 to 2019, where she helped to drive forward NATO’s adaptation to new security challenges in Europe and in the fight against terrorism.  Prior to NATO, she served for nearly five years as the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security at the U.S. Department of State, advising the Secretary of State on arms control, nonproliferation and political-military affairs. While Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Verification and Compliance in 2009 and 2010, she was the chief U.S. negotiator of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with the Russian Federation.

Prior to her government service, she was a senior associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, with joint appointments to the Nonproliferation and Russia programs. She served as the Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center from 2006 to 2008, and is currently a nonresident fellow in Carnegie's Nuclear Policy Program. She is also a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. 

At Stanford, Gottemoeller teaches and mentors students in the Ford Dorsey Master’s in International Policy program and the CISAC Honors program; contribute to policy research and outreach activities; and convene workshops, seminars and other events relating to her areas of expertise, including nuclear security, Russian relations, the NATO alliance, EU cooperation and non-proliferation.

Virtual Seminar

Center for International Security and Cooperation
Encina Hall
616 Jane Stanford Way
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-6165

0
William J. Perry Lecturer, Freeman Spogli Institute
Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution
dsg_gottemoeller.jpg

Rose Gottemoeller is the William J. Perry Lecturer at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute.

Before joining Stanford Gottemoeller was the Deputy Secretary General of NATO from 2016 to 2019, where she helped to drive forward NATO’s adaptation to new security challenges in Europe and in the fight against terrorism.  Prior to NATO, she served for nearly five years as the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security at the U.S. Department of State, advising the Secretary of State on arms control, nonproliferation and political-military affairs. While Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Verification and Compliance in 2009 and 2010, she was the chief U.S. negotiator of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with the Russian Federation.

Prior to her government service, she was a senior associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, with joint appointments to the Nonproliferation and Russia programs. She served as the Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center from 2006 to 2008, and is currently a nonresident fellow in Carnegie's Nuclear Policy Program.  

At Stanford, Gottemoeller teaches and mentors students in the Ford Dorsey Master’s in International Policy program and the CISAC Honors program; contributes to policy research and outreach activities; and convenes workshops, seminars and other events relating to her areas of expertise, including nuclear security, Russian relations, the NATO alliance, EU cooperation and non-proliferation. 

Date Label
Seminars
-

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

 

Seminar Recording: https://youtu.be/zXMKvurtEw0

 

About the Event: Dan Baer, Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, will join Rose Gottemoeller in a fireside chat to speak about the OSCE’s important role as an inclusive platform for security dialogue between the West and Russia and as a valuable instrument for practical cooperation on the ground to address common security challenges on the basis of shared commitments. The OSCE seeks to promote security in the larger context of relations among the states of North America, Europe and Eurasia, including Russia and all the states of the former Soviet Union and those European states that are not members of NATO or the EU.In an era of increasing challenges to multilateralism, this unique element of the Euroatlantic/Eurasian security architecture should be better recognized and utilized. While the OSCE emerged from the Cold War, today's challenges invite a reinvigoration its role as a diplomatic and operational platform. The US has long seen the OSCE as an important vehicle within the European security scene, and with the new administration’s commitment to multilateralism, it will be interesting to observe what role the US will take within the Organization on topics ranging from conventional arms control and confidence- and security-building measures to the security challenges of climate change and human rights. At the same time, while what were once Russian hopes that the OSCE would become a kind of alternative to NATO have dissipated, it is an open question whether Russia will choose to leverage the OSCE as one of the few remaining forums where Russia's engagement and cooperation with European and North American partners can deliver positive impacts on shared challenges.

 

About the Speaker: Dan Baer is a Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He served in Governor John Hickenlooper’s cabinet as executive director of the Colorado Department of Higher Education from 2018-2019. He was U.S. ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) from 2013 to 2017.  Previously, he was a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor from 2009-2013.

Before his government service, Baer was an assistant professor at Georgetown’s McDonough School of Business, a Faculty Fellow at Harvard’s Safra Center for Ethics, and a project leader at The Boston Consulting Group. He has appeared on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, BBC, PBS Frontline, Al Jazeera, Sky, and The Colbert Report and his writing has appeared in The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Foreign Affairs, Politico, The Christian Science Monitor, Foreign Policy, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Westword, The Denver Post, and other publications. He holds a doctorate in International Relations from Oxford and a degree in Social Studies and African American Studies from Harvard. He lives in Denver and is married to Brian Walsh, an economist at The World Bank.

Virtual Seminar

Dan Baer Senior Fellow Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Seminars
Authors
Kiyoteru Tsutsui
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

This op-ed by Kiyoteru Tsutsui originally appeared in Nikkei Asia.


In one of the few unscripted moments in the meticulously planned U.S.-Japan summit meeting last Friday, President Joe Biden referred to Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga as "vice president" before quickly correcting himself.

In a different era, this could have turned into a diplomatic incident, with right-leaning Japanese pundits calling it evidence of the U.S.'s patronizing approach to Japan. Fortunately for Biden, the current geopolitical environment is not conducive to such provocation, and no major media picked up on the slip.

[Subscribe to APARC's newsletters to receive updates on our scholars.]

Much has been made of Suga being the first foreign leader to meet Biden in person. According to the U.S. State Department Office of the Historian, this is only the second time ever that a Japanese prime minister became the first foreign leader to meet a new president in the White House.

The other time was in 1989, when Prime Minister Noboru Takeshita visited President George H.W. Bush. Back then, Japan was a major threat to U.S. economic hegemony. Today, China is that threat, and not just in the economic domain. China is the first bona fide competitor to the U.S. since the Soviet Union, and its threat extends to every nook and cranny of the globe.

To counter China's ascension, the U.S. needs its allies, and Japan is the most important partner for that purpose. This is the context in which Suga visited the White House despite all the COVID-related restrictions.

Not surprisingly, the statements were carefully crafted to send strong signals to China. Building on the two-plus-two dialogue in March, the joint statement touched on the importance of peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific, from the East and South China seas to even Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Taiwan.

Japan certainly wanted a reference to the Senkaku Islands, which Beijing claims and calls the Diaoyu, and the applicability there of Article V of the U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. The Biden administration had made that commitment earlier, calming concerns among Japanese leaders that the new administration may be softer on China than the Trump administration.

Biden has, in fact, been quite tough on China and has given almost a perfect answer to what Japanese foreign policymakers wanted. In return, the U.S. wanted Japan to be squarely on Washington's side. The wording of the joint statement — negotiated until the last minute — saw Japan agree to include a reference to Taiwan for the first time in 52 years, but with Japan's preferred wording, encouraging "the peaceful resolution of the cross-Strait issues."

Predictably, China reacted quickly and strongly, accusing the two countries of interfering in its domestic affairs and warning Japan about siding with the U.S. We have yet to see what retaliatory actions China might take, but the reference to Taiwan signals the beginning of a new trilateral relationship between China, Japan and the U.S.

The summit covered other important issues, all with China in the background. One key issue is economic security. In particular, supply chain decoupling will become a battle cry for the U.S. and its allies as they seek to reduce dependence on materials from China. Semiconductors are especially critical, as they power all the major growth areas in the new economy. Taiwan's dominance in the semiconductor industry is the main reason why Taiwan is so important to both sides.

To remain in the driver's seat in the new economy, the joint statement announced a new U.S.-Japan Competitiveness and Resilience (CoRe) Partnership. The most concrete proposal was an initial commitment of $4.5 billion from the two governments toward fifth generation (5G) and 6G networks, reflecting concerns about China's dominance in the key digital infrastructure of the future.

Human rights is another thorny issue, with the joint statement specifying concerns over Xinjiang and Hong Kong. With some companies joining the boycott campaign on cotton from Xinjiang, and China countering by criticizing racial division in the U.S., the clash between China and the U.S. will intensify in this area as well. Japan has stepped out of its comfort zone and criticized China on human rights, following the American approach more explicitly than before. In this regard, it is notable that Suga also referred to rising violence against Asians in the U.S.

One area in which China might be more of a partner than a competitor is climate change, with all three countries committing to zero emissions by mid-21st century. Almost concurrently with the Biden-Suga meeting, American and Chinese climate envoys — John Kerry and Xie Zhenhua — met in China and issued a joint statement affirming their commitment to work together on global climate challenges.

All these initiatives and commitments are potentially meaningful and consequential developments that can reshape the Indo-Pacific, although more concrete ideas are needed before we can evaluate their impact. The biggest take-away ought to be the confirmation that the U.S.-Japan alliance is gearing up for a new era of competition with China.

Japan more than reaffirmed its commitment to the alliance with the U.S., risking its economic relations with China. The U.S. will be sure to ask for more concrete actions from Japan on the basis of the joint statement, and Japan can no longer evade questions about what it would do in a confrontation with China. Japan has to navigate a tough terrain of standing with the U.S. in the competition with China while preventing the escalation of tensions between Beijing and Washington, and at the same time protecting its own national interests.

A new phase of the trilateral relationship has just begun, and like it or not, other Asian nations might face the same decision that Japan faced, and sooner rather than later.

Read More

Protesters hold signs and chant slogans during a Black Lives Matters Peaceful March on June 14, 2020 in Tokyo, Japan.
Commentary

What Japan and the U.S. Can Learn from Each Other

Japan Program Director Kiyoteru Tsutsui explores the cost of racial division versus the cost of homogeneity by comparing the experiences of Japan and the United States.
What Japan and the U.S. Can Learn from Each Other
President Biden walks past a row of Chinese and American flags.
News

APARC Experts on the Outlook for U.S.-Asia Policy Under the Biden Administration

Ahead of President-elect Biden’s inauguration and on the heels of the attack on the U.S. Capitol by a pro-Trump mob that has left America shaken, an APARC-wide expert panel provides a region-by-region analysis of what’s next for U.S. policy towards Asia and recommendations for the new administration.
APARC Experts on the Outlook for U.S.-Asia Policy Under the Biden Administration
President-elect Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping
News

Biden Administration Will Rely On U.S. Allies for Support as Tensions with China Continue to Rise

On the World Class Podcast, international security expert Oriana Skylar Mastro says conflict between China and Taiwan is plausible within the next 15 years, and the U.S. will likely be involved.
Biden Administration Will Rely On U.S. Allies for Support as Tensions with China Continue to Rise
Hero Image
President Biden and President Suga walk through the Rose Garden colonnade at the White House Getty Images
All News button
1
Subtitle

The time is near when other Asian nations will have to pick a side in the great power competition between the United States and China, says Japan Program Director Kiyoteru Tsutsui.

-

This is the third event in a three-part series on North Korea Human Rights hosted by APARC's Korea Program in the spring quarter.

Two experts in North Korea human rights issues, Minjung Kim of Save North Korea and Keith Luse of National Committee for North Korea, will discuss the range of humanitarian assistance to North Korea as well as challenges non-government organizations face from South Korea, the U.S. and North Korean governments in providing assistance.

Speakers:

Image
Minjung Kim, Save North Korea. Speaker of May 20 event.
Minjung Kim is Associate Executive Director at Save North Korea (SNK), a non-government organization focusing on human rights in North Korea; and a Vice President at Future Korea Media, a bi-weekly journal focusing on national security and politics in South Korea. Since joining SNK as a founding member 22 years ago, she has been managing various projects from producing mid-wave radio programs, bringing North Korean defectors into South Korea, helping them adjust socially and culturally, to sending leaflet-balloons and hidden cameras into North Korea. Kim is also a visiting researcher at Georgetown University and a research fellow at the Yonsei Institute for Modern Korean Studies. She is a Ph.D. candidate at Yonsei Graduate School of International Studies.

Image
Keith Luse, National Committee on North Korea. Speaker of May 20 event on North Korea human rights.
Keith Luse is Executive Director of the National Committee on North Korea (NCNK), an organization dedicated to promoting principled engagement between the United States and North Korea. NCNK members include representatives of US non-governmental organizations providing humanitarian assistance to North Korea. Other members are former US Ambassadors, nuclear scientists, and members of the academic community. NCNK members specialize in matters related to nuclear nonproliferation, Korean War POW/MIA/human remains; human rights and families divided by the Korean War, among other topics. Luse has made five visits to North Korea. The first occurring in 2002 on behalf of Senator Richard Lugar, then-Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee focused on monitoring and accountability regarding the distribution of U.S. food assistance. Subsequent trips for Senator Lugar were during his tenure as Chairman and later Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Yong Suk Lee, deputy director of the Korea Program, will moderate the discussion.

 

Via Zoom: Register at https://bit.ly/3eocnCk

-

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

 

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

 

About the Event: In Bullets Not Ballots, Jacqueline L. Hazelton challenges the claim that winning "hearts and minds" is critical to successful counterinsurgency campaigns. Good governance, this conventional wisdom holds, gains the besieged government popular support, denies support to the insurgency, and enables military and political victory. Hazelton argues that major counterinsurgent successes since World War II have resulted not through democratic reforms but rather through the use of military force against civilians and the co-optation of rival elites.

Hazelton offers new analyses of five historical cases frequently held up as examples of the effectiveness of good governance in ending rebellions—the Malayan Emergency, the Greek Civil War, the Huk Rebellion in the Philippines, the Dhofar rebellion in Oman, and the Salvadoran Civil War—to show that, although unpalatable, it was really brutal repression and bribery that brought each conflict to an end. By showing how compellence works in intrastate conflicts, Bullets Not Ballots makes clear that whether or not the international community decides these human, moral, and material costs are acceptable, responsible policymaking requires recognizing the actual components of counterinsurgent success—and the limited influence that external powers have over the tactics of counterinsurgent elites.

Link to purchase: https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501754784/bullets-not-bal…

Discount code: SAVE 30% WITH CODE 09FLYER United States Order online at cornellpress.cornell.edu or call 800 848 6224 Canada Email utpbooks@utpress.utoronto.ca or call 1-800-565-9523 UK, Europe, Asia, Middle East, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, & Papua New Guinea Use code CS09FLYER at combinedacademic.co.uk
 

 

About the Speaker: Jacqueline L. Hazelton is is an assistant professor in the department of strategy and policy at the U.S. Naval War College. Hazelton specializes in international relations, specifically international security. Her research interests include compellence, the uses of force, military intervention, counterinsurgency, terrorism, and U.S. foreign and military policy. She received her Ph.D. from the Brandeis University Politics Department. Her BA and first MA are in English Literature from the University of Chicago. Her second MA, also from Chicago, is in international relations. Her book, Bullets Not Ballots: Success in Counterinsurgency Warfare, is published by the Cornell University Press Studies in Security Affairs series. Hazelton is at Stanford’s CISAC and the International Security Program at the Belfer Center, Harvard Kennedy School, this year writing her second book, explaining why Western great powers sometimes try to use ambitious liberalizing methods in military intervention.

Virtual Seminar

Jacqueline L. Hazelton Assistant Professor U.S. Naval War College
Seminars
-

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

 

Seminar Recording:  https://youtu.be/mz-f4jzKrRI

 

About the Event: In 1903, the United Kingdom’s War Office announced that up to 60 percent of men who presented for military enlistment were physically unfit for service. Amid growing fears about national decline, the government convened an Inter-departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration to investigate the issue. After consulting anthropologists from the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS), the Committee’s 1904 Report recommended a National Anthropometric Survey – a large-scale collection and investigation of biometric measurements of British citizens’ bodies – to determine the occurrence of physical deterioration in the population.

Relying on extensive archival research, the presentation shows how the Survey emerged as a solution for these goals and why it was never implemented. It examines how its design was shaped by (1) the Inter- departmental Committee, who hoped to measure the population’s health and develop social reforms, and (2) BAAS anthropologists who wished to advance their eugenic research on racial classification in the UK and promote anti-immigration policies. In the process, these groups imbued the Survey’s methods with varying politics of national inclusion and exclusion.

Drawing on concepts and methods from Science and Technology Studies, the paper presents the Survey as a precursor of contemporary state biometric infrastructures that demonstrates how these systems link measurements of citizens’ bodies with notions of national belonging. The Survey was not simply a tool to collect citizen data. It was also a locus of tensions over industrialization, class, urbanization, immigration, race, and empire – dynamics that resonate in biometric systems today.

 

About the Speaker: Michelle is a CISAC/HAI Pre-Doctoral Researcher at Stanford University, and a PhD Candidate at MIT in History, Anthropology, and Science, Technology, and Society (HASTS). Her research broadly focuses on the ways national biometric identification systems shape state-citizen relationships, and how past biometric infrastructures influence contemporary ones.

Virtual Seminar

Michelle Spektor PhD Candidate Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Seminars
-

THIS EVENT STARTS AT 2:40PM. Introductions will start at 2:40pm. Each presentation will be 20 minutes with a 10 minute discussion.

 

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

 

Register in advance for this webinar: https://stanford.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_u9n9HEq0QqmgMpVr2py4Aw

 

About the Event: Many policymakers believe that the consolidation of the U.S. defense industry is suboptimal, pointing to cost overruns, program delays, and technological problems with products. Meanwhile, economists believe that there may actually be efficiencies to be gained through consolidation in the defense industry and that therefore, its effects are not always negative. Utilizing a novel approach that combines economic and social science analyses, this thesis asks whether the consolidation of the U.S. defense industry has, in fact, increased costs and schedule delays of major defense acquisition programs and decreased private sector innovation and investment in innovation. Analysis of original datasets of Selected Acquisition Report summary table data from 2000-2020, schedule delay data compiled from GAO Annual Weapon’s Assessment reports since 2003, and company research and development spending of the prime contractors from 2000-2020 suggests that defense industry consolidation leads to negative effects on the cost and schedule of major defense acquisition programs as well as varied effects on private sector innovation/investment in innovation. Case studies of the F-35 and Ground Based Strategic Deterrent illustrate the dangers of the current state of the industry and also raise questions about the efficacy of current economic methodologies for analyzing cost growth of major defense acquisition programs. Policymakers should consider further examination of defense industry competition and M&A activity as well as the benefits of knowledge-based acquisition practices as the Department of Defense moves towards key decision points regarding legacy systems and the future of U.S. defense capabilities.

 

About the Speaker: Corinne is a senior studying Political Science with concentrations in International Relations and Political Economy. She became interested in public-private partnerships through her work at a tech startup and her thesis expands upon this interest by examining the effects of U.S. defense industry consolidation on procurement outcomes. She has also served as a research assistant on projects about the U.S. intelligence community, offensive cyber operations, and information warfare. In addition to her academic interests, Corinne plays field hockey for Stanford and the USA Women’s National Team.

Virtual Seminar

Corinne Zanolli CISAC Honors Student Stanford University
Seminars
-

THIS EVENT STARTS AT 2:40PM. Introductions will start at 2:40pm. Each presentation will be 20 minutes with a 10 minute discussion.

 

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

 

Register in advance for this webinar: https://stanford.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_u9n9HEq0QqmgMpVr2py4Aw

 

About the Event: At the September 2012 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his “Pivot to Asia”, ostensibly launching a reorientation of Russia’s foreign policy. Yet, has Russia truly pivoted to Asia? If so, why? Data on Russia’s economic and security ties with major Asian countries illustrate that Russia’s shift to Asia is real, especially towards China. Such a shift has been motivated by the Kremlin’s desire to reduce Russia’s economic reliance on Europe in light of Western sanctions as well as shared regional security interests and elite diplomacy between Putin and other heads of state. While Putin and the Kremlin have taken deliberate actions to support a pivot east, broader geopolitical and economic trends have been at least as consequential in pushing Russia east, such as Asia’s growing economic power. Far from starting in 2012 with Putin’s pronouncement, Moscow continually looking east is part of a historical pattern dating back several hundred years. As the global balance of power shifts towards Asia, U.S. policymakers must be cognizant of the second and third order effects U.S. foreign policy can have on the Kremlin’s ties with major powers in Asia.

 

About the Speaker: Kyle is a senior studying economics from Santa Rosa, California. Inspired by his experiences leading the Stanford U.S.-Russia Forum, his thesis examines Russia’s so-called pivot to Asia. Next year, he will be returning to Stanford to complete a Master's in Management Science & Engineering.

Virtual Seminar

Kyle Duchynski CISAC Honors Student Stanford University
Seminars
-

Introductions will start at 2:40pm. Each presentation will be 20 minutes with a 10 minute discussion.

 

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

 

Register in advance for this webinar: https://stanford.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_C-7gXRifSDWhhfZ2yBCkTg

 

About the Event: What motivates Middle Eastern nations to develop the cybersecurity governance agencies that protect from malicious cyber activity? As the world has watched major cyber powers such as China, Russia and the United States emerge, a region often at the forefront of conversations on conventional military conflict, the Middle East, has broadly been left undiscussed in the realm of cyber policy. While this may be indicative of a lack of malicious cyber activity within the region, cyber conflict, however, is on the rise between Middle Eastern States. An original data set of over 50 significant cyber incidents since 2007 shows that the biggest perpetrators of malicious cyber activity against Middle Eastern states are state actors within the region, as opposed to extra-regional states, third-party hacking groups, terrorist organizations or political organizations. Moreover, this malicious cyber activity has had two major waves of increase that align with both the Arab Spring and the Persian Gulf Crisis. The growing threat of regional cyber conflict in tandem with political unrest and conventional military conflict suggest that Middle Eastern nations have been motivated to develop cyber defense structures in response to a growing regional threat of malicious cyber activity.

 

About the Speaker: Kate is currently studying History with a minor in Middle Eastern Languages. She has pursued her interests in both cyber policy and Middle Eastern politics through an internship at the National Security Commission on A.I. and as deputy head of Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster's research team. She has received a Fulbright award to purse a Master's in Conflict Research, Management and Resolution at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem next year.

Virtual Seminar

Kate Yeager CISAC Honors Student Stanford University
Seminars
Subscribe to International Relations