Stanford University

Security

FSI scholars produce research aimed at creating a safer world and examing the consequences of security policies on institutions and society. They look at longstanding issues including nuclear nonproliferation and the conflicts between countries like North and South Korea. But their research also examines new and emerging areas that transcend traditional borders – the drug war in Mexico and expanding terrorism networks. FSI researchers look at the changing methods of warfare with a focus on biosecurity and nuclear risk. They tackle cybersecurity with an eye toward privacy concerns and explore the implications of new actors like hackers.

Along with the changing face of conflict, terrorism and crime, FSI researchers study food security. They tackle the global problems of hunger, poverty and environmental degradation by generating knowledge and policy-relevant solutions. 

Sept. 11: Are we safer 10 years later?

News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Ten years after the terrorist attacks, five leading experts weigh in on the state of the jihadist movement, U.S. intelligence, and the cost of safety.

Martha Crenshaw It depends on what we mean by safer. If we're asking how likely it is that we'll experience an attack of the magnitude of 9/11, I don't that it's likely. Our awareness of the possibility is so much greater. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the attack, is in custody. Other major players are dead or under arrest. Osama Bin Laden is gone. The drone strikes in Pakistan have been very effective. However, we're not entirely safe from the threat of terrorism against U.S. interests and citizens abroad. We're still vulnerable in many ways. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula are still threats. They've inherited anti-Americanism from the original Al-Qaeda, and while Al-Qaeda central is weakened, these affiliated groups will likely become stronger because of the power vacuum that's left in the jihadist movement. These different factions could unite. Al Qaeda itself was a merger of different national movements. This could happen again -- they could reconstitute themselves into a very powerful organization.

Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar We are safer -- up to a point. In 2003 I wrote that there was little reason to think we were safer than we were on Sept. 11, 2001, and that in order to improve our security we would need to invest in meaningful long-term changes rather than focusing on quick fixes. Much has changed today. American attacks have been devastating to al-Qaeda, showing how 9/11 was perhaps a tactical success for the group but almost certainly a strategic miscalculation. Americans have forged alliances with countries throughout the world, sharing financial intelligence and pooling efforts to disrupt terrorist mobility. Many communities have made important strides in safeguarding airports and chemical plants. Federal lawmakers enacted landmark, bipartisan food safety legislation to bolster the safety of the food supply, and doctors working with public health authorities have enhanced their capacity to respond to infections and biosecurity threats such as the H1N1 virus. Meanwhile, pressing issues like cyber-security and emergency preparedness are starting to receive much-needed attention.

But Americans continue to face profound challenges, too. We must work to enhance the infrastructure that protects our public health, cyber-security, and emergency response.  The Sept. 11 attacks starkly show the need to reconcile security goals with laws and constitutional principles. Policy makers and the public must focus attention on strengthening the economic and social foundations supporting America’s long-term position in the world. At the same time, the nation must remain determined, creative, and vigilant in confronting the continuing threats posed by non-state actors and failed states.

Karl Eikenberry If we talk about the defense of the homeland, we are clearly safer against the international terrorist threat. Our level of awareness is much higher. We were asleep when we got hit. And the systems that we've established, I think have made us safer. Now, that's very specifically against the terrorist threat. Is the United States of America stronger on a relative basis than on 9/11/2001 -- are we a stronger nation? I think the answer is no. I think that our economic strength has declined. And I think there's been a degree of militarization of our foreign policy over the last decade that’s made us less attractive globally.

Thomas Fingar We are safer with respect to the danger of a major terrorist attack than we were 10 years ago but not with respect to other risks that endanger more of our citizens and are more likely to occur. We have spent billions of dollars to detect, prevent, and respond to terrorist threats from abroad and we have reduced the already low probability of death or injury from terrorist attacks to even lower levels. These gains have had a high opportunity cost because achieving them was at the expense of efforts to reduce other dangers. Far more Americans continue to die from inadequate hospital procedures, unsafe food, drunk drivers, and other well-known dangers than have died in terrorist attacks. We will not be much safer until we address these and similar problems, repair and replace our aging infrastructure, and do more to prepare for the more severe weather that will result from climate change. 

Amy Zegart Osama bin Laden is dead. Yet 10 years after 9/11, it would be dangerous and wrong to think that the terrorist threat is behind us. Violent Islamist extremism comes from many places, not just the 50 to 100 core al Qaeda fighters holed up along the Af/Pak border. The years 2009 and 2010 have seen a spike in plots against the U.S. homeland. Nearly all of them have come from radicalized homegrown terrorists or “franchise” groups with loose and murky ties to the core al Qaeda organization.

In addition, WMD terrorism remains a haunting future possibility. And the FBI has not made the leap from crime fighting to intelligence. FBI analysts, whose work is vital to connect dots and protect lives, are still treated like second class citizens -- labeled “support staff” alongside janitors and secretaries, and relegated to middle and lower rungs of the bureaucracy. So long as FBI analysts are treated like second-class citizens, Americans will get second-class security. These three factors -- diversification of the terrorist threat, the potential to combine destructive motives with devastating weapons, and the FBI's continued weaknesses -- suggest that the future may not be any safer than the past.

Hero Image
9 11 memorial photologo
All News button
1

9/11 and the makers of history

Paragraphs

After 9/11, the administration of US President George W Bush initiated the era of the global war on terror. For many, this was a misguided response to terror attacks. But before the decade was over, US forces invaded two countries and are now fighting shadow wars in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan, while an air war continues in Libya. Pentagon commands cover the entire planet, and US military assistance programmes are active in almost every country.

 Wars reorder politics and values. They remake that which is taken to be true and right. They render the world unrecognisable from what it was when the balloon went up. That is why epochs of world history are so often marked off by the dates of wars. How should we understand the era of 9/11? In what historical timeline does it belong?

It is useful to begin by recalling some of what seemed true on September 10, 2001. The US enjoyed the unquestioned global supremacy of the "unipolar moment". The "end of history" beckoned, in which liberal democracy and free markets promised peace and prosperity everywhere for all time. The West and its international organisations managed the world, ultimately for the general good. Globalisation was bringing people closer together.

Today, each of these verities lies broken. The failure to understand the 1990s and the significance of the end of the Cold War has left us unable to understand what has been happening in the decade since 9/11.

Renewed global military commitments have hastened an inevitable US decline. The unrestrained power of finance capital is wrecking economies and societies across the Western world. Europe lies prostrate, bereft of anything approaching serious leadership, mired in the divisive politics of austerity and racist, anti-immigrant populism. The great international institutions have sat on the sidelines of the crises roiling the world. The communications technologies that were supposed to lead to mutual understanding instead assist revolts and terrorism, rioters and financial speculators, when they are not being used by states to spy on their own citizens, or by corporations to increase the number of consumer products people desire.

How is it that the received wisdom about the nature of world politics was so badly wrong? What did we fail to see and why?

The great conceit that blinds us is the idea that the powerful make history just as they please. We are particularly prone to this error when thinking about international politics. Assisted by opinion columnists and think tank gurus, we tend to view the world from the perspective of decision makers in the great powers. What should the West do about Libya? How should the US respond to state failure in Yemen or the Iranian bomb? What should the G-20 do about the debt crisis?


'Like cowboys at the rodeo'

In the domestic politics of our own countries, it is easy for us to see that politicians are like cowboys at the rodeo: hanging on for dear life before a force of nature tramples them underfoot. The "bull" that throws them could be a long-simmering social crisis, a downturn of the business cycle, or some series of events over which no one exercises control. The skill of the politician determines how long they can hang on, but we are left in little doubt as to where the real power lies.

We are forced to confront the underlying social structures, historical legacies, and economic relations that determine our fates. Human agency, too, has its say, but it is not only that of the great leaders that matter. Ordinary people and the social and political movements they create can drive events and force the "policymakers" to respond. But fate usually works against human purposes. Rarely do either the powerful or those who resist them achieve quite what they intended.

A wonderful example of the impoverished vocabulary with which we think about international politics is the idea that "Reagan won the Cold War". The vast apparatus that is a modern state is reduced to its leader - "Thatcher", "Gorbachev". Agency, the power to shape events, rests firmly in the hands of this leader, who is located in the global North. A range of violent struggles, fought almost entirely in the global South, are subsumed under one term which denies there was even a war at all. Most of all, a tidy end - 1989 - is imagined in which, needless to say, the good guys won.

Epoch-defining dates like 1989 or 9/11 invoke various imagined histories and geographies. But too often the dates with which we order world politics are curiously Eurocentric. It is European exploration, the French revolution, a Congress in Vienna, and German invasions, for example, which mark out the globe's historical eras: 1492, 1789, 1815, 1914, 1939.

We are thus singularly unable to grasp the global histories and social relations that delivered us to 9/11. Within the conventional terms of analysis of international relations, it is almost impossible to see the great social, political and economic struggles between the global North and South that have driven modern world politics. European imperialism and the prodigious efforts to incorporate ever more peoples and places, ever more domains of life, into the capitalist world system lie at the origins of these global histories.

It is crucial to underscore that imperialism, capitalism and the modern world they together did not simply emanate from Europe. They were joint productions with the non-European world, albeit amid unequal power relations. Imperialism requires collaborators, while capital needs labour. The first factories were not built in England, but in the Caribbean, producing sugar with African slaves.

The World Wars gutted European imperial power and unleashed struggles for independence across the global South, led almost everywhere by the anti-imperialist left. For over forty years revolutionaries and insurgents, death squads and soldiers, carried on a deadly combat.

 

The fall of the left

The global significance of 1989, broadly speaking, was the defeat in both the North and the South of the political left, of those political movements that sought to replace, contain, or redirect the expansive energies of capital in accordance with humane values.

During the Cold War, Western powers had to maintain social welfare systems at home lest communism begin to look attractive. The Soviets, meanwhile, tried and failed to demonstrate that they too could produce washing machines, refrigerators and other consumer items. With the collapse of the USSR, neoliberalism was unleashed and could begin in earnest to do away with welfare states in the West. "Shock therapy" was delivered to the former Soviet bloc countries, while the debt crisis was used to control many economies in the global South. No longer did the West have to secure Third World allies with lavish aid.

The defeat of the left produced two outcomes which have defined the last twenty years and will continue to make history over the next twenty.

The end of the Cold War did not mean the end of the dire social consequences of unrestrained capitalism. The grievances, the injustices, the poverty, the anger, the continued reduction of everything human to the bottom line, to something that can be bought or sold, all this remained, even intensified. But now it was not the left that would make political lemonade out of these lemons, but the right; not communists, but religious fundamentalists, both Christian and Islamic. This is where the Tea Party belongs, feeding on the misdirected resentments of those devastated by unregulated capitalism.

The second outcome of 1989 is a dramatic increase in the political power of capital. Across the Western world, but most especially in the US, politicians are in hock to Big Money, while corporate media fundamentally shapes political debate.


Blinkered worldview

The problem with this, as Karl Marx would have told us, is that while capitalists know what is in the interest of their specific business, they are unable to cooperate for the good of the system as a whole. To maintain a capitalist society of a kind anyone would want to live in requires tremendous public investment and infrastructure; a neutral, professional and active civil service; and a strong framework of effective, lawful regulation.

Few capitalists want to pay taxes for all this, or subject their industries to significant regulation. Give capitalists as a class too much political power, and they will enfeeble government with their special interests, lobbyists, and kept politicians. The consequence is the drama currently on display: the self-destruction of the West and its economies. It is plainly obvious that Western societies are in dire need of modernisation, investment, and strategies for growth and employment. But the political forces that might fight for these have long since been vanquished. Anguished experts like Paul Krugman are left accurately to foretell a doom that the political systems of the West willfully do nothing to avoid.

It is this self-inflicted crisis that drives the timing of the scale-down of the global war on terror currently underway. After all, nation-building at home or abroad requires taxes. Rather than occupying countries in a "forward strategy for freedom", as Bush termed the invasion of Iraq, the war on terror will transform into the police, spy and special operations war Western liberals had originally called for in 2001.

Unifying the eras of the Cold War, the 1990s, and the decade following 9/11, are reinvigorated efforts to control the politics, economies and populations of the global South in the wake of the collapse of formal empire in 1945. Wars of tremendous folly and human cost have marked this entire period, in Korea, Vietnam, Algeria, Mozambique, and across Central and Latin America, among others. Bush's travesties in Iraq and Afghanistan will likely bring this series to an historical close. The tentative approach to Libya is a transition to a future of reduced Western ambition in the global South.

The retreat of the West from extensive and effective political and military efforts to control the global South - a history which began in the 16th century - rings the death knell of Western world power. The decade since 9/11 is the penultimate chapter in this history.

 

Tarak Barkawi is a senior lecturer in War Studies at the Centre of International Studies in the University of Cambridge. He also authored the book Globalization and War (Rowman and Littlefield). He has held fellowships at the Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, Harvard University; the Department of War Studies, King’s College London; the Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University; and the Mershon Center for International Security Studies, Ohio State University. 

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy. 

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Commentary
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Al Jazeera (English)
Authors
External URL

Robert Forrest

0
Affiliate
Forrest,_Robert.jpg
Rob Forrest is currently a member of the technical staff at Sandia National Laboratories where his research interests include nuclear power, cybersecurity, and nonproliferation. As a member of the systems research group, he specializes in data driven methods and analysis to inform policy  for national security.

As a postdoctoral fellow at CISAC, his research focused on one of the most pressing technical issues of nuclear power: what to do with spent nuclear fuel. Specifically, he looked at the more short term issues surrounding interim storage as they affect the structure of the back end of the fuel cycle. He focuses mainly on countries with strong nuclear power growth such as South Korea and China.

Rob’s interest in policy and nuclear issues began during his fellowship in the 2008 Public Policy and Nuclear Threats program at the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation at UC San Diego. In 2010, he also participated in the PONI Nuclear Scholars Initiative at CSIS.

Before coming to CISAC in 2011, Rob received his Ph.D. in high-energy physics from the University of California, Davis. Most of his graduate career was spent at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) in Batavia, IL where he performed a search for signs of a theory called Supersymmetry. Before beginning his graduate work, Rob spent two years at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. In 2001, Rob earned his B.S. in physics from the University of California, San Diego where, throughout his undergraduate career, he worked for NASA. 

 

CV

Gil-li Vardi

Not in residence

0
Lecturer
Vardi,_Gil-li.jpg

Gil-li Vardi joined CISAC as a visiting scholar in December 2011. She completed her PhD at the London School of Economics in 2008, and spent two years as a research fellow at the Oxford Leverhulme Programme on the Changing Character of War at the University of Oxford, after which she joined Notre Dame university as a J. P. Moran Family Assistant Professor of Military History.

Her research examines the interplay between organizational culture, doctrine, and operational patterns in military organizations, and focuses on the incentives and dynamics of change in military thought and practice.

Driven by her interest in both the German and Israeli militaries and their organizational cultures, Vardi is currently revising her dissertation, "The Enigma of Wehrmacht Operational Doctrine: The Evolution of Military Thought in Germany, 1919-1941," alongside preparing a book manuscript on the sources of the Israeli Defence Forces’ (IDF) early strategic and operational perceptions and preferences.

Political repression 2.0

Authors
Evgeny Morozov
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs
In a piece written for the New York Times on September 1, Evgeny Morozov a visiting scholar at the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law comments on the role Western technology firms play in enabling Internet surveillance through the sale of their sophisticated technology to authoritarian regimes. From Silicon Valley to Scandinavia, Western companies are undermining Internet freedom and putting activists at risk.
Hero Image
evgeny
All News button
1

CISAC welcomes its 2011-2012 fellows

News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

The Center for International Security and Cooperation is pleased to welcome the 14 fellows who will be joining us in residence during the 2011-2012 academic year.

Aila MatanockA1lvarez">C.J. Álvarez, Predoctoral Fellow from the University of Chicago, Department of History. Policing the US-Mexico Border, 1848-1993.

Edward Blandford, Stanton Nuclear Security Postdoctoral Fellow from CISAC. Safeguards and Security Strategies for Critical Nuclear Infrastructure.

David Blum, Predoctoral Fellow and Honors Program Teaching Assistant from Stanford University, Department of Management Science & Engineering. Probabilistic Early Warning Systems for National Security Crises.

Alexandre Debs, Stanton Nuclear Security Junior Faculty Fellow from Yale University, Department of Political Science. Strategic Determinants of Nuclear Proliferation and Preventive War.

John Downer, Stanton Nuclear Security postdoctoral Fellow from CISAC. Transferring Technologies: Exploring the Security Dimensions of Tacit Knowledge.

Ryan Ellis, Postdoctoral Fellow from the University of California, San Diego, Department of Communication and the University of California, Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation. The Politics of Critical Infrastructure Protection.

Robert Forrest, Postdoctoral Fellow from the University of California, Davis, Department of Physics. The Role of Accelerators in Our Nuclear Powered Future.

Robert Glass, William J. Perry Fellow from Sandia National Laboratories. Understanding Global Interdependency to Promote International Security.

Lonjezo Hamisi, Predoctoral Fellow from Stanford University, Department of Political Science. The U.N. Secretary General’s Interventions in International Conflicts. 

Toshihiro Higuchi, Postdoctoral Fellow from Georgetown University, Department of History. Nuclear Fallout, the Politics of Risk, and the Making of a Global Environmental Crisis, 1945-1963.

Reyko Huang, Zukerman Predoctoral Fellow from Columbia University, Department of Political Science. The Wartime Origins of Postwar Democratization.

Aila Matanock, Predoctoral Fellow from Stanford University, Department of Political Science. International Insurance: Explaining Why Militant Groups Participate in Elections as Part of a Peace Agreement.

Aila MatanockAEtpelopidas/">Benoît Pelopidas, Postdoctoral Fellow from the Monterey Institute of International Studies, Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Renunciation of Nuclear Weapons as a Historical Possibility.

Ting Wang, Postdoctoral Fellow from Cornell University, Judith Reppy Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies. Research on New Regime to Solve Space Debris Crisis.

 

All News button
1

Thomas Hertel

Center on Food Security and the Environment
473 Via Ortega, room 365
Stanford, CA 94305-4205

(650) 721-2203
0
Cargill Visiting Fellow
thomas_hertel.jpg PhD

Hertel is a Distinguished Professor of Agricultural Economics at Purdue University. His research focuses on the economy-wide impacts of global trade and environmental policies with a particular interest in the impacts of energy and climate policies on global land use and poverty. He is also Executive Director, and founder of the Center for Global Trade Analysis, and Past-President of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (AAEA).

During his stay at Stanford he undertook research into the impacts of climate change and climate policy on agriculture, food security and poverty. In the winter quarter he co-taught an FSE seminar (with David Lobell) on the long run determinants of global agricultural land use.

Background video on GEOSHARE

Kavita Ramdas joins CDDRL's new program on social entrepreneurship

Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

The Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) at Stanford University announced today that Kavita N. Ramdas will assume the position of executive director of the newly launched Program on Social Entrepreneurship. Ramdas is widely recognized as a pioneer in the field of global development, gender justice, and philanthropy working for over 20 years to advance the rights of marginalized and excluded communities worldwide.

As President and CEO of the Global Fund for Women from 1996 to 2010, Ramdas led the largest public grant-making organization in the world supporting women's human rights in over 170 countries. During her tenure at the Global Fund for Women, Ramdas more than tripled the Fund's assets allowing grant-making to increase 12 percent annually, and expanded the Fund's portfolio of investees threefold. Harnessing her exceptional skills and networks to lead this new program, Ramdas will bring social entrepreneurs, academics, and students together at Stanford to advance research and accelerate social change.

"Kavita Ramdas is one of the world's most respected international development practitioners, social justice advocates, and thinkers in the emerging field of social entrepreneurship," said CDDRL deputy director and co-investigator for this project, Kathryn Stoner. "At Stanford, Kavita recognized the need to bring a practitioner's perspective into the classroom and infuse our research agenda with a first-hand account of the challenges confronting the developing world. The Program on Social Entrepreneurship will bring global practitioners to Stanford to engage our students, faculty, and researchers in more active exchange and connection to the most pressing issues of the twenty-first century."

The Program on Social Entrepreneurship will be housed at the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, where interdisciplinary research is conducted by leading faculty, scholars, and students. Deborah L. Rhode the Ernest W. McFarland Professor of Law and director of the Stanford Center on the Legal Profession at the Stanford Law School will serve jointly with Kathryn Stoner-Weiss, Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute, as a faculty principle investigator to the program.

"We are thrilled that Kavita Ramdas is joining the ranks at CDDRL to advance our research on global under-development, poverty reduction, and economic growth," said CDDRL Director Larry Diamond. "She will bring to the Center a wealth of practical experience and a passionate commitment to supporting grassroots initiatives and leaders who are pioneering new approaches to intractable problems worldwide, all of which will be a wonderful asset to our center and students, the Freeman Spogli Institute, and to Stanford."

The Program on Social Entrepreneurship will join four other core research programs at CDDRL, which probe the most urgent issues in the field of democracy and development today, including; information and communication technology's impact on political development, how human rights can best be deployed to advance social justice, the state of poverty and governance in Latin America, and the prospects for democratic reform in the Arab world. Working in partnership with other institutes on campus, the program will benefit from the guidance and active engagement of a cross-disciplinary faculty advisory committee at the Haas Center for Public Service, the Center for Philanthropy and Civil Society, the Clayman Institute for Gender Research, Stanford Law School, Stanford Medical School, and the Center for Social Innovation at the Graduate School of Business.

The hallmark of the Program on Social Entrepreneurship is an eight-week "entrepreneur in residence" initiative that will bring four rising leaders to Stanford twice a year to expose researchers, students, and the local philanthropic community to the ideas, visions, and strategies they are using to transform their societies. These social entrepreneurs drawn from the U.S. and abroad will have the opportunity to reflect on their work, engage the scholarly community to advance research on this emerging field, and galvanize international support for their innovative work. Visiting entrepreneurs will be featured in seminars, courses, and special events across the larger university and the Silicon Valley during their residency at Stanford to reach as broad an audience as possible.

During the 2010-11 academic year, Ramdas was in residence at Stanford University as a visiting scholar and fellow at CDDRL and the Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society. During that time she co-taught a course at the School of Education examining the aspects of gender, education, and development. In spring 2011, she served as practitioner-in-residence at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Prior to her time at the Global Fund for Women, Ramdas developed and implemented grant-making programs to combat poverty and inequality in inner cities across the United States and to advance women’s reproductive health on a global scale as a program officer at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

Ramdas's extensive experience in the fields of global development, human rights, women's leadership, and philanthropy extend to her array of prestigious affiliations and awards. At present, she serves on the Board of Trustees of Princeton University and Mount Holyoke College, both of which are her alma maters. Ramdas's leadership skills were recognized early in her tenure at the Global Fund for Women when she was selected to the prestigious Henry Crown Fellowship at the Aspen Institute.

Her accomplishments in the nonprofit field have led her to serve as an advisor and board member to a number of leading foundations and organizations, including; the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Advisory Council of the University of Chicago’s Global Health Initiative, the Global Development Program of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Advisory Council of the Asian University for Women, PAX World Management, and the Council of Advisors on Gender Equity of the Woodrow Wilson School of Princeton University. She has just been invited by the United States Department of State to chair their new initiative on Women and Public Service, an effort spearheaded by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Ambassador Melanne Verveer. Ramdas also chairs the Expert Working Group of the Council of Global Leaders for Reproductive Health, an initiative of the Aspen Institute led by Mary Robinson former President of Ireland. Ramdas continues to provide strategic oversight and guidance to the Global Fund for Women in her capacity as a member of the Global Fund’s Council of Advisors.

Ramdas received academic training from Delhi University, a bachelor's degree in political science and international relations from Mount Holyoke College, and a master's degree in public affairs with a focus on international economic development from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University.

"I look forward to launching this new program and joining the dynamic community at CDDRL and Stanford University," said incoming executive director of the Program on Social Entrepreneurship, Kavita Ramdas. "There is so much potential to catalyze the energy and expertise of the practitioner community and enhance the research of faculty and everyday learning experience of the student. I am confident that together we will transform ripples into waves of long-term transformational change across the developing world through this program."

Hero Image
gfw07 157
All News button
1

Territorial Disputes in East Asia and the Role of the United States

-

KSP's 2011–12 Koret Fellow, recently retired Korean senior career diplomat Ambassador Joon-woo Park, will discuss the U.S. role in current territorial disputes in East Asia. The disputes, which threaten peace and stability in the region and could result in conflict among major powers, have their origin in the incomplete settlement of the Pacific War overseen by the United States. Ambassador Park argues that the United States thus shares responsibility for the current situation. He will review the status of the major territorial disputes in East Asia and explain why the United States has a significant role to play in their peaceful resolution and in promoting cooperative and friendly relations among the countries of the region.

As a career diplomat, Ambassador Park served in numerous key posts, including those of ambassador to the EU and to Singapore and presidential advisor on foreign affairs. Park worked closely for over twenty years with Ban Ki-moon, the former Korean diplomat who is now the United Nations secretary-general.

Ambassador Park also served for seven years at the Korean embassies in Tokyo and Beijing. During his tenure as director general of the Korean foreign ministry’s Asian and Pacific Affairs Bureau, he handled sensitive, longstanding issues relating to regional history, such as the depiction of historical events in Japanese textbooks and the treatment of the history of the Goguryeo kingdom in China’s Northeast Project.

The Koret Fellowship has been made possible by the generous support of the Koret Foundation. The Fellowship’s purpose is to promote intellectual diversity and breadth in KSP by bringing leading professionals in Asia and the United States to Stanford to study U.S.-Korea relations. Fellows conduct their own research on the bilateral relationship, with an emphasis on contemporary relations, with the broad aim of fostering greater understanding and closer ties between the two countries.

Philippines Conference Room

Joon-woo Park 2011-2012 Koret Fellow, former ambassador to the EU Speaker
Seminars

Leaders and International Conflict

Paragraphs

An Editorial Review of Leaders and International Conflict from Amazon.com:

"Chiozza and Goemans seek to explain why and when political leaders decide to initiate international crises and wars. They argue that the fate of leaders and the way leadership changes shapes leaders' decisions to initiate international conflict. Leaders who anticipate regular removal from office, through elections for example, have little to gain and much to lose from international conflict, whereas leaders who anticipate a forcible removal from office, such as through coup or revolution, have little to lose and much to gain from conflict. This theory is tested against an extensive analysis of more than 80 years of international conflict and with an intensive historical examination of Central American leaders from 1848 to 1918. Leaders and International Conflict highlights the political nature of the choice between war and peace and will appeal to all scholars of international relations and comparative politics." (From Amazon.com)

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Books
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Authors
Hein Goemans
Subscribe to Security